Alcohol Reform Bill

I want to speak on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in my name, and that is the Supplementary Order Paper that requires that ready-to-drinks, or alcopops, be restricted to 5 percent alcohol content and no more than 1.5 standard drinks per container. The reason for that is very clear. Alcopops have been found by every survey of problems with abuse of alcohol by young people to be a critical part of that abuse. They are marketed as if they are soft drinks, they are sweet-tasting so that people cannot actually taste the alcohol, and, regrettably, they are drunk as if they are soft drinks.

The result of that is that we have studies such as the Massey University study that says that people who are binge drinking—more than eight drinks at one sitting—have doubled since 2004. Professor Sally Casswell is saying that ready-to-drinks are the cause of that. We have another study done by Auckland University that says that ready-to-drinks make up 70 percent of the alcohol content consumed by young girls between the ages of 14 and 17.

This was a problem that was recognised by the former Minister of Justice Simon Power, who introduced this bill. Simon Power promised the House that he would restrict the alcohol content to 5 percent and no more than 1.5 standard drinks per container. Everybody in the House applauded that. Colin King from the National Party, for example, told his electorate that ready-to-drinks were the real cause of young people drinking in excess and that something needed to be done about that. I have had conversations across the floor with a number of people who make that point.

In fact, the Government said—and I want to quote what the Government said—“The Government is particularly concerned about RTDs with a high alcohol content and RTDs that are sold in large containers that hold a high number of standard drinks. We are therefore targeting those aspects of RTDs, which will mean RTDs will be a lower-strength drink (on a par with beer), and will be prohibited from being sold in large containers, thereby reducing the risk of excessive consumption by young people.” That was in the Government’s question and answer paper at the time the Minister introduced this bill, and every National Party member thought that was a good idea.

The problem is that along came the liquor barons, the liquor industry, and they knocked on Mrs Collins’ door. They said to Mrs Collins: “This won’t do. We are making good money out of ready-to-drinks, you can’t restrict them, it’s not done. This is a free market, this is a product that is legal, and you should back down.” To her shame, Judith Collins backed down. That is not simply shameful; it is actually gutless. Why listen to the liquor industry, which has a commercial vested interest in this, instead of listening to the people who have to pick up the pieces: the doctors, the nurses, the police, and the liquor licensing inspectors? Judith Collins turned up at the Institute of Liquor Licensing Inspectors’ conference and they told her—or they would have if she had not scuttled out early—what they thought about this. The chairman of the Institute of Liquor Licensing Inspectors said that ready-to-drinks are a major cause of young people drinking to excess and the Government needed to act. The Alcohol Advisory Council said that the Government needed to act. Everybody who looks at this problem in a rational way says that the Government needs to act, except one group—the liquor interests who make money out of that product. Why is it that this Minister will listen to the liquor industry but will not listen to the people who research and study and have to deal with this problem and know that there should be a change made?

My amendment is a moderate amendment. It does not ban ready-to-drinks; it restricts them to 5 percent to put them on a par with beer, just like the former Minister said he wanted to do. It restricts the amount that can be drunk in one container. Those things would have a real and direct impact on binge drinking by young people. My amendment makes sense. It is common sense. National members applauded it when their Minister said it, and they got in behind him, and when their new Minister says no, like sheep to the slaughter they will line up to go through the gate and they will not exercise their own good judgment. They will follow slavishly what their Minister says. I ask the National members of Parliament to have the courage in this House to vote according to what you believe, to have the courage to do the right thing in this House. We have not raised the drinking age. We should at least—

It is indeed a pleasure to finally get a chance to take a call on the Alcohol Reform Bill and to debate Part 6. I have two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 114 that I have proposed. I intend to take this call to speak to one of those, and I hope to get an opportunity to speak to the second of those later on.

The first of them is an amendment to require nutritional information on the labelling of alcohol products. This was an issue that was not necessarily canvassed very strongly when the Law Commission prepared its very comprehensive report on the issue, but it was an issue that was raised by a number of submitters. I think it is a great shame that the Government not only has ignored the Law Commission’s report in its complexity and its thoroughness but also has chosen to ignore the very many important submitters who came in on this issue. There were somewhere between 20 and 30 individuals and organisations that made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee, saying: “Look, if we can get nutritional information on alcohol products, then that will be a significant deterrent to, particularly, young women, actually, in their choices about what they decide to do around binge drinking.”

We know that we have a growing problem in this country with binge drinking, and it is growing amongst young women. So why would the Government not take a common-sense approach to this and actually put nutritional information on the labelling so that those young women, those young New Zealanders, all of us in fact, could make some informed decisions about what we are taking into our body? It is about informed decision-making, and because information is power, why would the Government not take this very common-sense approach in this bill? It is yet another example of how the Government wants to look like it is addressing this issue comprehensively, but, of course, this process is exposing just how it is trying to get away with the bare minimum—the bare minimum possible—to try to convince the community that it is doing something about this terrible problem in our community.

I want to make reference to just a couple of the submissions that came forward. One of them was from the National Advisory Group on Tertiary Student Drinking. It believed that introducing a rotating set of bold and graphic warnings on alcohol containers, which also had information about nutritional guidelines on them, would make a significant difference to the body of people whom they represent, being tertiary students.

We also had a number of submitters raise with the committee the Food Safety Australia New Zealand Ministerial Council report, so an official report has actually made a recommendation specifically that energy content be displayed on the labels of all alcoholic beverages, consistent with the requirements for other food products. This is exactly what my amendment asks this Parliament to do. It asks this Parliament to back up a recommendation from the Food Safety Australia New Zealand Ministerial Council report on this very issue.

I find it quite disturbing that a range of submitters, not just “Jane and Joe Public” off the street but also some large organisations—actually, many of them representing women that were concerned about violence against women and this issue of how binge drinking does affect our community in a very sad and pervasive way—could find this information and present it to this Parliament about the recommendations from that ministerial council report, but this Government seems prepared to ignore it.

I want to urge this Government to put politics aside, to put politics aside as I did when I voted for Tim Macindoe’s amendment—Tim Macindoe, a National MP—to raise the purchase age to 20. I put politics aside, for the sake of my community. I put it aside, for the sake of my community. I am urging that Government to now put politics aside and start voting for Labour Party amendments that will make a stronger law. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get it right, and the Government is playing politics by party voting on a conscience issue, which it has not done before. That Government is not prepared—

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Alcohol Reform Bill—

💬 Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my colleague for interrupting his speaking time. I want to raise with you your ruling about allocation of calls in this debate. I think you are aware that this is an issue of some concern because of the way that different parties allocate speaking responsibilities, and, in particular, for our party, the intention had been for me as the spokesperson to take several calls to make our contributions. I draw your attention to Standing Order 103: “Factors to be taken into account by Speaker”—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what the member says. We have had this discussion on previous bills. I made it clear at the beginning that because this debate—it is one question over Parts 6 to 10 and then clauses 1 and 2, and is a wide-ranging debate on those sections—is going to be time limited to a quarter past 5, in fairness, to give everyone who wants to speak an opportunity, I was taking one call only. If, when we have exhausted calls, there are other members who want to take a call, it could well be that a person like you, who is the only spokesman for your party, may then wish to take another call, and that would be acceptable. But my ruling at the moment is that it is going to be one call per person so that everybody has the opportunity and can have their say, and, if time permits, we can then allow a second call. As the Chair, that is my ruling and that is how I intend to proceed.

💬 Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The reason that I drew your attention to Standing Order 103 is that 103(b) states that where the Speaker—and I take, of course, that in this debate you are the Chair of the Committee of the whole House—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have Standing Order 103 in front of me. There is no formula as to the allocation of speaking spots. The rule here, Standing Order 103, is a guide. There is no formula, and I have ruled as the Chairman of the Committee that we are going to proceed along these lines, and possibly there will be an opportunity for the member, as the sole spokesman for his party, to be able to get another call or maybe more than that. But in the first instance I am accepting only one call per person.

I would like to make the point in the face of the posturing of the previous speaker, Sue Moroney, that this Government is making the first significant push-back in decades on the creeping liberalisation of laws surrounding alcohol.

Many of us in society enjoy the occasional tincture, a tipple, or a wee dram, but the dark side of this debate is that alcohol misuse contributes directly to around 1,000 deaths a year and is estimated to cost society about $5 billion annually. We know it is a major driver of crime. As I have observed in this Chamber before, alcohol is implicated in 30 percent of all police offences, 34 percent of family violence, and 50 percent of homicides. This Alcohol Reform Bill is the first step in reducing alcohol-related harm.

I would like to point out some key features of this package. Of particular relevance to the people of the vibrant and diverse community of Manurewa, where I have my office, is that this bill will empower them to create their own local alcohol plan—their own local alcohol plan. Councils will be able to develop local alcohol policies to determine trading hours of licensed premises, to limit location, to control the density of licences, and to impose conditions on licensed premises. When forming local alcohol plans, councils can take into account the proximity of schools, early childhood centres, and other community assets such as parks.

The bill also broadens the matters that must be considered in granting a licence. Consideration must be given to such things as the object of the law, the provisions of the aforementioned local alcohol plan, and whether the facility or good order of the area would be reduced if a licence is granted. The bill widens the definition of “public place” in liquor bans to include car-parks, school-grounds, and other private spaces to which the public has access. It also makes it an offence to promote alcohol in a way that has special appeal to people under the purchase age. These changes will apply to any promotion, including TV advertising and billboards. Another key feature—which, as a parent, I heartily endorse—is that the bill makes it an offence for anyone, other than a parent or a guardian, to provide alcohol, even in a private home, to a person under the age of 18 years of age without the consent of the parent or the guardian. An important sequela to that is that where alcohol is provided, including to a person under the age of 18 years of age by a parent, a guardian, or an authorised person, then that authorised person, parent, or guardian will need to ensure the alcohol is supplied in a reasonable manner.

I want to touch just briefly on the ready-to-drink issue, which is an important one. We have a regulation-making power in this bill to enable us to restrict ready-to-drinks at any time in the future. This sends a very strong signal to the industry that it must take action to reduce the known harm of these so-called alcopops. The industry has already offered to put in place a voluntary code on ready-to-drinks and is currently working on a proposal. We believe this approach is flexible and workable, and will reduce the risk of new products being developed to circumvent restrictions. If the industry measures are ineffective or not strong enough, we can and we will take action. We can impose restrictions without needing further legislation. This is a strong signal to the industry. We are serious about reducing harm from ready-to-drinks. I commend this bill to the Committee.

Firstly, regarding Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 122, it covers beers, wines, and mead containing more than 5 percent alcohol by volume sold in a container holding more than 1.5 standard drinks. New Zealand First supports this Supplementary Order Paper as one of the most effective measures so far advanced in this debate. I congratulate Phil Goff on proposing it. These sweet, easy to drink ready-to-drinks and similar drinks are well known to be harmful because large quantities can be easily consumed, especially by young people. The sugar levels are very high. There is at least 5 percent alcohol in them, and they can be treated like a soft drink, and therefore lead far too easily to severe intoxication. They are pushed and priced to sell by alcohol producers and sellers. They are condemned by the experts and the Law Commission as among the drinks most potentially harmful to the young.

The Government says that it has got assurances that the alcohol industry wants the chance to introduce its own measures to limit the production and sale of these drinks. But that does not explain why regulations under this proposed section 382A would hinder that. By providing a level playing field requiring all industry operators, such regulations would assist, not hinder, industry cooperation.

The industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing anyway. Otherwise why would it not have done it already? It is very uncertain what the industry will do without the guidance of regulations. It is the Government’s job to regulate; it is not the industry’s job. There is no need to wait and see by the Government. It should pass this Supplementary Order Paper, and then move quickly to do the regulations required under it.

With regard to Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of Sue Moroney to regulate to prescribe warning labels on alcohol drinks to warn of health risks, especially to babies while a mother is pregnant, it is harmless, promotes information, and promotes good health. Governments in New Zealand and Australia have already warned the industry of the need, so just do it now. New Zealand supports this. It should go ahead.

However, Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of Maryan Street to impose a health levy on off-licences and to apply the proceeds to help fund alcohol-related services is not something that New Zealand First could support. Although the Law Commission recommended price as a disincentive, the levy would have to be very high to actually be effective, and the flaw is that the levy applies to the premises generally and not to alcohol content, which is what should be targeted. Such a levy could actually, perversely, encourage the sale of higher alcohol content drinks, and so will be opposed by New Zealand First.

Supplementary Order Paper 108 would remove excise duty on drinks with less than 2.5 percent alcohol by volume. Unfortunately, as I have already said, price is a blunt instrument and is unlikely to be effective, and that amendment is also opposed by New Zealand First.

Supplementary Order Paper 130 would increase excise duty by 50 percent across the board. New Zealand First’s concern is that this would do immense harm to New Zealand’s wine industry, which is already struggling to remain competitive. So although this is a Law Commission recommendation, New Zealand First is very much opposed to that proposal.

Finally, Government Supplementary Order Paper 132 is supported by New Zealand First. Provisions such as that concerning the display and promotion of alcohol in supermarkets and grocery stores are welcome, are appropriate, and should be supported. Similarly, New Zealand First supports the amendment to clause 35A. Determining whether premises are a grocery store or not is something that also needs attention.

In conclusion, I would like to return to Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 122 and commend that to the Committee. Like others, I would call upon the Government to put politics aside and look closely at that Supplementary Order Paper, because it is the one thing that can really make a very big difference. Those ready-to-drinks need control, regulation—not waiting for the industry to do the right thing. It has not done so so far. We need a level playing field. That Supplementary Order Paper, in the interests of all this nation’s young people, needs to be supported, needs to be passed.

I am going to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 40 in my name, which adds new Part 11 to the bill and would amend the Land Transport Act in order to lower the legal drink-driving limit, from 0.08 to 0.05. What that seeks to do is to end legal drunk-driving in New Zealand.

I want to say that I was a little bit of a latecomer to this argument. When Steven Joyce first started talking about lowering the blood-alcohol limit as a positive step to reduce the harm on our roads and to reduce the harm caused by alcohol, I was not terribly convinced. But it was after a conversation with two National Party MPs, whom I will not name for the sake of not embarrassing them today, that I went away and looked into this issue a little bit more. Those two National MPs said that they had participated in the exercise where they steadily consumed more alcohol through the evening and went on a driving simulator to see how good their driving was and how confident they felt about driving. They both discovered that they became uncomfortable with being behind the wheel well before they hit the 0.08 level, at which point it becomes illegal to be behind the wheel.

So at that point I went away and had a look into this, and I discovered some very interesting facts. Overseas, where the limit has been dropped from 0.08 to 0.05—and many nations have done this many years ago; this is not a new initiative by any stretch of the imagination—what we have seen is not only have the people who have been between 0.05 and 0.08 been taken off the road but also there is a significant reduction in the number of people who are heavily intoxicated on the road. That is one of the arguments I hear repeated again and again as to why we should not implement this measure now, which is that we ought to be focusing on the people who are heavily intoxicated. That was the argument made by the Automobile Association. That was also the argument made by the hospitality industry.

However, if we look at the evidence, in other jurisdictions where the rate has been lowered, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of people who are heavily intoxicated on the road. So we do not even have to focus on taking them off the road, as they never seem to get on the road in the first place. Why is that? Well, the reasons are varied. One theory is that when the change was made there was a lot of social marketing around it, and people became much more aware of ensuring that they were below the limit and that they were safer to drive when they left the pub and got on the road. The second is that the limit is low and, therefore, people do not try to push themselves right up to the limit, misjudge that, and end up getting over the limit. But the most important factor appears to be that as people who are trying to get themselves to just below the limit get closer to 0.08, they are too intoxicated not only to drive but also to make a sensible decision about whether or not they should get behind the wheel. At that point they continue to drink—continue to drink—until they are heavily intoxicated, and then they get behind the wheel and that is when the carnage happens.

So I am surprised that I have even had to bring this amendment to the House, because the Government has had ample opportunity to get on with the job. In fact, I believe that if we had a free vote on this issue it would pass easily, because I know there are a number of MPs from a number of different parties who support this amendment. I think that it will lose narrowly today—narrowly—and that is only because the National Party is going to block vote against it, even though I know that a number of National MPs support this initiative.

I have also appealed to Peter Dunne to get behind this initiative, as well. His response was that this is a worthy thing to do, it is the right thing to do, but the way we should go about it is to amend the transport legislation. Well, I would refer members to my Supplementary Order Paper—new Part 11, “Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998”. That is exactly what this amendment does. It is the right thing to do. It will save lives. The people want it to happen. The Government has had the opportunity to do it. Change your minds, National members, and get behind this amendment today.

I want to take a fairly brief call on this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, because there are so many other members who too would like to speak on this bill. I do so because I think this is an extremely important piece of legislation. A previous speaker from somewhere in the Waikato, not Hamilton—Ms Moroney—said that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Well, it is not, actually. Any Parliament could make changes, and if we look back we see that many Parliaments have spoken about it. But we do have an important reason to try to get this right.

I want to talk about personal responsibility and the tools that this legislation will offer parents and communities. In my electorate of Rotorua over the last 3 years or so I have consulted by way of survey and public meetings and have received feedback from more than 4,000 voters, mums and dads, individuals, and people below the drinking age of 18 and above it who have expressed their concern to me about the harm that alcohol is doing in so many parts of our community One theme that came up again and again was that of the provision of alcohol to those under the legal age at which you can purchase, and in this case we know, because of a previous decision of the House, that that will be 18.

I am a father of four children. My wife and I have four children, and it will not be long until they get close to the age of 18. In fact, my eldest son is 14, so he is starting to get to that period of his life when there will be pressures around him towards alcohol. I believe firmly that it is the responsibility of my wife and I to raise him in such a way that he has the tools to make the very best decisions that he can around the consumption of alcohol. It is irresponsible of others to provide alcohol to that boy—and I use the word “boy” intentionally—until he is 18 years of age without permission from my wife or me, and, indeed, that is something that I would be upset about if it happened.

I have a daughter who is now 8, and so she is 10 years away from our having to deal with her ability to purchase alcohol in New Zealand. By the way, I voted for the age to go up because of the harm I have seen done in my community to those of around the age of 18 and younger than 18 when they consume alcohol. I do not think it is correct in this country that if my daughter had a boyfriend who was over the age of 18, he could provide her with alcohol without any question at all about what my wife or I wanted. So I am glad that this legislation gives a tool to parents to meet their obligation to young people in this country and to have a greater say around consent when it comes to alcohol being provided to them.

Sadly, there are far too many parents who do not take their responsibilities seriously, as I believe my wife and I will. We had a very sad incident a year or so ago in Rotorua, when two lives were ruined. A 14-year-old boy was killed in our streets at 2 o’clock in the morning by his 12-year-old friend. A member of their family had been providing alcohol to these two young children for the whole of the night. The newspaper suggested that this adult got in the car to go and buy more alcohol and bring it back to a 12-year-old and a 14-year-old. So I am glad that in this case the law when it passes will stand up for those two young people and say: “If you have the permission of a parent or guardian to provide alcohol to a person under the age of 18, you must do so responsibly, or you have broken the law.” In this case the 12-year-old boy was so drunk that when his friend went to take a kitchen knife from him because he was threatening himself, he lashed out. He cut the 14-year-old boy, who bled to death on the streets of Rotorua, in front of his house. That was a sad, sad occasion. Those are two lives that have been ruined and lost—the boy who was killed, of course, and the 12-year-old, who will now have to live with that for the whole of his life.

A 12-year-old does not have the tools or ability to make the decisions about many things, let alone alcohol consumption, and that is why I say that I think there are too many people in our society who do not take their responsibilities as seriously as my wife and I do. I am not passing judgment on them; I am saying that we need to get this right, because lives are lost and lives are ruined, and young people are harmed.

The final thing I want to speak on is the tools we are going to give to communities around local alcohol policies. I am glad this is happening, and I hope all parts of this House will support it. The reason for that is that our communities are calling for greater control—[Interruption] There we go; the Opposition members think they know what is best. Let us not get into their records. How about we do a little bit of listening?

Interesting though that contribution was from Todd McClay it did not relate at all to the parts of the Alcohol Reform Bill we are actually debating.

I want to make a contribution about price, because in terms of these parts there are a number of Supplementary Order Papers and measures that relate to price that we are considering. Literally within hours of the Law Commission’s report being received by this Parliament, the Prime Minister, John Key, said that one thing there is literally no appetite for is to increase excise taxes. Well, that was an interesting comment from him, given that 75 percent of the submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee favoured increasing price as a mechanism for reducing consumption, and the Health Sponsorship Council, which, in the earlier stages of this debate referred to on a number of occasions, found that 59 percent of New Zealanders agreed or strongly agreed with raising the price of cheap alcohol, and a further 19 percent were neutral about it. So there is an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders, in fact—entirely contrary to the Prime Minister’s statement—who do favour the use of price.

I guess we wonder why the Prime Minister would say that. Why would he say something that is so at odds with the reality? I guess we come back to the sad fact, as with so many other parts of this bill, that what the Government is doing is largely to reflect the interests and perspective of the large players in the alcohol and hospitality industries. That is why this bill makes essentially no contribution on the use of price as a mechanism to reduce excessive consumption. On the topic of tobacco there is a consensus of all parties in this House on the use of price as a means of reducing tobacco consumption and thereby producing health and other gains for New Zealand. So why is it that the Government is so opposed to the use of price when the evidence is absolutely overwhelming? I cite, for example, the US research from Wagenaar et al., which combined over 100 studies, which showed that price is the single most effective way of reducing excessive consumption of alcohol. It is perverse that the Government is so reluctant to use that mechanism.

There are Supplementary Order Papers before the Committee to introduce a health levy—Maryan Street’s Supplementary Order Paper 112—which we will support, but also to introduce minimum pricing and excise tax changes, including mine, Supplementary Order Paper 130, to increase excise taxes by 50 percent, as was recommended by the Law Commission. There are pluses and minuses for both the minimum price and the excise tax routes. As Judith Collins has said, a minimum price has a lot going for it, but the minimum price results in increased profitability for the liquor companies. On the other hand, in relation to excise tax, small increases in excise tax are easily absorbed by the big parts of the alcohol industry, and across-the-board excise tax increases have a disproportionate impact on small and craft producers of alcoholic drinks. We do not want to do that.

But what all of the evidence says is this: by sensibly combining a minimum pricing regime and excise tax increases we can have the best of both worlds in which we actually achieve the reduction in alcohol consumption that we want without creating distortions in the industry itself. Why is this important? It is important because crucially tied up with the consumption of alcohol in this country is its cheap nature. It is possible to buy alcohol at something like 70c per standard drink in New Zealand. That is ridiculously low, and work by the New Zealand Drug Foundation indicates that on the average wage someone would need to work for just 7 minutes in order to gain the income necessary to buy the alcohol that would take them up to the limit for drink-driving that Iain Lees-Galloway has just spoken about, which is—I agree with Iain Lees-Galloway—a limit that is already—

I stand to take a call on the Alcohol Reform Bill. Just previously, my colleague Todd McClay talked about the tools for parents. I would like to talk about the tools for communities—in particular, communities having opportunities around their local alcohol policies. I was fortunate enough in 2009 to be part of the consultations in which the report around the regulatory framework for the sale and supply of liquor was put together. On 25 August 2009, I was fortunate enough to facilitate three of these community consultations in the Ōtara Music Arts Centre, the Mount Albert Fickling Convention Centre, and at the Alcohol Advisory Council office itself. What was quite clear from those consultations and engagements was groups like the Glen Innes Drug and Alcohol Action Group, where young people came together and said they would like the opportunity to be able to have a say about how alcohol is sold in their communities. This is directly about Part 6 of the bill and about regulation.

What does this do for our communities? It does this: the bill will empower local communities to determine where and how alcohol is sold, as it allows for local alcohol policies. We know that regulation is important, but alongside regulation also comes the response of communities. What we are seeing is that—and I will take the example of the Glen Innes Drug and Alcohol Action Group—when they rallied together and had a collective voice when they had the confidence of the opportunity to be able to speak out against the current reforms that were happening, they felt the confidence that was there. What is important is that communities will have more input into decisions, and local authorities will be able to limit the sale of alcohol and set conditions on licences. Councils will be able to develop local alcohol policies to restrict or extend the hours of licensed premises. This is important for our communities, and, as we can see, it is indicated here in Subpart 3, “Other Matters”, of Part 6, where it contains a serious of regulation-making powers and transitional provisions. Regulations can be made to ban or restrict alcohol products—for example, alcohol vapour, which is banned in New South Wales. This is a clear indication. When we go back to our communities we can say that they have the opportunity with their local councils to be able to enforce what they believe are responsible forms. It is important that we give them this opportunity and these tools. I commend this bill. Thank you.

Are there any other speakers? Does the Green Party want to speak? I did make a ruling earlier on that it would be one call per person. We did have a point of order from Kevin Hague. I had asked “Does someone want to take a call?”, so I am now actually going to revert back to how it possibly should be. I am inviting Kevin Hague to speak, and I know there are a couple of others here.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate the call, and I give my thanks also to other members for facilitating that. I was speaking in an earlier contribution about the importance of price. Just as we use price as a mechanism for reducing the consumption of tobacco and thereby producing savings to our health sector and creating funds to fund treatment services—and there is consensus in the House about that—we ought to be doing the same thing around alcohol.

The Supplementary Order Paper—130—that I have before the Committee in relation to excise tax is one to implement the Law Commission’s recommendation, which is to increase excise tax by 50 percent. As I indicated earlier, I think that there are some problems with that across-the-board recommendation from the Law Commission, but the Committee ought to have the opportunity to debate that recommendation. Had a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect not been brought, the Committee would not have done so, because it is one of those recommendations that the Government dismissed out of hand without even considering it.

An increase in excise tax of 50 percent would do a number of things. It would reduce consumption, of course, and the estimate is that the savings that that would produce to the health sector and to the police—and I am sure members of the Committee will remember those studies that I quoted at an earlier stage in the debate around the significance of alcohol consumption in all sorts of offending—and the increased revenue from the tax would amount to something like $74 million per annum, for a 50 percent increase in the excise tax. That is a saving that ought not be sneezed at by this Government. So why has it not done that? It has not done that because, of course, the industry does not want it.

That increased revenue from the tax is also important to enable us, just as we do with tobacco, to fund treatment services. The evidence is that the alcohol and other drug treatment services that we have in this country do an excellent job, but they are drastically underfunded. They are in acute need of further funding, and they are currently so underfunded that they cannot deal with the needs of those who are queuing up outside their doors actually wanting treatment for alcohol and other drugs—even inside our prisons, where, surely, every inmate with an alcohol or drug problem ought to be receiving treatment.

Price can make a very substantial difference in this battle to minimise alcohol-related harm, and it is a shame and a disgrace that the Government has chosen not to go there. As I said, I believe that the Government has chosen not to go there because of pressure from the alcohol industry. That relates to another of the Supplementary Order Papers in front of the Committee, and that is the one from the Hon Phil Goff, Supplementary Order Paper 122, in relation to ready-to-drinks. I think it reflects very poorly on the Government that it has chosen to go with exactly the prescription that was requested by the alcohol industry around ready-to-drinks. Rather than choosing to regulate to minimise the harm, the Government has instead chosen to go with a formula that was requested by the industry and that we know to be a formula for failure, and that is a formula for the industry to self-regulate. All of the evidence is that self-regulation by the alcohol industry is going to fail, and we will be back before this House in a matter of years, I guess, in exactly the same place that we are now, with countless more harm being done to, particularly, young people by that failure of regulation. If there is one lesson that this House ought to have learnt again and again and again, across many different areas, it is surely that regulation is required.

It is a pleasure to speak on this Alcohol Reform Bill. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge all of those people who have worked so hard right around New Zealand, with the aim and objective of minimising alcohol harm. In particular, I recognise the Law Commission for its work.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge the good constituents of Hunua, who have continued to have great interest in this reform bill. Even next Monday I am going to be meeting with them on these issues, because they have been so interested. But I do make the note that there has been a spectrum of views, many recognising that 80 percent of New Zealanders do, indeed, drink responsibly. However, one of the things that did happen in Pukekohe over the last few months has been the sudden rush for licences prior to this legislation coming in, and that did indeed disturb a lot of people, because there was nothing that could be done about it.

Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge the unrelenting efforts of Professor Doug Sellman, and many medical practitioners right throughout New Zealand, who remind us that this is a public health issue, and that it will take a suite of initiatives to sustainably reduce harm. I think it is really important to point out that this is not a single silver bullet issue. This does require a whole suite of efforts, with an evidence base behind it. That is one of the reasons that it is so difficult to sustain a reduction of alcohol harm. We have seen perverse reactions throughout history in many jurisdictions right throughout the world.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: What happened with tobacco? How can a doctor stand in the House and say this?

It is not as simple as tobacco, and I want to make that very clear. But I think there is one area where I particularly, as a former obstetrician, am very concerned—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Tobacco wasn’t simple. The same pressure was applied by the same people.

I wish she would stop screeching, and just focus on the thing in focus. What I wanted to point out once again was this worrying concern about what alcohol does to immature brains, particularly foetal brains. The younger they are, right up to the age of 25, we know that there is considerable damage.

I must say that I want to pay tribute to the fact that the Counties Manukau District Health Board has recently put in a maternity review and a maternity action plan. One of its views is very much to go into the community and look right beyond conception, even, to have a robust, comprehensive reproductive health policy, and to make sure that young women and young men are aware of the problems that can occur to young foetuses, so that they can make wise decisions themselves.

Professor Sellman had five general policy directions, and they include, of course, the price of alcohol. Indeed, this is very problematic. No matter what Kevin Hague says, we have got the evidence from Scotland. It is not clear at all, and it is something that the Government is looking at very carefully. The purchase age, of course, Parliament has dealt with. As for decreasing the availability of alcohol, indeed, this bill does address that area. Decreasing the marketing and advertising of alcohol, again, is being addressed by this bill. Increasing drink-drive measures is an area that requires a clear evidence base behind it. I suggest that it is very, very important that we do have that evidence base behind our policies if we are going to sustain a reduction in harm.

One of the areas that I do believe has been of particular importance has been starting with local communities, and it has been met with agreement right throughout this country. Councils will be able to develop local alcohol policies that restrict or extend trading hours, limit the location and density of licences, and impose conditions on licensed premises, and people in the community will be able to object to a licence application in certain circumstances.

I would like to pick up on the point made by Dr Hutchison just before that we need evidence-based policy and evidence-based initiatives. He suggested that the evidence base around lowering the drink-drive limit is not yet there. I simply refer Dr Hutchison to the Ministry of Transport’s own advice to the Minister of Transport. It collected the evidence from around the world, which showed that in every instance where the rate was lowered from 0.08 to 0.05, the impact on road safety was enormously positive, and the impact on alcohol-related harm was nothing other than to reduce it. The evidence is there, Dr Hutchison. We do not need to wait any longer. We did not need to wait until after the last election, and we do not need to wait until after the Alcohol Reform Bill has passed. The evidence is there, and it is time to move on.

I also want to talk about the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Rev. Dr David Clark to re-establish a Part 8 in the legislation, and to use another mechanism to address price. We have discussed price in the number of different initiatives in front of us today regarding price. There is minimum pricing, there is increasing excise tax, and there is Maryan Street’s very worthy idea of a health levy to be applied at the point of sale. That has the advantage over excise tax in that the health levy would be factored in to the final retail price. But it would also achieve what Kevin Hague was talking about with taxation, in that it would raise funds for our alcohol and drug treatment programmes, which are excellent, but there are simply not enough of them, and accessibility is an enormous problem.

In fact, I was at Odyssey House in Auckland recently—just visiting, Mr Chauvel. I spoke to one of the people who were participating in its programme. It took nearly 6 months from the time that she identified that she needed to go into the programme to when she was actually accepted in. Thankfully, she was motivated enough to go into the programme even after that 6-month wait, but what we know is that for many people with addictions there is a limited window when they self-identify that they need to get into rehab or some addiction programme. If they are denied access, then when that access becomes available they may well have moved on and not be willing to participate at that point. So access is a huge issue.

Coming back to David Clark’s amendment, this takes a slightly different approach to using price as a way of providing an indicator to the market about the type of alcohol that people should be purchasing, and that is to reduce or eliminate excise tax on low-alcohol beverages. I think this is a smart move. It makes the low-alcohol option more palatable, and gives people a lower-price option that is not only lower cost but also safer and less harmful than the usual low-cost options, which, of course, the police refer to as a crime scene in a can—that is, drinks like Cody’s or Woodstock, which tend to be the cheapest alcohol that is available. They are the high-alcohol, high-volume ready-to-drink products that Phil Goff’s amendment is trying to deal with. What Dr Clark is saying is that while we look at how we can maybe use price by increasing the price on the high-alcohol beverages, maybe we can give people a bit of a break and offer a lower-priced option for lower-alcohol beverages. I think that is a smart move, which could be part of the suite of initiatives that Kevin Hague was talking about when he had the call.

So I would like to hear from the National members why they think these initiatives do not have an evidence base, and why they think they are a bad idea. If they are going to be voting against them, then we need to hear their reasoning, because the communities are crying out for us to do more. They see the bill that is being passed as not enough, too weak, and insipid, and they want to see it strengthened. We are offering the opportunity to do that, and if the National Party—

I am delighted to speak in support of this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, because this Government is very determined to get on top of the problem. I will answer some of Mr Lees-Galloway’s points in a moment. I would just make the point that one of the core recommendations of the Law Commission was to raise the purchase age. I have heard from a large number of speakers opposite today who voted against that particular part who are now criticising us and saying that this bill does not go far enough, or it is insipid, and all the rest of it. I simply—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! There are some interjections that this is out of order because it has been dealt with. The question that is before us at the moment is Parts 6 to 10 and clauses 1 and 2. Clauses 1 and 2 are a peroration of what has happened in the whole debate—that is what clauses 1 and 2 are about—so when a member is bringing up items and discussion about what has occurred in previous parts, that is acceptable.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was making the point that the member Iain Lees-Galloway, who has just resumed his seat, has criticised the bill for not going far enough, and I was making it very clear that many of those who have spoken along those lines today actually voted against one of the core recommendations.

But there are a number of features in the parts of the bill that we are focusing on today that I am very enthusiastic about. I want to see this bill passed, and I commend the Government for bringing to Parliament the most comprehensive and toughest changes to our alcohol laws in my lifetime. One of the things we have heard a bit about is giving parents access to tools to have far greater control over managing their children’s access to alcohol. That is a very good step.

Dr Calder spoke eloquently about the importance of empowering local communities through the provision for local alcohol policies.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to question your ruling, and I do want to understand it. But in terms of the agreement that we reached in terms of dealing with this legislation, it was that we were going to have a wide-ranging debate across the parts of the bill. By including clauses 1 and 2 in this way, we have actually ended up in a situation where Government members who did not take calls during the relevant parts of the bill are now using the opportunity of this debate to slow up our opportunities to debate the clauses we agreed to deal with in this way.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure, I hear the member. As I have already indicated, the question does cover clauses that—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: But which Standing Order says—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, this is how it works. Clauses 1 and 2 are actually a peroration—a tidying-up—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, they’re not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): They are, and it has always been the case. But what I have indicated is that I am giving one call per person, unless there are no other calls. There will be about—well, we have had some points of order, so we are down to probably about 26 calls, which will be available to members up to a quarter past 5. I am going to share those calls around. I keep a note here of which parties are making the calls, and there is still ample opportunity for parties to contribute on the parts of the debate that they wish to, so that is how I am going to deal with it. Although it is not exclusive, we should be concentrating on Parts 6 to 10, but not exclusively, because the clauses cover what has already been debated and passed through the Committee stage.

💬 Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether I could invite you to have a look at clauses 1 and 2 just in respect of the ruling that you have made, because in this case clauses 1 and 2 relate to only the title and a very technical commencement clause. There is a purpose clause, clause 3, but that is in Part 1. So I understand the ruling that, generally speaking, the short title, commencement, and preliminary matters in clauses 1 and 2 can lend themselves to a wider debate. I just wonder whether that is quite so apt in this case.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member brings up a good point. Can I refer the member to the Review of Standing Orders, and I refer to page 63 in particular. I will just read to the member—I hear what the member says. This is a reflection about how we are dealing with certain parts. It goes on to say, and this is a quote from the last paragraph—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: What page?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): On page 63. This is page 63 of the Review of Standing Orders from 2003, in fact. It is the 2003 Review of the Standing Orders, all right? December 2003. That is how long this has been in effect, so it is not something new. Let me just read this paragraph: “However, we consider that, when debating the preliminary clauses at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” So that is the ruling that I have given. We do not want to see new material brought in. It is a summary, as it says here, very clearly—and that is something that has been in effect for some time. So the points that Mr Chauvel has raised are relevant. This is a summary. Members are not to introduce new material when we are dealing with the clauses.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am speaking about Subpart 3 of Part 6 at this point, and I make the point that no other member speaking this afternoon has had to put up with this level of interruption. The other matters in Subpart 3 deal with the provision of regulations restricting products, the investigation of minimum pricing, regulation-making powers for ready-to-drinks, and that sort of thing. Dr Calder has already touched on the regulation-making powers. I make the point that the bill provides that regulations can be made under this bill to ban or restrict alcohol products—just as, for instance, we have seen in New South Wales recently, when a regulation was used to impose a ban on alcohol vapour. This is a healthy thing because it is showing that we will have the provision to be able to respond quickly to things as they arise. Products will be able to be restricted for any reason, or banned if they are dangerous to health or are appealing to young people.

Dr Paul Hutchison, my good colleague, mentioned a few minutes ago foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. That is a major concern of mine and I am very glad that he raised it. He gave praise to Professor Doug Sellman, and I echo those thoughts, but I also want to give praise to the efforts of Alcohol Healthwatch and its team, who are doing wonderful work. They have drawn my attention to the fact that our colleagues over in Australia have recently undertaken a major study into foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and their very good report has just been tabled in the House over in Australia in the last couple of days. If I may just quote a couple of lines from it, it makes the point that “Children are our hope distilled. … They personify humanity’s unlimited potential. Yet tragically, for too many babies in Australia,”—and, equally, in New Zealand—“their opportunities and circumstances are severely diminished even before they draw their first breath. The harm caused by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) is hidden in the damaged brain. It may masquerade as naughty behaviour, poor parenting, lack of discipline, or simple-mindedness. However, it is none of these things.” I commend that particular report to members for their attention.

What I want to do now is just return to some of the issues that Mr Lees-Galloway has mentioned—in particular, the issue of minimum pricing. The real flaw with minimum pricing is that we need to ensure that we send the right signal. There is a real possibility that we will only drive further profits into the pockets of the retailers and not actually effect the behaviour that is wanted. We will continue to do research into this area. If we get hard evidence that it would work, that is something the Government is prepared to move in the direction of, but at this stage we do not have that hard evidence.

The problem also with minimum pricing is that—as I say, it puts the profits into the hands of the industry—it will simply cause a number of young people to move from one product to another. We know that young people are very price sensitive. Suddenly, products that were appealing to them become less appealing, and they move on to another area. We have got to have a better way of dealing with those sorts of issues if we are going to tackle our major problems with binge drinking. As I say, the sorts of policies that give more parental control are one good measure, but we have also got to ensure that we look at the issues that are affecting a wider age range. There are a number of issues in the bill that are hugely significant, and, as I said, in this particular subpart—

It is a pleasure to take a further call on Part 6 of the Alcohol Reform Bill, because I do have two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 114 to this part.

I invite that member, Tim Macindoe, who has just resumed his seat, if he really does have a concern about foetal alcohol syndrome, to put his money where his mouth is and vote for my amendment to compulsorily put notifications and warning labels on alcohol products. Will he do that? Because that is putting your money where your mouth is—not your money where your mouth is, Mr Chair, but Tim Macindoe’s money where his mouth is. I put politics aside and I voted for his amendment—on Supplementary Order Paper 280—to this same bill to increase the purchase age to 20. Will he vote for my two amendments that actually address the very issues that he was crying crocodile tears about in that 5-minute contribution? That is where the rubber hits the road. How he votes on my amendments will actually show whether he is genuine about the issues that he just spent 5 minutes talking about in this House.

I am tired of hearing members of the Government go out in public and try to sound like they are addressing this issue in the most comprehensive way. When they come to Parliament, they vote against very sensible and practical measures to fix the very issues that they claim they are concerned about. Well, this is their chance to do just that. In my Supplementary Order Paper 114 I not only have proposed an amendment to require nutritional information to be on the labelling of alcohol products but also have proposed an amendment that would ensure that the health risks of drinking while pregnant are there on the label of the alcohol product. And if members of this Parliament like Tim Macindoe were genuine about their concerns, they would vote for that amendment, because that is one way we can attempt to address the issue.

In fact, the Fetal Alcohol Network NZ people pointed this out in their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee. They asked, as did a range of other submitters, for this very measure to be taken. What did they have to say to the select committee? Well, they said that, overall, their concern was that the Alcohol Reform Bill “is insufficiently robust and broad enough in its scope to reduce the significant harm that is concerning so many New Zealanders.” And they wanted us, this Parliament, to work “from the paramount principle of protecting children”—protecting children—“from alcohol-related harm which begins at conception.” That is what my amendment would help to assist with.

They wanted us to recognise that harm from drinking during pregnancy poses a significant, preventable, and long-term risk to public health. We all know of the misery that that causes, not only to the individuals whom it affects but also to the rest of us collectively because we all have to pay for those long-term risks to public health. The select committee also heard that more than 35 percent of women drink alcohol during pregnancy and that 10 percent are known to drink heavily during pregnancy. So we do have a problem that we must face up to.

There is not one measure—there is not one measure—in this bill as put forward by the Government that attempts to address that very serious and very important issue. That is despite the crocodile tears and the speeches from Dr Paul Hutchison and more recently Tim Macindoe, weeping and wailing about the issue of foetal alcohol syndrome. Do not weep and wail about it in the debating chamber. Use your vote. Use the vote that you have. That is the obligation that members opposite and all of us take up when we become one of those privileged 121 people who can vote on this issue.

So if members opposite and all around the House are genuine about their concerns about the risk to children, through no fault of their own, of foetal alcohol syndrome, and the risks of drinking while pregnant, then they will vote in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 114. If they vote against it, then all they are doing—all they are doing—is trying to sound brave and trying to sound concerned when the very real decision that they make in this Parliament is just to look the other way while this issue continues to get worse.

I am very pleased to take a call on the Alcohol Reform Bill. For those who are not aware, in my background I have had some involvement at the bottom of the cliff with this situation, as a former police officer, and I was also involved in drug and alcohol education. Firstly, can I just acknowledge the professionals who are working out in the field—the police officers and those across the emergency services spectrum—who do an unenviable job but a very good job and a very necessary job, unfortunately, and also those in the treatment community, who are doing their level best.

This problem with alcohol is not related to alcohol alone. Our substance abuse issues in this nation are something to be frowned on significantly. About 85 percent of people in New Zealand consume alcohol, it is thought, and the vast majority of people, it must be said, actually do not have an issue with it—which is not what we see with some of the illicit drugs that some members of this House would have us decriminalise tomorrow, if they had the chance. The issue then becomes how we change those who do not drink responsibly and the implications of that. Because this is a large group across society, it affects a large number of people. So by volume, it is a significant problem; by consequence, I would not necessarily say that is the case. But, really, there are a number of issues that need addressing. This bill really sets out to address a number of them, and I want to touch on a couple.

We have already dealt with the matter of age in the House. My vote was, obviously, to see the age raised to 20. That was an opportunity missed and gone, and I am sure our community will take time to remind us of that in due course. But that was only one measure, and it is fair to say that a suite of measures, a range of measures across the whole spectrum, is required, not one or two sort of big-ticket items, as some would have you think. The changes that we have seen in the bill go from the area of policing enforcement right through to the point-of-sale area, advertising, licensing, the way in which trusts operate, and giving more powers to councils, which has been traversed. I do not want to speak too much more on that, other than to say that giving power to communities, and communities being able to have a clearer say in what they know their communities are about and how they operate, I think is very important.

One of the significant issues of discussion this afternoon has been price, and I can accept that, as the price rises, it will have a deterring effect on some. But as we have seen with tobacco, it has to rise substantially before we really start to see any difference. In fact, recently there was some talk that a packet of cigarettes would need to go to $100 before it would have a consequent effect that would be substantial in terms of turning people away from that substance. However, alcohol is in a different category again. If we look at illicit drugs, $1,000 for a gram of methamphetamine does not seem to put people off there, so price is not necessarily something that is going to address the issues. Having said that, I do believe that the jury is out on minimum pricing. Excise tax and what have you are tools, but again I come back to the point of how far does it need to go before it will make a difference versus the culture change that needs to happen. Culture comes from empowering a community across a range of ways and imparting a message, not just relying on one lever that would shift that culture.

One important factor that I think would be far more substantial than the minimum pricing is actually the tools that this bill seeks to give parents. Children can get alcohol from adults in a private setting, and this is very commonly the case. As a policeman, I certainly saw this. Really, things can go off the rails outside of licensed premises, and it is incumbent on this Parliament, and, indeed, through this bill, that we give parents—responsible parents—more tools to ensure that their children are not in a position where they are drinking irresponsibly. Are you about to hit that buzzer, Mr Chairman, or are you just stretching your arm? In any event, could I just say that the range of tools is what is important, not any one measure. And as far as the minimum pricing goes—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: 10 seconds.

Thank you very much. As far as the minimum pricing goes, I think that will be less effective than the tools available and given to parents.

I want to talk about local alcohol policies because they are probably the best part of this disappointing Alcohol Reform Bill. They are the one thing left, out of the recommendations of the Law Commission that offer, I think, a substantive chance of progress. They give to local communities what they have been asking for, for a very long time, and that is the power to regulate, for instance, the location and number of licensed premises, such as prohibiting those near schools; opening hours; and one-way door restrictions—for example, a mechanism that allows instant fines for breaches of alcohol bans. They give to councils the possibility to regulate the social harm caused by alcohol abuse in their communities.

I want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 132, which sets out to amend clause 2 of the bill. What it would do is reduce the waiting-time—the delay—that for some reason Judith Collins, the Minister of Justice, has seen fit to insert into this bill. It is a delay that would stop councils for 12 months from even beginning to implement the local alcohol policies allowed under this bill. The effect of that is that because of the two 2-month public consultation periods that would be required, the first of which is for any local alcohol policy, and the second 2-month period would apply to any local alcohol policy that includes regulation of maximum opening hours, it would be 16 months—16 months—before a council could have the benefit of these local alcohol policies, before the policies would kick in and allow some benefit from the provisions of this bill.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the things that the Minister, Judith Collins, has been saying publicly to defend her position on this. So let us be clear. There is a 12-month delay written into this bill that means that local councils will not get the benefit of these local alcohol policies for 16 months—16 months—after this bill is passed. I want to read to the Committee some of the things that Judith Collins has been saying in relation to my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 138. I invite the Minister in the chair, Chester Borrows, to listen carefully because I would very much like to hear a response from the Minister in the chair about why the Government is insisting on this 12-month delay. When asked by journalists about why this delay was in there, Judith Collins said that small councils would not have the ability to get up to speed if there was a shorter implementation period.

This is completely and utterly illogical because one of the features of this provision for local alcohol policies is that they are entirely optional. They are voluntary. No council will be forced to implement a local alcohol policy. If they do not want to do it, they do not have to. If they want to do it in 12 months’ time, 2 years’ time, or 5 years’ time, that is their choice, but for some unknown and illogical reason Judith Collins has seen fit to impose this 12-month delay, and she justifies it publicly in the media by saying that small councils will not have the time to get ready.

The second thing that Judith Collins said—which I, frankly, do not understand, and I invite the Minister in the chair to explain the Government’s position on this—in the New Zealand Herald is “It’s somewhat ridiculous to expect part of the country to be covered by a law and the rest of the country not.” This law applies to the whole country. It applies to every council. It is a law of New Zealand. What it does is legislate a mechanism that gives councils the opportunity to implement a local alcohol policy. It is a local alcohol policy. That is the whole point of it. It gives councils and their communities the option of developing policies that respond to the needs of their community. So why does Judith Collins say that it does not make any sense for a law to apply to one part of the country and not to the other? Why does she say that? It is completely illogical. It is an absurdity, and I can only conclude that there are two possible explanations. Judith Collins is not a stupid person, she is not a silly person—

I would like to take the opportunity to make some response to the contributions that have been made by those promoting Supplementary Order Papers and to give a response from the Government perspective. The point in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 114 from Sue Moroney is that the advice we have received from the ministry in response to her comments is that it is important to note that there is a lot of public support for introducing warning labels on alcoholic beverages and perhaps similar warning labels to those found on tobacco products, but labelling is outside the scope of the bill. Because of an agreement that we have with Australia, any changes to alcohol labelling must be developed through the joint food standard that we share with Australia. In response to a joint ministerial review of food labelling law and policy, our Governments have recently agreed to give the alcohol industry 2 years to introduce pregnancy warning labels on alcohol beverage containers. If the industry does not do this, we will consider regulation.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 113 by Lianne Dalziel, this amendment is premature as the Government is already investigating minimum pricing. A minimum price will have impacts on New Zealand businesses. These impacts are being considered as part of the minimum pricing investigation. [Interruption] Well, if I screamed it, would you be happier? I am giving you the response th"at our advisers have given us, and you would expect us to do that, I am sure, members of the Committee.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I’ve already read that.

Here we go. I am responding. I was asked to respond. I am giving you the response. We do not sit around and make it up. In respect of the point made by the honourable member Phil Twyford, I do not believe for a moment that the Hon Judith Collins has been sitting around on her hands. The fact is that 12-month lead-in time is the result of advice that she has taken. You would expect a Minister to take that advice. It does not prevent, for instance, territorial local authorities getting on and consulting on the alcohol plans that they want to prepare and doing everything they can. In respect of the advice that we have been given, that is the advice that the Government has been given.

In respect of—[Interruption] Members can rate it out of 10 if they want to; I am giving to members the response to the questions that they have asked. Supplementary Order Paper 112 from the Hon Maryan Street, again, relates to minimum pricing and excise tax—I am sorry; it is creating a regulation—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: It’s not excise tax, Chester.

Sometimes we get things wrong, Maryan.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: It’s not excise.

Let me finish. It is creating a regulation-making power to enable a health levy to be imposed on holders of off-licences to fund alcohol-related health and treatment services. The existing lever to influence the price of alcohol in New Zealand is excise tax. From 2012-13 the Government has committed $10 million annually from alcohol excise tax in respect of alcohol and drug assessments and interventions to better enable access to treat hazardous drinkers, young people, drink-drivers, and other offenders. The rationale for an off-licence health levy at point of sale is to increase the price of certain types of alcohol products such as ready-to-drinks, which have proven to be harmful. The problem is that as the levy would not be tied to alcohol content, it may well encourage people to substitute more alcohol-fuelled drinks for those particular alcohol products.

In respect of the points made by the Hon Phil Goff on his Supplementary Order Paper 122, the point needs to be remembered that through the course of the select committee debates, discussions, and hearing of evidence, we found that drinkers will move quite quickly from one product to another product. Limiting the level of alcohol per volume to 5 percent and standard drink containers does have an effect on the trade provisions that we enjoy with other countries, particularly Australia. There is a way round that, and there is a mechanism within the bill to be able to change it, depending on the compliance or otherwise of those within the alcohol industry, but it does give us the opportunity, without breaching that trade barrier, to be able to change the law. One example of how we could do that, for instance, is to limit the sale of ready-to-drinks with a higher alcohol per volume to on-licence premises only. We look forward to seeing how our research is going in respect of this. It is serious. It has been considered as part of this.

I am grateful that the Minister in the chair, the Acting Minister of Justice, decided to take a call and to repeat the advice that the Minister of Justice shared with the Committee when we debated the particular provisions under Part 3.

Of course, we met with the Minister and discussed the advice that she had received on the Supplementary Order Papers. She reluctantly and finally agreed to meet with us to discuss the amendments that we wanted to bring before the Committee. There was not a discussion. My colleague was with me and it was not a discussion; it was simply notification of the advice that she had been given by her officials. The whole point of this debate is to actually challenge some of the official advice.

I want to present the Minister with some alternative advice and it is advice that comes from the heart of our health sector. I think that this is a health issue, actually, and that is why I was so surprised at the contribution from Dr Paul Hutchison. I could not believe that I was listening to a doctor standing in this Chamber and arguing the industry line. It was not just the industry line. I think that people think the reason we are under so much pressure to vote a particular way on this legislation is because of industry pressure and industry interests—meaning the alcohol industry or the hospitality industry. Can I just say it is also the advertising industry, it is the sponsorship industry, it is all the community groups that are dependent on sponsorship, but, most important, it is the people who get the advertising dollars. It is the media. They will not want to see any of their revenues affected by our taking effective measures in this House.

That is why I have said on so many occasions that if we truly are to address alcohol issues in Parliament, and to make the contribution that only we can make, recognising that it is a partnership with community and with family, and with individuals—because it is individual responsibility, family responsibility, community responsibility—the Government has a really important role in terms of the legal framework for the sale of what is a drug. I do not think people quite understand, because we accept that alcohol is a socially acceptable drug for us all to share in a convivial environment. In fact, I think all of us who have been on FebFast recognise how ubiquitous alcohol is. At every occasion that we go to, we are often invited more than once to partake of a drink. At various functions in this place often alcohol is served. I think we have to think seriously about the nature of the impact that it has beyond here.

All of the district health boards in the South Island have banded together and they have adopted an evidence-based position statement on alcohol. It is absolutely comprehensive. Every single one of the amendments to these parts of the bill that we are debating—every single one of them—is included in this position statement. I am going to table it in the House. I do want the Minister and the members of Parliament who say they are waiting for evidence to actually read it very, very carefully. It tells us to raise alcohol prices. It talks about increasing levels of excise tax on alcohol, adjusting excise tax so that alcohol products are taxed directly on the level of ethanol—which is catered for in the point-of-sale health levy proposal by my colleague Maryan Street—and setting a minimum retail price for alcohol per alcohol unit. I mean, I heard the Minister of Justice saying in this Chamber when we debated Part 3 that, in fact, the minimum retail price for alcohol was only going to benefit the hospitality industry. Well, it will not benefit the hospitality industry. It attacks only the off-licences that sell dirt cheap alcohol. That is what minimum pricing is all about.

When we turn to my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper 40 about changing the blood-alcohol content, that will save more lives than just about any other measure that we are talking about. The evidence is all there in the Background Paper of Supporting Evidence to the South Island District Health Boards’ Position Statement on Alcohol. The evidence is there. We do not need to wait for more evidence to come. [Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

We are just giving one call at this stage.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I thought we had moved on from that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): If someone else is calling, I will give the call. That is how we are going to work it.

I was not sure whether that was a 1-minute call or what. I do not have the expertise of Dr Paul Hutchison and a number of people, perhaps even like Sue Moroney, but I have lived in communities, for example Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran, where alcohol is banned, period. I have lived on Bougainville at a time when alcohol was banned. I watched thousands of stupid young people make their own jungle juice from fermented coconut and write themselves off. What I am trying to say here is that it does not matter what rules you bring to this Parliament to control alcohol in communities, if you try to ban it completely, people will find their way around it.

I want to focus on Part 6 of the Alcohol Reform Bill, because I agree that we cannot lose 1,000 people a year because of alcohol. In the Wairarapa I see alcohol causing significant problems for drivers. It also impacts on violence against women. It also negatively impacts on theft and other things. In my community the public have called for action because the pendulum has swung too far. The issue, I think, where we do not agree with the people in the Opposition is that they would like to impose nanny State - type regulations on our community, whereas I think that this legislation that has been brought to the House by Minister Collins strikes a really good balance between not unfairly affecting responsible drinkers—probably 80 percent to 90 percent of us—and dealing with the considerable harm that alcohol causes.

Specifically of relevance to the Wairarapa community are those sections in the bill that will empower our small communities, whether in Pongaroa, in Porangahau, down in Featherston, or even in Lake Ferry. It will enable those communities to determine where and how alcohol is sold. These communities will have much more input in these decisions. The local authorities will be able to limit the sale of alcohol and set conditions on licences. Councils are going to be able to develop local policies—for example, to restrict the sale of alcohol, or to determine trading hours of licensed premises. It will limit the location and density of licences. I hope the legislation will help us close down drinking sheds, which are a problem in my electorate. I think it will also impose conditions on licensed premises. There will be also a very big impact, I think, on supermarkets and grocery stores because they are going to be able to display and advertise alcohol only in a single, non-prominent part of their store. I think that tighter regulations on alcohol advertising and promotions will prohibit unacceptable practices. The bill, as you realise, makes it an offence to advertise discounts of 25 percent or more on alcohol outside of licensed premises.

What I think that the legislation also does, as it stands at the moment, is to give a much better tool and control for parents who, I think, have felt a degree of impotence—that is what they tell me—when it comes to moderating the way their young ones deal with alcohol outside the family home. Parental consent will now be required before alcohol can be supplied to young people, and their drinking will require supervision from adults. It will be an offence to supply alcohol to a person under 18 years of age without the express consent of their parents. This will close down what I see in Greytown every Friday night, which is young people buying other young people alcohol. It will enable the police to have a tool to address that problem. I think that this will mean that good parents and responsible adults will have their actions reinforced by this legislation, because the need for express consent gives our police a tool to intervene in unsupervised or poorly supervised parties such as after-ball functions. We are requiring all alcohol supplied to 18 and 19-year-olds to be supplied responsibly, and there will be a fine of a couple of thousand dollars for supplying alcohol to a minor without express parental consent. This is sensible, well-balanced legislation, which I fully support. Thank you.

Simon O’Connor.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Fair enough.

Oh, jolly decent of you. I just want to talk to something. Alcohol, for better or worse—and a member earlier used the word “ubiquitous”—is something that is part and parcel of our society, but that is a starting point. This is something we cannot, will not, and should not get rid of completely. Therefore, it is always an important role of the Government and this Parliament all together to make the prudent decisions and a balanced decision. When we look at this Alcohol Reform Bill in its entirety, but certainly in Part 6, this Government is taking the prudent approach around alcohol and one that is firmer rather than softer. People in the select committee of late have heard me waxing on, if you like, about balancing rights, and a lot of the debate that we are having here today is about the right for ordinary Kiwis to have a drink as they choose at reasonable prices and without much disruption versus those who do misuse it.

The key parts within Part 6 are helping that prudent approach by this Government to manage alcohol. The first is providing that power back to the communities. In Tāmaki recently we have had a spate of liquor shops attempting to open. Fortunately, they have not opened, but the community’s pressure was not actually the direct cause. Talking to the licensing authorities at the moment, basically only economic considerations can be brought in. However, as the community, I, and others jumped up and down, for want of a better phrase, those wanting to open up their convenience stores basically backed off for fear of a community backlash and so forth. This bill, and Part 6 in particular, will help enable that power of the community to be regulated, to be there, to be present, and to make a difference. It is the voice of the community, and I certainly know that in my own electorate they want that voice to be heard.

But we have heard a lot of debate too, some of it about the Supplementary Order Papers, around minimum pricing and ready-to-drinks. Well, the National Party, me included, of course, is all about personal responsibility. The first opportunity here is for the industry to put in those regulations, to put in those appropriate structures to manage the pricing of alcohol, and to manage ready-to-drinks. It is without a doubt, particularly with regard to ready-to-drinks, that they are a problem. When I go into different parts of my electorate I can see them. Cody’s, I think they call them. They are not really my preferred drink, but they are there. They are there, they are crying out to young people, and so forth. The Government understands this. This House understands it. But this party on this side of the House understands that responsibility starts with the individuals themselves and those who do the sales. This bill enables those parties to make their decisions, and, importantly, the Government can step in. This bill provides the opportunity for the Government to step in at the right time and not prematurely.

I want to come back to what a lot of people have been talking about, which is the concern about, say, labelling and so forth, and excise taxes and so forth. The key is actually that the areas of why people choose to drink are outside the mandate of this bill. You can label these drinks up as much as you want and put on all the prices, but why youth in particular, but also Kiwis right across our generations, choose to anaesthetise themselves with alcohol is a question well outside the scope of the bill, and therein lies, I believe, the fundamental question. Why is it that people choose to anaesthetise themselves with alcohol? Really, at the end of the day all this labelling, all that education per se, all the taxes that could be added on to this, and all the regulations in the world will not solve that problem in the first instance. This bill is a strong and positive step to curb the usages, but a lot of this element around why people use alcohol is well outside the mandate of this bill. Thank you.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity. Listening to the contribution from the other side, I find myself feeling quite disappointed, because I would have thought those who have made their contribution to defend the industry knew better, particularly those who have had experiences in the community and particularly those who have formerly held roles in the community where they would have seen firsthand the harm that alcohol-fuelled violence creates.

Certainly, the police are telling us that we have a national crisis. The professionals—doctors and nurses—are telling us that we have a national crisis on our hands. We know that the emergency departments in our hospitals are telling us that we have a crisis on our hands. I do not know why it is that the members of that Government do not recognise that there is, indeed, a national crisis here. If they do not recognise that, all they need to do is get in a police car one evening and just travel around the streets. You will find young men and young women fuelled with alcohol who are not only doing harm to themselves but also doing harm to the property around the neighbourhood and doing harm to other people.

I am quite disappointed with that last contribution from Simon O’Connor, because I thought he understood, but it seems to me that members on that side have sort of sold their soul to the liquor industry to some extent.

I want to say that as a country we have created and allowed the situation that we now have, where we have excessive commercialisation of alcohol. What we are asking on behalf of our community is not for a prohibition, but that we need to take this opportunity to have stronger regulation around the use of alcohol.

I have heard others from that side say that they have met with Professor Doug Sellman and his group. If they have met Dr Sellman and the group they will have heard the evidence collected by that organisation and many others that says the solution is that we have got to raise alcohol prices, we have to raise the purchase age, we have to reduce alcohol accessibility, we have to reduce marketing and advertising, and we have to increase our drink-driving countermeasures. Many of the Supplementary Order Papers that my colleagues have put forward are aimed at giving us more regulation so that we can deal with the national crisis that we have.

I am appalled that we allow the industry to target the younger generation—to target through advertising, to target through labelling, and to target by making it easier for them to access alcohol. I am appalled that young people walking to school face the litter of alcohol advertising on the streets, one after the other. So I do not think that this Government is taking the opportunity that is available to it as the Government to really address the issues that I think every group throughout our various electorates has a view about. This is no different from addressing the harm that smoking causes in our society. We know it causes death. We know that people fuelled with alcohol cause harm.

I hear the other side saying that we need to look at personal responsibility. That is an argument that the industry keeps throwing up in our faces every time we ask for more regulation. So what does that say to me? It says that that side of the Chamber is supporting the liquor industry. This side of the Chamber is arguing on behalf of our communities, who are saying: “Enough harm.” There is a national crisis caused by this. You cannot simply continue to have your heads either in the sand or in the clouds without recognising the harm that it is causing right now and for the next generation coming through.

I would like to take another call on the Alcohol Reform Bill, and I want to begin by utterly rejecting the offensive suggestion that this Government is in the pockets of the hospitality industry. First of all, I make the point that the hospitality industry did not welcome the amendment I put forward seeking to raise the purchase age for alcohol. Secondly, I would make the point that we are looking at a range of ways to reduce alcohol-related harm, and we are tackling head-on the crisis that Mr Sio has just talked about, unlike the previous Labour Government, which had 9 years and did little, and now talks tough in Opposition.

The liquor industry is the body that is promoting the idea of minimum pricing. That is because, in large part, it benefits members of the industry. They are the ones, the retailers, who will gain most from the introduction of minimum pricing. We want to ensure that we introduce measures that are effective in other ways. The industry has agreed to introduce a code on ready-to-drinks. But we have made it very clear to the industry that if it does not get it right we will regulate, and we have put the provision into this bill so that, one way or the other, we will make sure that we get the whole culture around ready-to-drinks right. As I say, those are just three examples I would give Mr Sio as to how the Government is quite clearly not in the pockets of the hospitality industry. I can assure him that I have not come under any pressure from the liquor industry as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and, if I had done, I would have made it very clear that I was not interested and pushed it away.

I want to move to some of the things that this bill does achieve, rather than the things it does not. Quite clearly, this bill will make it much harder for people to get access to alcohol, but what we need to do is strike the right balance and not make it impossible for the many people who can use alcohol safely—and I would like to think I am in that group. We want to be able to ensure that alcohol can continue to be a social stimulant that is used responsibly, but we must ensure that we tackle the many abuses of it that we see, particularly, but not exclusively, amongst young people, for whom binge-drinking is such a problem.

I want to pay tribute to a man from my city of Hamilton, Mr Cliff Turner, whom I have got to know and respect deeply, although I should say at the outset that I am sure he has never voted National in his life, and I acknowledge the fact that he would like this bill to go further than it does. But I mention him in the context of what the bill is doing about advertising and the irresponsible promotion of alcohol. Mr Turner is a man well-known to the Advertising Standards Authority as someone who has regularly referred to the authority his grave concerns about the way that alcohol has been marketed in the past, particularly to young people, and the way it is glamorised and made to look as if it is an essential component of their lifestyle. I think he has done a stunning job, and I would like to feel that he could take some credit for the fact that in this bill we have toughened up on irresponsible promotions. For instance, no longer will it be possible to have those sorts of “come and drink as much as you like, for as long as you like, for as little as you like” functions in some of the pubs that cater particularly for the student population. We will no longer have advertising that is intentionally trying to glamorise alcohol, particularly for young people.

It will, as a result of the measures in this bill, be harder for young people to get drunk. It will, as a result of the measures in this bill, be possible for communities to have a much greater say about when and where alcohol is sold. It will no longer, under this bill, be possible for supermarkets to have alcohol displays in the entrances, at every end of the aisles, and in all of the places we see it at the moment, so that it is in your face. That is going to change. It will, under this bill, be possible for alcohol-related penalties to be better enforced.

As I say, this is a bill that reflects a huge amount of work. The size of it tells you just how substantial it is. It is in large measure an implementation of the recommendations of the Law Commission, that huge tome that it did such a great job on. The overwhelming number of the recommendations of the Law Commission are reflected in this bill, and a few that were not are reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins, brought forward to toughen it further, Supplementary Order Paper 132. I acknowledge the fact that there will always be division over certain measures and there will always be division as to where you draw the line, but I am absolutely convinced that this bill is the best thing to happen in improving our dangerous alcohol culture in a very long period of time.

It is good to follow on from that member, Tim Macindoe. We have heard him extol the virtues of the Alcohol Reform Bill due to its size. When one compares the size of the bill with the size of the Law Commission report—and perhaps my colleague there, Kevin Hague, who is holding up the report, could assist in just reminding the Committee—one can see that the substance of the debate ought to be around the recommendations of that report. It is that report that provides the evidence we should be debating in this Chamber today, but we have not been debating it at all.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What a ludicrous remark that is.

I have listened to members. That member talked about the sorts of promotions that used to be able to be had in on-licence premises, where people could drink all they liked for an amount of money, and you could have all these different promotions in on-licences. I just want to remind that member that there is a section in the Sale of Liquor Act—a current section in the current Sale of Liquor Act—that prevents those things from happening in relation to on-licences.

This bill extends it to off-licences as well, but I want to remind the member—actually, he does not need reminding, he needs telling, because he was not here when the 1999 legislation went through—that, in actual fact, it was a member’s amendment to the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No. 2) that brought into play that promotions clause. The member who moved that amendment in 1999 was me, and that is why I remember it.

I remember the Minister of Justice at the time telling members to come down to the Chamber, to enter into the debate, and to make sure they listened carefully. He gave me the courtesy of ensuring that my amendment was considered and freely voted on in this Chamber, with people exercising their consciences on that provision. That Minister of Justice—who is now the Minister of Health—voted against my amendment. He voted against my amendment. He did me the courtesy of ensuring that Parliament heard the debate, and because there was not a whip applied to the different members of the Committee on that occasion, that amendment was accepted by Parliament and it became part of the law. So do not stand in this Chamber and say that this bill is a good measure because it extends a measure that was introduced in 1999 from on-licences to off-licences. That on-licence provision would not have been there but for members exercising their consciences and voting to support a very powerful and appropriate measure.

I would actually have made sure that that amendment applied to off-licences as well. I had not been introduced to what they were capable of until these last 10 years. We have observed supermarkets—with the liquor industry following suit; I blame the supermarkets for starting the ball rolling—and they have dragged down the price of very, very cheap alcohol in this country in a way that simply did not exist in 1999.

There were things that we could have done in 1999, but we did not anticipate the degree to which commercial interests would drag down the price of alcohol, to the extent that it is as dirt cheap as it is today. That is one of the issues that I have tried to address with my Supplementary Order Paper 113 on minimum pricing. It is one of the issues that Kevin Hague has with his Supplementary Order Paper 130 on an excise tax increase, and it is the issue that Maryan Street has with her Supplementary Order Paper 112 on the question on a point-of-sale health levy. The advantage of the point-of-sale health levy—and I commend that to the Committee—is that that enables the money not to go the industry but, in fact, to go directly to the health services, and it will sit appropriately with what should be a health measure, not a justice measure.

I hope that we one day see an alcohol bill become an alcohol Act that is supervised by the Ministry of Health, not the Ministry of Justice. I think that this Parliament would be paying a great tribute to New Zealanders who have suffered the consequences of alcohol-related harm.

I want to thank the Minister in the chair, Chester Borrows, for at least standing up and responding to some of the questions and criticisms that have been levelled at the Alcohol Reform Bill in the course of this debate. But I have to say that, in response to real, substantive questions about the bill that have been debated publicly, to simply get up and say that that is the advice that the Minister has had from officials is not good enough.

I do not blame the Minister in the chair—he is sitting there and he has advice in front of him—but I do blame the Hon Judith Collins for remarks that I can interpret only as being utterly disingenuous when she says that they have to delay the implementation of local alcohol policies by 12 months because small councils simply will not be ready. She completely overlooks the fact that the provisions on local alcohol policies in the bill give councils the option to implement local alcohol policies. No one is going to be forced to do it. Big or small councils—it does not matter. The law is the same throughout New Zealand. It is not, as she misleadingly suggests, that if we were to not have a 12-month delay, then it would create a kind of haphazard situation with certain councils doing one thing and other councils doing another. The very nature of local alcohol policies is that they give communities the freedom that they are asking for to develop local solutions.

I cannot understand why the Government has been so obstinate in insisting that there be a 12-month delay. It will mean that councils will have to wait up to 16 months before their communities get the benefit of these policies. I can think only that either the Government is trying to shield the liquor industry from the effect of giving councils the powers to regulate at the local level—and, if that is the case, it would be completely shameful. The only other explanation that I can think of is that it is just another example of the kind of pigheaded hostility that this Government exhibits towards the Auckland Council and the fact that it is Mayor Len Brown and the Auckland Council who have responded to the acute social problems at street level caused by alcohol abuse and drunkenness, particularly in central Auckland, for a long time now.

I quote from the New Zealand Herald editorial from 27 October, which talks about the fact that the Auckland Council has responded to these social problems. It has worked with police cooperation, and it has drawn up a local alcohol policy to be implemented as soon as possible. A key feature is instant fines for breaching liquor bans. The local initiative awaits only the passage of this bill. Now it must be postponed, as the New Zealand Herald says, “And all for no good reason.” The New Zealand Herald goes on to say: “It makes no sense to claim there must be a time frame that small councils can meet. Many of these councils will see no great need for an alcohol policy.” Under this bill, they have the freedom to choose whether they do it at all, and, if they do choose to do it, when they do it. “The Government’s approach”—says the New Zealand Herald—“is the more baffling in that having largely sidestepped alcohol reform [with this bill], it can, through local policies, transfer future responsibility to councils. The delay simply underlines [the Government’s] unwillingness to act decisively.” on the issue of alcohol reform. That is from the New Zealand Herald.

I think that it is a real shame that one of the few decent things that remain in this bill, after years of work by the Law Commission, after intense public debate and political attention to this issue—one of the few decent things to have survived the absolute gutlessness of the National Government’s approach to alcohol reform—are these local alcohol policies.

The Auckland Council has been working overtime to develop a local response. It is waiting on this passage of this bill, and for some unknown reason it is going to have to wait 16 months before the people of Auckland can take advantage of it. And any other communities around New Zealand who want to take advantage of the local alcohol policies are also going to have to wait 16 months from the day that this bill becomes law, before provisions like one-way doors, maximum opening hours, instant fines for breaches of liquor bans—before any of those things. The number and location of liquor outlets—

I would like to follow on from Phil Twyford and support him and his Supplementary Order Paper 138. Dr Paul Hutchison actually hit the nail on the head with this one when he said that the people of Pukekohe, whom he represents, were disturbed by the proliferation of liquor licences that were suddenly applied for as retailers knew that this legislation, the Alcohol Reform Bill, was coming into place. What the Government has effectively done—what Judith Collins has effectively done—is give those potential licensees a further 12-month window in which to race to their local authorities and get those licences agreed to before communities get to have their say.

Let us be absolutely clear about this, because there has been some misrepresentation in the Chamber today about what some of these amendments actually do. The Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, has utterly misrepresented the position that Phil Twyford is promoting. He is not requiring councils to stand up a local alcohol plan within the first 12 months; his amendment empowers them to do so, if they want to. That is all it does. It puts the authority, the control, back into local communities. I do not want to litigate all the reasons we know why, but we know that this Government hates local communities having local control over local decisions. The power of central government has been strengthened enormously under this National Government, and it has eroded democracy in local communities, and this is just another example of it.

I want to refer to a situation in my own electorate, where the Big Barrel chain wants to open another store. I have sat down with the gentlemen who are going to run that store, who run other Big Barrel stores in Palmerston North, and they want to open this one up. I actually think they are reasonable people. They support a minimum price, because they want a level playing field across all off-licence retailers. They support limited trading hours. They said: “We want to go home at night.” But they also said, again, that they wanted a level playing field across all operators. They want to be able to operate more responsibly, but they do not want to have to compete against other operators who may choose not to operate so responsibly. So I think these guys, as off-licence operators go, are pretty good.

But I do not believe that we need another outlet in that part of town—in the Westbrook part of Palmerston North—and the local community is absolutely dead against it. They do not want that outlet to open. If it was replacing another operator, so there would not be one more outlet—just the same number of outlets but being operated in a better way—then the community might be a little bit happier with that. But they do not want one more. Their opinion counts for nothing—nothing—until this provision actually is enacted. They are going to have to wait another 12 months before they can have their say.

Well, the decision about that Big Barrel store will be long in the past by the time this provision is available to the people of Palmerston North who want to have a say about it. All this provision does is give them that opportunity. It does not force the Palmerston North City Council to have a local alcohol plan; it allows it to, if it wants to. And I know from my community that it would, because my community is screaming out for the opportunity to do this. I am sure that many other members in the House—and I can hear other members saying the same thing—want their communities to be able to have the opportunity, as well.

I have not heard this afternoon any substantive arguments against Mr Twyford’s amendment. I have heard only that the Minister received advice. We do not know what that advice was. It was, obviously, convenient advice, because it worked for what she wanted to do, but we have not heard a substantive argument against this. Equally, I have not heard a substantive argument against my amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 40 to reduce the blood-alcohol limit for drivers from 0.08 grams to 0.05.

Thank you for the opportunity to make another contribution. We have heard a lot of colourful debate across the Chamber. It is actually heartening, I think, that on a bill like this, the Alcohol Reform Bill, which is so fundamental to social issues within our country, the debate is pretty passionate. The screaming and the yelling, the shouting down, the failing to listen, and the accusations of others failing to listen—I guess if it is ever pertinent, it is going to be for something like this. The fact is that many of us in the Committee have got history and experience with alcohol and its use and its abuse. Maybe we have been part of dealing with the effects of that through our work, or maybe it is through our personal lives, with family members, etc., etc.

Some of the accusations are pretty difficult to stomach—for instance, the continued accusation that the Government has been in the pockets of the liquor industry. People on the other side, especially senior members on the other side, will know that they have only to look back in history at where the donations come from to see which came from the liquor industry and which did not. The last time I looked, the party that got a big, substantial donation from a player in the liquor industry was in 2002, and it was not the National Party. So those sorts of accusations are groundless. They make really good radio and TV listening, but they do not stack up with the facts. I think it is very important to just take heed of some of those comments.

Another comment has been about whether votes on this bill should be conscience votes or party votes. I can say, as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, that all the way through, the discussion was always, and the recommendation from the Law Commission was, that the votes on these alcohol questions should be party votes—that parties should stand up and nail their colours to the mast as parties as to where they stand on this, except for on the question of age. I endorsed that, and so did the Labour Party members on that committee during the whole discussion period around alcohol reform.

There have also been a number of accusations made against the Minister of Justice, who is currently overseas. Some of the accusations that have been made are that she has got some vested interest in brassing off local people and preventing them from having an impact on local decisions in respect of alcohol. But it is also interesting to note that although a bill promoted by the Labour Party when it was last in Government had a local alcohol plan of sorts, it is this bill that allows local licensing committees to make decisions on breaches of those local alcohol plans—and it has been introduced by this Government. That hardly stacks up, then, with an accusation that the National Government does not want local people making local decisions about the stuff that affects them. It is absolutely ridiculous.

The last point I want to make is in respect of Mr Twyford’s comments around the time it has taken to get the regulations built around this for the implementation of this legislation. It is hugely frustrating, and I understand that perfectly. There would not be anyone in this Committee who would not like to be able to snap their fingers and do it tomorrow. But whether you like it or not, the cumbersome animal that government is does not allow that to happen.

Another point is that those of us who have been working with alcohol legislation for decades now know that when you rush the regulation-making powers, you cock it up. Sale of alcohol legislation and regulation has been a cock-up for generation after generation.

💬 Phil Twyford: Chester, are you saying it takes 12 months to write a regulation?

I believe that it should not have to take that long. The advice that we have been given is that it will. I believe we need to get it right, not fast. We need to get it right.

💬 Phil Twyford: Twelve months?

I am not making an argument about whether it should be 12 months, 6 months, or 2 weeks. The point I am making is this: if you rush it, it is a cock-up. It is a cock-up to try to enforce, and it is a cock-up to try to live within. That is right.

There is a Supplementary Order Paper from the Government that has made the point that it allows councils, territorial local authorities, to be able to draft their plans, to be able to negotiate and discuss things, and to be able to consult on them, and they will be able to do that ahead of that date, because the bill was not plain on those points in the past.

I want to finish off, again, I guess, by just congratulating the select committees that have worked on this bill, and this Committee. As I said at the beginning of this short speech, a robust debate around alcohol reform is totally appropriate. Although from time to time we would like to lean across to the other side and give members a smack—and they us—it is totally appropriate that we speak on this with passion.

Till quarter past 5, Kevin Hague.

I will make just a few brief remarks. I want to begin by at least thanking the Minister in the chair—the Associate Minister of Justice—and Government members this afternoon for taking some calls in response, because in earlier stages of this debate they did not.

There is in this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, and in this set of issues a fundamental tension between the absolute freedom of action of individuals and, on the other hand, the harm that is caused to them, to others, and to society, and the cost associated with that. This Government has chosen with this bill to actually favour that absolute freedom of the individual, which is effectively what Simon O’Connor told us this afternoon, to the extent that the Government has essentially refused to do anything beyond making the most timid efforts, pallid efforts, to restrict or even influence the actions of those individuals.

I think it is shameful that the Government has wrapped up that timidity in the guise of a lack of evidence when in fact all of the things that Opposition members have been calling for on Supplementary Order Papers to try to strengthen this bill have been the ones that have been absolutely supported by the evidence. Thank you.

Members will know that by agreement of the Business Committee, this debate will terminate at 5.15 p.m. There are about 25 questions [Interruption] I am on my feet. Before I do that, I just want to thank members for the spirit in which they have engaged in this debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave of the Committee to table the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board’s position statement on alcohol, with the accompanying supporting evidence of the South Island district health boards’ position statement on alcohol.

Leave is sought to table those papers. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action?

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Is it a media release?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, my understanding was that they were board papers from district health boards. Leave is sought. There appears to be none. Leave is granted.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 132 and 137 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 6 be agreed to.

The Hon Lianne Dalziel’s amendment to clause 382 was dealt with under new Part 2A.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of Dr David Clark to insert new Part 8 be agreed to.

We move to schedule 1, and the question is that schedule 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I have got to call a party vote because I have got a split vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, if the member wants a party vote, then the Clerk will conduct a party vote.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a serious point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I accept only serious points of order.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Do I have to call a No vote in order to get a vote, even though I have got only one No vote to cast?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): One will do the trick. So the member is now calling a party vote.

We move to schedule 3. Sue Moroney’s amendment relating to health-risk warnings on labels, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 114, is out of order as it is contingent on an amendment that has already been negatived. So we move past it.

The amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell is out of order as it is contingent on an amendment that has already been negatived.