Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5426] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is interesting because we might now be seeing a slight clearing of the waters. Let us go back over some of the things that have been said. I now know for sure that despite all the hue and cry about the effects of alcopops on the teenage drinking problem United Future no longer believes that alcopops are a problem with regard to teenage drinking. At least we now have that clear. I understand from the comments made by Rod Donald and Judy Turner that their main concerns lie with the sale of hard liquor that has only 23 percent alcohol as opposed to the mainstream stuff that a lot of people buy. 
We have all seen the children on the streets who have bought a 1-litre or a 2-litre bottle of Coke. They tip half of it into the gutter get a bottle of spirits whack it straight into the Coke shake it up and then walk around the streets handing it out amongst themselves. Yes we know that happens but if I remember correctly what we have been told here by countless Government speakers is that this bill has been brought in only to tidy up the teenage drinking problem. If that were the case then as much as the member from the Green Party wants the Government to target light alcohol as he has described it surely given everything its members have also said this bill—if that were its true aim—would be targeting alcopops. Not to be targeting alcopops tells me that the bill is not about correcting teenage drinking habits. 
We have had the Minister say that young people are price-sensitive and will adjust their drinking habits accordingly. I know that on countless occasions outside this Chamber the member has talked about the plague that exists with alcopops so if I were to accept this statement that teenagers’ drinking habits can be adjusted by this bill because they are price-sensitive to the excise duty then my simple question is: why has he not included alcopops? The answer can only be because this bill is not about redressing teenage drinking habits; this bill is about revenue collecting in an area of the market where he knows there is a loophole and he wants to snare it up. The argument that this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people does not stack up because despite all the concern about the 750-millilitre bottles of vodka they can buy cheaply the Government has totally missed that huge hunk of the market that everybody talks about. The Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council talks about it doctors talk about it and if we walk down the street and look at the young kids staggering around it is that bottle they are holding in their hands so often. It is that bottle that gets thrown down the street at the drunken riots that involve boy racers throwing bottles at police cars. It is this bottle as well and a lot of these bottles that I have here so to tell me that this bill is all about correcting the drinking habits of young people but to leave that part of the market out is to tell me that actually it is not. This bill is about revenue collecting to get $18 million. 
Ice cream is another thing. If this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people why are we including ice cream? If this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people because they are price-sensitive and will adjust their drinking habits why does the bill list mead? How many children drink mead? Where does one buy mead? Well there is a great place in Rangiora is there not Mr Cosgrove? Mead is brewed in the Waimakariri and a fine drop it is but I do not see queues of boy racers hoons and young people outside that country residence and backed up down the road queuing to buy mead. 
This bill is not about what it has been touted as being about—an indirect method of adjusting teenagers’ drinking habits because teenagers are sensitive to price increases—it is about revenue collecting. For once I would just love to hear the Government say what it means. It should be up-front and say: “We need another $18 million and we have found a loophole by which we can target it and by the way the people who are buying the stuff can afford to pay it.”