Lees-Galloway Iain: Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill Local Government (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Bill Summary Offences (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill Local Government (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Bill Summary Offences (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7354. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 That contribution from Tim Macindoe I think really sums up the Government’s position on alcohol reform and trying to deal with alcohol harm: patronising full of platitudes and absolutely devoid of action. I do want to congratulate— 
Darien Fenton 
: And substance. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: And substance as well. I do want to congratulate Mr Macindoe on the position he has taken and on the advocacy that he has carried out over the years. Unfortunately he has failed to influence his own party and he has failed to influence this Government to actually pass legislation that will make a real difference. 
This has been a long journey. It was started by Labour back in 2008 when Lianne Dalziel first promoted legislation in this area and the Law Commission was asked to undertake its review. The Law Commission presented its comprehensive evidence-based report and anticipated that it would be drafting legislation that this Parliament could consider. However this National Government got its hands on it and Simon Power dramatically watered down what the Law Commission suggested Parliament should be doing and brought to Parliament a weak and insipid bill the Alcohol Reform Bill. 
 But we on the Opposition benches supported it because we had hope that when it went to the Justice and Electoral Committee we might have the opportunity to strengthen it. And indeed members on the select committee did hear thousands of submissions all making good suggestions about how we could strengthen this legislation to make it align more closely with the Law Commission’s report and more closely with what New Zealanders wanted us to do so that it would actually achieve something. Many members on the committee made good suggestions and some positive amendments were made to the legislation but unfortunately not enough. 
Then along came Judith Collins. She took a watered-down bill and diluted it even further. In the face of pressure from a number of different industries Judith Collins folded like a piece of paper. What we ended up with was something that was so watered down that this is essentially the homeopathic approach to alcohol harm. There was no substance nothing left in this bill by the time it was watered down first by Simon Power and then by Judith Collins. 
Judith Collins faced pressure from the liquor industry and under pressure from the liquor industry she removed the sensible provisions that were originally put in the bill by her predecessor to regulate alcopops. So we lost the regulation around the number of standard drinks that any one can or bottle of alcopop could contain. We lost the regulation around the maximum amount of alcohol volume that there could be in each alcopop. So we will continue to see the crime scene in a can that the police refer to so often: the Cody’s the Woodstock and all the other horrible cheap alcopops designed to do one thing and that is to get people as drunk as possible as quickly as possible. Judith Collins is responsible for that and the National Government is responsible for that. 
Under pressure from the supermarkets Judith Collins folded once again and cancelled out the changes her own colleagues on the select committee made to strengthen the provisions about where you could put alcohol in a supermarket. Her own colleagues wanted to make the bill stronger and Judith Collins trumped them. 
She has delayed the introduction of the local alcohol policies which were one of the few positive aspects of this legislation. It is something that communities are crying out for—the ability to determine the number of liquor outlets and how liquor is regulated in their own communities. It is something that people want now. They do not want to have to wait 12 months and there is no reason for them to have to wait 12 months. This is not forcing local government to do anything; it is empowering local communities to have local control over local decisions. That opportunity is being delayed and justice delayed is justice denied. 
But it was not just the watering down. This bill was pretty weak to start with. The Government failed to act properly to curb advertising. It was given a number of different options that it could have taken up at the Committee stage. There were simple things like shifting the television watershed out by a mere half-hour like eliminating advertising near schools like taking a proper look at the role that alcohol sponsorship plays in our communities all the way through to the suggestion of a total ban on television and radio advertising and a total ban on sponsorship. There was a wide spectrum of options on the table any one of which the Government could have chosen to take up and it chose to do nothing—nothing—on liquor advertising. 
The Government failed to act on price. Again it was given a number of options: minimum pricing excise tax and a health levy applied at the point of sale all of which would have helped deal with price. We know that the evidence says that price is one of the premium ways that we can curb the harm caused by alcohol. But because this Government is beholden to the Food and Grocery Council it chose to do nothing on price. 
This Government failed to act on reducing the blood-alcohol level. Again there are over 300 studies internationally that show that lowering the blood-alcohol level will have a significant impact on the harm caused by alcohol particularly on our roads obviously but it is also about setting the environment in which alcohol is consumed. The Government is beholden to the Hospitality Association and frankly to the Automobile Association whose position on this issue has been disappointing. The evidence was there the opportunity was there but again National failed to act. 
We had a spirited debate about the purchase age and Tim Macindoe brought this up. I want to know why that was singled out for the conscience vote. Why was all the attention put on the age? Why was all the media attention put on the age when the evidence says that it is one way of dealing with harm but it is a small way? It was described by one member as trying to empty a bucket of water with a teaspoon. It will happen but it will happen over a very very long period of time and there are other more effective measures that this Government has failed to pick up. But that is where all the attention went and as Lianne Dalziel said it was a superb strategy from the Government to divert attention away from its failure to act on any number of ways it could have acted to truly deal with alcohol-related harm. 
This is not the end of this debate. There is no doubt that we will have to revisit this issue again in the future and it will have to be done with a Government that has got the vision the purpose and frankly the guts to tackle this issue properly. When we do—in fact in all dealings to do with alcohol-related matters in the future—this issue should cease to be primarily a justice issue and should be a health issue. The Ministry of Health should be the lead agency. The Minister of Health should be the lead Minister. 
I want to just briefly reflect on the paucity of alcohol addiction treatment that there is available in this country at the moment. That is another area where this Government is failing. It takes far too long to access addiction treatment once somebody is referred or self-identifies as needing it. That delay often results in people not accessing the treatment they require. That is something that ought to be one of this Government’s health priorities but of course it is not. 
There is nothing wrong with what is in this bill and that is why it will get broad support from around the House. But what has left New Zealand so disappointed with this Government is the things that have been left out its failure to act and its failure to tackle the big issues the difficult issues. That is why New Zealanders are resoundingly disappointed with this legislation. It is weak. It is insipid. It will not achieve the outcomes that are desirable and we will have to revisit this issue again because of this Government’s failure.