Hague Kevin: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7286. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 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—