Mapp Wayne: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6340] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I say to the Minister Damien O’Connor that this is another committee another review and I predict another failure. I do not doubt that members across Parliament are concerned about under-age drinking—drinking by those aged 14 15 16 and 17—but in truth another committee will not solve the problem. When the Government puts out a press release on the eve of this debate I believe that it is misleading the public and I would say—for those members of Parliament who are thinking about that option—misleading members of this Parliament. 
In truth to change the culture we have to change the law. We have seen that in many other areas of our lives: changing the law changes the culture and our acceptance of the way people behave. That is why I have proposed an amendment that I believe will make a difference. But to consider that amendment members will have to vote for the second reading tonight because that is a matter for the Committee stage. So if members want to make a sensible change to the law they should vote for the second reading tonight. 
In 1999 I was on the select committee that considered the legislation and the whole discussion in Parliament and at the select committee revolved around drinking in bars and restaurants. I remember lots of discussion about civilised drinking in bars and restaurants and how having that would change the culture. In part that aspect has actually been successful. Virtually every person one talks to—police officers the public at large and indeed publicans—will say that in fundamental truth there is no real problem in bars and restaurants. So I propose that we leave the age at 18 for that situation because it is regulated controlled and in fact quite well policed. The 18-plus card has been reasonably effective in keeping out under-age drinkers—not obviously in all cases but in most cases. That is not where the problem is. 
I have to say that in 1999 the select committee did not properly consider the issue of off-licence places—liquor stores and supermarkets. We were warned by submitters back then that reducing the age to 18 would lead to an increase in drinking by those aged 14 15 16 17 and 18. By and large we discounted that warning but we were in fact wrong to do so. We all know as a matter of common sense—and I believe that the Minister Damien O’Connor also knows—that there has been an increase in binge drinking by that age group. There is a simple reason when we think about it. Eighteen-year-olds are frequently in school. Their friends are frequently 16 and 17-year-olds. Yes they might drink at home but that is often because they have bought alcohol themselves in liquor stores and supermarkets. Where do people most frequently have their parties? At home. So the argument that drinking is all being done at home is simply not appropriate. 
Reducing the off-licence age to 18 has caused problems and those problems were in fact predicted. Tonight we have the chance to fix that particular problem which is the principal source of the issues the public is concerned about. The way to do that is to increase the age from 18 to 20. It is not difficult to enforce. Everyone knows what an off-licence is. Everyone knows what an on-licence is. By and large those terms are fixed. The public have given us a clear verdict on this matter. They want a sensible solution. Front-line police want a sensible solution. The injury prevention unit at Otago University has stated that the rate of injuries sustained by young drivers has not declined to the same extent as that of all other drivers. Why? Because of alcohol. 
Tonight members have a clear choice. If they want to take a serious approach to fixing this problem they will vote for the Law and Order Committee’s report. If they want another committee another review or another do-nothing approach then they will support this Government’s review—but to do that would be wrong. I tell members to take a common-sense approach and to vote to support the bill going further. Then they can have a solution which will make the age 18 for on-licences and 20 for off-licences.