Hutchison Paul: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:5025. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill the Alcohol Reform Bill. Firstly I would like to acknowledge all those organisations throughout the country that have spent so much time on agonising over and providing information on the purchase age and on the wider issue of minimising alcohol harm in New Zealand including the Law Commission. Secondly I acknowledge the good people of Hunua who have answered my surveys and given me their views which funnily enough have been a spectrum of views. 
Thirdly I would like to mention the unrelenting efforts of Professor Doug Sellman who reminds us that this is a public health issue and that it will take a suite of initiatives to sustainably reduce harm. He particularly reminds us that the human brain is susceptible to excessive alcohol right up to the age of 25 and probably beyond but that certainly younger ages are more susceptible. Indeed we have a very very worrying issue in this country where something like 60 percent of pregnancies are unplanned and we have a high rate of foetal alcohol syndrome. Nevertheless Professor Sellman’s five-point general policy direction that is included in that suite includes recommendations on the price of alcohol increasing the purchase age decreasing the availability of alcohol decreasing marketing and advertising of alcohol increasing drink-drive measures and increased treatment opportunities for heavy drinkers. Over time they need to be addressed like the tobacco campaign. But it will take time and it needs to be accomplished progressively and where there is acceptance. 
When it comes to the purchase age in my view the first thing that we should be doing is enforcing the law so that those who are under age now are strongly prohibited from purchasing alcohol in the pub or the off-licence. When I spoke to a class of high school students recently my hair literally stood on end as I heard them say that increasing the purchase age by law would make no difference whatsoever in reality and that they are drinking from the age of 13 and 14 throughout New Zealand. They said that they would be absolutely reactive if the law was being enforced more stringently than it is right now. They also said that the example set by adults is absolutely awful that adults need to clean up their own act and that they are very prepared and assiduous to demand zero tolerance on drink-driving but would like to see adults do the same. I note that the Law Commission suggested that the split-age option simply would not work. 
Finally another reason why I will be voting to retain the age of 18 is that I cannot see the fairness in the proposal that an 18-year-old might be required to serve their country in the theatre of war yet might not be allowed to have a drink at the local pub or purchase a dozen cans from a local store. This is a fundamental human rights issue and it was vividly brought home to me when I was a medical student and was arrested at the age of 18. The purchase age happened to be 20—and there were lots of other 18-year-olds—and I was taken home in a Black Maria. But it just seemed to me so profoundly wrong when at the same time I was also being required to go into a ballot to enlist for the army that could have led me to the Viet Nam War as happened to many of my colleagues. 
So I do not accept that increasing the purchase age alone is the factor that will make the big difference to minimise harm. Minimising harm will require a suite of initiatives and that is something that is going to have to happen progressively.