Bridges Simon: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21205. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 One of the greatest professional pleasures and privileges I have had in this Parliament has been dealing on the select committees I have been on with really significant social issues: tobacco on the Maori Affairs Committee and alcohol on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I say from the outset that alcohol has been an altogether much more complex and multifaceted issue. One of the reasons for that comes I suppose from a silly little anecdote I heard some time ago about a congressman who was asked by a constituent to explain his attitude towards whisky. He said “If you mean that demon drink that poisons the mind pollutes the body desecrates family life and inflames sinners then I am against it. But if you mean the elixir of Christmas cheer the shield against winter chill the taxable potion that puts needed funds into public funds to comfort little crippled children then I am for it. This is my position and I will not compromise.” As I say it is a silly little story that I do not intend anyone to take seriously but it does contain a kernel of truth that I think much of the media reporting and the public health lobby and many of the speakers have missed—that is that alcohol fundamentally is neither solely good nor solely harmful. 
The Alcohol Reform Bill which we have made significant changes to acknowledges and really grapples and deals with the significant harms. I agree with everything that has been said in this House about the harms in terms of justice police health social and family areas. Enormous harms flow from alcohol but it is also worth bearing in mind—and I think we did so as a committee—that for the majority of New Zealanders alcohol is actually enjoyed moderately and responsibly. As a select committee we took a bill that was already doing a lot to curb harm and we did more. I think we made some significant and good changes to the bill which is now before us in its second reading. But to say that the bill only ever dealt with harms and that that is all we should have focused on would have been an overly simplistic position. 
The Minister of Justice has talked about a pendulum in this area and I think that is absolutely right. There is a spectrum if you like. I think Charles Chauvel’s words were that we have a laissez-faire approach on the one side—and that is what we have had to some extent since 1989—and at the other extreme we have I suppose prohibition and no one was advocating that. We have in this bill swung the pendulum quite some way—more than ever before indeed—away from liberalisation and towards a tougher regime. But I think we have also been mindful of those tensions I have talked about and of the need to have an enduring framework. It is all very well as some members—Lianne Dalziel is one of them I think—have said to say that we should have done all these other things. But tensions are involved here and we needed and wanted to have an enduring framework that would stand the test of time. I think in this bill we basically have that. 
I will not go through the select committee changes; there are 130 or thereabouts. I thank and acknowledge all members—I think all members engaged constructively—and the officials who did a fantastic job. I briefly say on the conscience vote—the issue of age which is indeed likely to be a conscience vote—that my position and perhaps that of some others coming out of the select committee was that it ultimately became a pretty simple issue. I will be voting to put the age to 20 simply because that is what the vast majority of people who submitted to us and whom I have spoken to all over New Zealand have said they want. But it is also because all of the research we saw that came to us also pointed that way. Research from the US effectively said that when the age went up all over the United States the road toll for 15 16 and 17-year-olds came down and also that alcohol damages the normal growth and development of a teen’s brain. We heard that over and over again. So I think there are very strong reasons to put the age up. 
But I come back to the point that ultimately we have moved the pendulum. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No you haven’t. You’re not even passing the law. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Lianne Dalziel says that we have not actually moved the pendulum. Well Charles Chauvel the member next to her thought we had. We accept that the other side says it is not far enough but we have moved the pendulum. Like Charles Chauvel said legislation is necessary but is not a sufficient condition for getting the change we need. The kind of change that we really need in addition to this legislation is—as I think the Prime Minister said as well—a cultural change. It is the sort of change that sees parents—I know it is old-fashioned—being parents and not trying to be mates to their children who are going out to parties and the like. It sees mates actually being true friends not just mates and looking after their mates when they are out. And I know Lianne Dalziel will not agree with this but it also sees a good healthy dose of individual responsibility in this country of people acknowledging— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Don’t you judge me. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: She does not like it—I said she would not—but we need individual responsibility. So the legislation is a good thing but we need more. We need a cultural change in this country.