Borrows Chester: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15267] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am privileged to be able to take this opportunity to speak on the Alcohol Reform Bill and maybe to answer some of the questions that have been raised in the course of other speeches. It is difficult to cover in any significant depth the large number of issues that have been raised but it is important to speak about a number of them. 
Over the course of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill that is currently before it we have heard a large number of submissions on a number of these issues too. Probably the most commonly made submissions have been about the inability of local people to have an impact on the procedure for granting consent to applications on the basis of the proliferation of liquor outlets in local communities. I find it most frustrating to hear from people who have been in this House for a long time and who are critical of where this bill does not go while knowing that they largely sat on their hands while laws were promoted that did not allow local people in their own communities to submit for example on the placement of a liquor store across the road from a school. For instance we have the situation in Glen Innes where young people in school uniform can walk across the road from their high school purchase a ready-to-drink for about $1 drink it and go back to school that afternoon supposedly to carry on with their school work. This bill will allow for local alcohol plans to be developed. It will allow local people to have an impact on the consent process and so it should. 
It is also ridiculous to think back to a time when this Parliament decided that we should all start to drink like the French do turning a blind eye to the alcoholism problem that they have in their country which is far more significant than it is in our country and trying to address for instance our binge drinking culture by way of legislation. The point has already been well made that legislation will not change that culture and that only a change of attitude will. The bill seeks then to impose liability on parents and caregivers for the alcohol that they supply to minors. It requires that if they are to supply alcohol to minors who are not their children then they need to have a positive authorisation to do that from the parents and caregivers of those minors. At the moment we live in a country where if a parent wants to put on a birthday party for his or her 16-year-old child that 16-year-old can invite all his or her friends and the parent can put a pallet of booze in the garage say “Go to it.” and commit no offence. 
Traditionally the laws on the sale of liquor within this country have been a dog’s breakfast. What happens is that Governments periodically titivate around the edges of them trying to tinker with them and every few years they have to have a major overhaul. In respect of what has been done in the last few years this legislation is a major overhaul. It may well be that members on the other side of the House are not happy with how far this bill goes but it is significant. It addresses for instance retail outlets the hours during which alcohol can be sold and the supermarket component of the alcohol industry which has grown to such a proportion that 70 percent of the alcohol consumed in this country is bought from supermarkets. It then tries to deal with the quandary of the fact that supermarkets are the most compliant sellers of takeaway alcohol in the country in terms of not serving to under-age or intoxicated people but at the same time they must bear the responsibility of having supplied through their retail outlets the vast amount of alcohol that does cause problems for our law enforcement agencies our families and our social agencies. 
This bill also seeks to deal with the conundrum of ready-to-drinks or RTDs which have become very much the gateway product of choice for young people who are starting to drink. Mature adults supposedly who are in charge of companies have made alcohol and advertised it as alcohol that does not taste like alcohol—alcohol that tastes like lolly water—in order to entice people to start drinking alcohol at a young age and to then maintain them as clients of their particular brand. This bill seeks to limit the alcohol content of ready-to-drinks to 5 percent—to limit it to one and a half standard drinks. Within the select committee we expect to have some discussion on that and some concerns will be raised by the alcohol sector. But the other thing we must also recognise is that every different part of the alcohol sector is standing there pointing at another part of that sector and saying it is the one to blame. In fact this bill seeks to limit the activities of every part of the sector and to deal with those parts as a group which is a good thing. 
I take issue with some points made by speakers on behalf of the ACT Party and the Progressive party. I find it to be absolutely abhorrent that someone who has been in Parliament from the early 1980s and who has stood and maybe voted in certain ways but who has largely taken no public role in condemning the use of alcohol for well over 25 years then seeks to call people who are involved in the wine industry or the retail grocery industry drug pushers. I find that absolutely ridiculous. I also take issue with the ACT Party which is prepared to push and promote the “three strikes” legislation which largely deals with people who commit offences against another person while under the influence of alcohol. That party wants to further liberalise the alcohol laws and will not vote for this bill which seeks to constrain people when they are sourcing alcohol the very firewater that creates those offences in the first place. 
It is also important to note something in respect of the comments made by the Green Party and Maori Party with regard to infringement offences. Currently the law on the liquor bans that operate all around this country is such that a power of arrest goes with them. At various times of the year—for instance New Year’s Eve—we have a situation in some of our resorts whereby 160 170 or maybe 200 people are arrested because they had liquor in an open container in a public place. They are taken back to the police station and confined in a cell for several hours then let go. This bill seeks to create an infringement offence for that matter so that that detention is not required. At the same time it allows for a short-term power of arrest so that such people can be dealt with but then given an infringement notice and let go without needing to go through the process of being fingerprinted and photographed so as to streamline the infringement on their liberty. 
I note that there has been a negative New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report from the Attorney-General on this bill. I look forward to dealing with the issues raised in it during the select committee process and I have no doubt those issues will be debated vociferously within the committee. I would expect that to occur. We discussed this morning the prospect of this bill coming before the committee. We are all looking forward to dealing with it at a number of locations around the country and to receiving submissions from the many people who will want to engage with the committee in this debate. Thank you.