Key John: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Key John: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5435] 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I feel quite proud of myself because yesterday I bought a bottle of port in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol range from one of the wineries in my electorate. 
John Carter 
: You should have bought the case. 
JOHN KEY 
: I do now wish I had bought the case but I feel I somehow had a premonition that this Labour Government was going to add to the tax. I am quite proud of myself. 
This bill is not about stopping young people from drinking alcohol in the 14 to 23 percent proof range. That is not what this is about. If it were Government members would have a whole wad of things they might like to do to stop young people from drinking harder liquor. If they have not thought about those things then maybe I can make a few suggestions. At 5 past 3 in the morning they are no doubt all ears. 
The first thing they could do as Mr Carter predicted is simply increase the age at which young people are eligible to drink alcohol. But that is not happening because no revenue is raised by doing that. The second thing they could do is increase the amount of money they spend on education for young people in this country to help them understand what will happen if they consume excess amounts of alcohol. But that costs money; it does not raise it. So that is not on the Government’s agenda here tonight. The third thing Government members could do is spend more money on policing so that the rules of the land that apply to excessive drinking by young people are adhered to and administered. They could spend more money on policing. With all the policing they have promised and with all the talking tough they did when they were in Opposition they could now front up and spend some money. But they will not do that; it costs money. This bill is all about raising money; it is not about costing the Government money. ID cards could be more heavily administered when young people go to buy alcohol. That could be another way for the Government to stop young people from drinking more alcohol. But that is not what is happening with this bill. 
Nor is this bill some sort of brilliant mathematical theory to stop young people from excessive drinking. If it is it is a pretty messed up theory of elasticity of demand. I want to take the Committee at this late hour through my reason for thinking that. It is very simple. Under the old model there was a price break for alcohol of less than 14 percent proof and there was a price break for alcohol of between 14 and 23 percent proof. There was also a price break for alcohol of above 23 percent proof. What the Government is doing by passing this legislation is very simple. It is eliminating the price break for alcohol of between 14 and 23 percent proof. The message to young people is that if they want to progress to harder liquor then it does not matter whether they drink something that is 15 percent proof or 35 percent proof. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No they’ll go higher. 
JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely. They will go all the way and take the really hard stuff. If the message from the Government is that we want to stop young people from drinking harder liquor then this is a pretty weird way of doing it. If Government members were really serious about encouraging young people then one of the things they could do is reduce the excise tax on ready-to-drinks on Tuis or on something else so that the price differential between those products and the high-alcohol products was greater. If that was their mathematical theory then that is what they could do. But they are not doing that. This Committee knows that this legislation is tax legislation. It is not a piece of social policy legislation; it is tax legislation. We know it is tax legislation because tax legislation gets whipped through the House under extraordinary urgency. It always has and it always will because that way the consumers—the mums and dads and the young people of New Zealand—do not have the chance to go out and stock up on Madeira port sherry and fortified wines. The Government sneaks in and makes the changes while it has the chance. This is not about social policy to help the young people of New Zealand; it is about a tax break.