Copeland Gordon: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6350] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 There is an old saying that the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions and there is a similar saying in this Parliament that very often changes to the law are accompanied by the law of unintended consequences. It is quite clear now as Dr Wayne Mapp explained in his speech that when the drinking age was reduced in 1999 from 20 to 18 an unintended consequence flowed from that action. I refer to the fact that it was overlooked at that stage that when the drinking age was dropped to 18 for the first time in New Zealand’s history people who were within our secondary school system were included. That was the unintended consequence; that was the thing that was not picked up in 1999. It is a very very important point to ponder because that reality opened up for 14 15 16 and 17-year-olds a new route of alcohol supply. 
I will explain to the House exactly how it works. This is not based on evidence that has come from the Dunedin school of medicine and it has not come from alcohol or drug counsellors of any sort; this is evidence that has come from the thousands of parents across this country who have teenage children. If I speak to those parents who have children at secondary school they say to me: “Gordon this is how it works.” They tell me that kids of 14 or 15 pool their money approach an 18-year-old they know who is in the seventh form and say: “When you go to the supermarket to buy your booze would you please add to your quantities some booze for us and we will give you $5 or $10 for your trouble.” That is what is happening that is why we have a new supply route for these young people and that is what we need to bring to an end. 
Some say that binge drinking has always occurred in New Zealand. I would like each member of Parliament tonight to think back to his or her own secondary school days to see whether that is true. When I think back to my secondary school days I conclude that at 14 15 16 and 17 we basically had an alcohol-free secondary education. We started getting into booze after we had left school. Apart from private consumption with parents and family basically when I was at secondary school we were not into binge drinking at that age. That situation has changed since we lowered the drinking age. [ 
Interruption 
] 
OK then let me ask members this question individually: when each member was at school was he or she aware of binge drinking amongst 14 and 15-year-olds—yes or no? That is just a question members can answer on their own consciences. People who are listening to this debate can answer that question. But binge drinking did not occur before we dropped the drinking age to 18. 
I want to move on therefore to the Supplementary Order Paper proposing the split age which I have signalled to all members of Parliament I will be introducing to the House at the Committee stage. It is very simple in its application. It simply says that if a person is 18 he or she can purchase alcohol in a bar or restaurant but that person cannot purchase alcohol from a supermarket or a liquor store etc. until he or she is 20. That Supplementary Order Paper is designed to stop the supply route to young people from 18-year-olds who are in the secondary school system. 
I was quite surprised today to receive a letter from the president of the Otago Polytechnic student union. In that letter which I believe was sent to every MP the president said: “We support the split-age proposal.” That letter was from a significant tertiary educational institution in our country and its union says that it supports the split age as proposed. I thought about that for a moment and I thought that it makes perfect sense. There is no 18 19 or 20-year-old in the country who would dispute the split-age proposal. Why? Those young people know very well that their supply of alcohol will continue uninterrupted under that proposal. I urge members to think it through for a moment. 
Young people can get a drink in a bar or restaurant when they are 18—status quo. Do they have a problem with supply outside of those premises? The answer is no. Why? Their mates—some of them—will be 20 or they will know people who are 20. The same supply route will be coming from 20-year-olds down to 18-year-olds as we now have from 18-year-olds down to 16-year-olds but the difference is that it will stop at that age. That is the really important point that I want members of this Parliament— 
Hon Members 
: How? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I have just explained it to members. I will take them through it again because people are asking “How?”. If members have not understood it I say for them to please ask the people of New Zealand afterwards or the parents of teenage kids and they will explain it to members. I tell them to ask the 18 19 and 20-year-olds and they will explain it to members. They will tell them how it works. To the people who do not understand it I have to tell them in all honesty that they are out of touch. They should get back in touch with the way these things work. 
Let us come to the binge-drinking culture in New Zealand. Everybody in this Parliament says that we have to do something about the binge-drinking culture in New Zealand. I say to members tonight that voting for the second reading of this legislation—so that it can proceed to the Committee stage and we can look at the technicalities; we can look at the split-age proposal—will of itself help to bring to an end the binge-drinking culture in this country. 
It is a ridiculous proposition to say that we will retain the status quo but we have a worry about the binge-drinking culture. If members are genuine and sincere about that they should change the status quo. The people of New Zealand expect Parliament to show some leadership and some backbone on that issue. It is very very difficult for any MP with any credibility to say: “Oh no no. I am against binge drinking but I am not going to change the status quo. I am going to oppose this bill here tonight.” I will tell members why it is not credible. The polls clearly show that 67 percent of New Zealanders want the drinking age increased back to 20. It is also important to look at the gender breakdown of those polls because 72 percent of women say that they want the age taken back to 20. I say to the National Party in particular—because it is well-known that that party has a problem with women voters—that if it wants to get women voters back on its side then National members should think very very seriously about how they vote tonight because 72 percent of New Zealand women will listen to what National members say tonight note their votes tomorrow morning and keep that in mind when it comes to elections in a few years’ time. 
Other surveys have also been done which indicate that as many as 74 percent of New Zealanders want the drinking age raised to 20. I refer to a study that was undertaken by Massey University and significantly in that study 79 percent—almost 80 percent—of New Zealand women wanted the drinking age raised. So I say that members need to bear those realities in mind. Let me say also to the Labour Party that if this is a conscience vote in Parliament then Labour members are free to follow their consciences. But I tell them that if they do not alter the drinking age during their watch in this Parliament then that fact will also register with voters when it comes to the election in 2008. 
People have talked tonight about the need for parental education. I must say that I am absolutely horrified when I read in some of the material I have been sent that we have a problem with 10-year-olds drinking in this country. It really raises again the issue that surely there can be no more important priority for the Parliament of New Zealand than to get much more involved in parental education. There is a colossal breakdown of parental responsibility if 10-year-olds are able to drink and obviously they are getting alcohol through their family situations. 
I ask quite frankly of members tonight whether they are going to wimp out on this bill. Are they going to wimp out on the needs of the 14 15 and 16-year-olds in our country or not? Are they going to wimp out based on the fact that the Government has promised some review at about 1 minute to midnight? And just before the debate started we had two Ministers say that they are going to do a review. Well I tell those Ministers that that is great. They should do a review but they should do it after we have taken a vote on this bill after we have got it to the Committee stage and after—I hope—we have adopted the split-age proposal which actually resolves most of the difficulties mentioned here tonight. Certainly for those people who quibble about little technicalities in the bill as reported back by the select committee I tell them there is a thing called the Committee stage to come and those issues can be ironed out at that stage. 
I urge members in all sincerity not to let the young people of this country down and not to let their families down. We have received as a Parliament a cry for help and we should respond to it. I say to everyone here tonight that if they do indeed think that the split-age proposal has some merit then they need to vote for the second reading of this bill tonight. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Mark Blumsky. This is a 5-minute call shared with David Carter; call 4.