Kedgley Sue: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kedgley Sue: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21201. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the Alcohol Reform Bill too even though we do not think it goes nearly far enough. We congratulate Chester Burrows on his impartial chairing of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the thousands of New Zealanders who took time to make submissions on this bill. 
It is interesting that in all the articles and all the commentary that have been written about this bill I have not come across one commentator who believes that the bill goes far enough. Even Michael Laws said in a column the other day that the bill was simply too watered down to have an impact. Tapu Misa said in her column: “The Government has … diluted [the Law Commission’s recommendations] into an insipid ineffectual brew to make us feel like something is being done.” She said: “If I were in the alcohol industry I’d count the updated Alcohol Reform Bill as a win.” That sadly is the reality. All the way through this debate we have seen that tug of war between vested interests and the public interest between the liquor industry the hospitality industry and the food industry on the one hand and on the other hand Alcohol Action and the health professionals who have to pick up the pieces that result from alcohol abuse. So far to this day the vested interests have been wining hands down and we assume that that is because the Government is simply not prepared to get offside with these vested interests. 
I spoke to Sir Geoffrey Palmer the other day and he is clearly extremely disappointed that the key recommendations of his report such as price have been rejected. He pointed out at the time that the Law Commission report is a package; if we want real change then one has to accept the whole comprehensive report the package of reforms and not simply cherry-pick them. But the ironic thing is that in diluting the Law Commission’s recommendations to the point where they will not be effective the Government is completely out of step with public opinion which is actually clamouring for political leadership on this issue. People are simply fed up with the havoc and the destruction that alcohol is causing in our society—the violence the injury and the hospital admissions. People are demanding a tougher regime. 
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians said recently that given the incredible harm that alcohol causes in our society—and it pointed out more than 1000 deaths a year costing the health system $1.2 billion in direct costs from dealing with alcohol—it cannot understand why its key recommendations to combat the ultra-cheap price of alcohol and the irresponsible marketing of alcohol had not been included in the bill. But there is still time and we are still hoping that the Government will realise that it has seriously miscalculated public opinion on this issue and that it will support some of the changes we will be putting up as amendments to strengthen the bill. 
We do need to remind ourselves that alcohol is a drug a legalised drug—the equivalent we are told of a class B drug—so it does seem odd that we would allow a legal drug to be sold 24/7 right around the clock in virtually every dairy and supermarket in the land. The number of outlets selling alcohol has doubled in the last decade to the point where there are now more than 14000 outlets selling it. In fact one submitter to the Justice and Electoral Committee said there were far more alcohol outlets in New Zealand than there were in Australia despite the fact we have only about one-fifth of Australia’s population. 
It is extraordinary too that we have allowed this legalised drug to be heavily marketed and advertised including to teenagers and young people. We do not allow morphine to be advertised and promoted and targeted at children so why do we allow the legal drug alcohol to be especially when there is compelling evidence that alcohol advertising encourages people to start drinking at a younger age and to drink to excess? There is so much liquor advertising on television that 90 percent of children are exposed to alcohol advertising not to mention marketing on television every week. It is not surprising that alcohol advertising normalises and glamorises drinking and makes young people think it is cool and sexy to drink. It is hardly surprising that there is intense peer group pressure on teenagers to drink or that it has got to a point where young people think that they actually have to drink to be cool and to enjoy life and that actually not drinking at a party is abnormal uncool and even nerdy. In our view we will never reduce our binge drinking culture if the saturation advertising marketing and sponsorship of alcohol continues unabated. We want to see a tobacco-style prohibition on all alcohol advertising across all media and a phasing out of the alcohol sponsorship of and advertising at sporting and cultural events. 
There is also compelling evidence that cheap alcohol encourages people to drink more often and in large amounts yet we allow supermarkets to sell alcohol so cheaply—at below the cost of production—that young people can go to their supermarket and load up every weekend with their 20-pack of beer for about $15. Submitter after submitter said to the select committee—just as Sir Geoffrey Palmer did—that price was the single most important issue in reducing our binge drinking culture. Submitters pointed out that alcohol is sold so cheaply in supermarkets that even liquor outlets and bars can buy their alcohol more cheaply in a supermarket than they can from a wholesaler—how ridiculous is that? Yet this amended bill does nothing to stop supermarkets from engaging in that predatory practice of selling alcohol below the cost of production to entice young customers into their shop. 
Supermarkets told us in the select committee: “Oh no we are not selling liquor below the cost of production.” But when we probed that in a secret hearing the supermarkets had to basically admit that they had created a complex system of rebates and discounts that enable them to sell liquor at below the cost of production even while they claim they do not. This Government readily admits that increasing the price of tobacco has been an effective strategy in reducing the number of smokers so why would we not use the same effective strategy to try to reduce the number of drinkers? Why would we have one rule for cigarettes and a completely different one for alcohol? It does not make sense. 
We support the proposal to allow local communities to develop local alcohol plans but we would point out that these plans will be able to be appealed by businesses and as Doug Sellman has pointed out thousands of New Zealanders will have to put in a huge grind. They are going to have to turn up to hearing after hearing against a well-heeled alcohol industry and its high-flying lawyers. So as he pointed out it could take years to bring any real change in the number of liquor outlets in New Zealand or to reduce the number of hours during which they operate. 
Other issues that we think are tremendously important include warning labels on alcohol particularly about foetal alcohol damage. We have warnings on cigarettes and tobacco products; why not on alcohol? It is almost incomprehensible that the legislation does not lower the drink-driving limit. It allows people to drive around intoxicated. We strongly support the Government’s stated intention of a 5 percent limit on the content of ready-to-drinks and we consider the threats from Independent Liquor that it will challenge our ruling and continue to import liquor over that limit as an outrageous breach of our sovereignty and an outrageous attempt to circumvent our laws. 
The Green Party is divided on the issue of the age of purchase—we will be exercising a conscience vote—but in general we think that the drinking age is not a main issue because alcohol is a problem in all age groups. Ninety-two percent of heavy drinkers are aged 20 or over. It is just too easy to divert the debate into one about the drinking age when it affects every age group. We think we need to address alcohol as a social problem not a youth problem. The reality is that excessive drinking particularly in adulthood is contributing to crime injury family violence and sexual assaults. I think it is 80 to 90 percent of prisoners who have alcohol or drug-related problems. New Zealanders are fed up. They want real action. I appeal to the Government that it is not too late to take some real action.