Rich Katherine: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5430] 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 It is with great delight and enthusiasm that I stand to speak to the debate on the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. I would like to answer a question that was put to the Minister by Mr Gerrard Eckhoff when he was asking about the differences in alcohol but I say: “Alcohol is alcohol is alcohol.” That is one of the things overlooked by Mr Copeland. So it does not matter what percentage it is; alcohol is alcohol. I lasted for about 6 weeks in sixth-form chemistry and I remember the chemical structure of alcohol which we studied with great interest. It does not matter what the level of alcohol is; in a drink it makes no difference. It has been a real education listening to the debate tonight; and in looking at the vast array of alcohol bottles behind me I realise how far the entire industry has moved on since that great decade—the 1980s. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why won’t he answer the questions? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I do not know why he has not answered. He may be asleep. I would like to go back to the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the member is referring to the Minister please refer to him as the Minister or Jim Anderton. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The Minister is awake. I see how far the industry has moved on because in the 1980s it was a huge innovation when Miami Wine Cooler was introduced. I recall the same sort of debate. It was argued that the alcohol industry was targeting my age group which was supposedly mindless and unable to make our own decisions. Of course it was not the point of the—[ 
Interruption 
] Would Mr Peters like to take the call? Miami Wine Cooler was one of the great innovations of the 1980s—the time when there was “big hair”. Jeepers! Mr Prebble was even in Cabinet during that magnificent decade! In terms of how the industry had moved on yes it was a decade of great innovation. 
I want to get back to some of the contributions made by United Future. I want to discuss Jimmy. Does everybody remember the boy with his $10 pocket money which was not much and he was going out for a night on the town? I must say though that Jimmy had obviously learnt something because he was going out to look for value for money which I thought was quite an innovative attribute for someone so young. 
But I have to say that things have not changed much if one looks down through the generations. The complaints of adults—in particular middle-class adults—have not changed much. This bill is one of those prime examples of middle-class do-gooding. It will not make one iota of difference to the kids out there. They will still go out and try various things. Hopefully they will make good decisions but in terms of what this bill will do it has been dressed up presented as something that will make a huge difference to the youth. I concur with some of my colleagues: I have not yet met a teenager who consumes sherry. I admit I often sit down with my nana at the end of the day and have a sherry and she will be very upset next time she goes to replenish her alcohol cabinet because sherry has skyrocketed in price according to some members of the House. 
In terms of education I have learnt about a number of other alcoholic beverages. The Hon Roger Sowry made an inspired speech about Madeira. Who knew about Madeira before Roger Sowry so enthusiastically publicised it up and down the country? I suspect that tomorrow there will be a rush on Madeira as people flock to the shops to try this new alcoholic drink promoted by Mr Sowry. 
It has also been a bit of an eye-opener looking at some of the other alcoholic beverages—some of these bottles behind me are all empty unfortunately having obviously been tipped out by good members of Parliament who would not bring that sort of thing into the Chamber. I can see now why there has been such an excited debate when people look at the vast array of opportunity out there. In terms of what this bill is designed to do it is nothing more than a tax grab.