O'Rourke Denis: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7283. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly regarding Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 122 it covers beers wines and mead containing more than 5 percent alcohol by volume sold in a container holding more than 1.5 standard drinks. New Zealand First supports this Supplementary Order Paper as one of the most effective measures so far advanced in this debate. I congratulate Phil Goff on proposing it. These sweet easy to drink ready-to-drinks and similar drinks are well known to be harmful because large quantities can be easily consumed especially by young people. The sugar levels are very high. There is at least 5 percent alcohol in them and they can be treated like a soft drink and therefore lead far too easily to severe intoxication. They are pushed and priced to sell by alcohol producers and sellers. They are condemned by the experts and the Law Commission as among the drinks most potentially harmful to the young. 
The Government says that it has got assurances that the alcohol industry wants the chance to introduce its own measures to limit the production and sale of these drinks. But that does not explain why regulations under this proposed section 382A would hinder that. By providing a level playing field requiring all industry operators such regulations would assist not hinder industry cooperation. 
The industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing anyway. Otherwise why would it not have done it already? It is very uncertain what the industry will do without the guidance of regulations. It is the Government’s job to regulate; it is not the industry’s job. There is no need to wait and see by the Government. It should pass this Supplementary Order Paper and then move quickly to do the regulations required under it. 
With regard to Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of Sue Moroney to regulate to prescribe warning labels on alcohol drinks to warn of health risks especially to babies while a mother is pregnant it is harmless promotes information and promotes good health. Governments in New Zealand and Australia have already warned the industry of the need so just do it now. New Zealand supports this. It should go ahead. 
 However Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of Maryan Street to impose a health levy on off-licences and to apply the proceeds to help fund alcohol-related services is not something that New Zealand First could support. Although the Law Commission recommended price as a disincentive the levy would have to be very high to actually be effective and the flaw is that the levy applies to the premises generally and not to alcohol content which is what should be targeted. Such a levy could actually perversely encourage the sale of higher alcohol content drinks and so will be opposed by New Zealand First. 
Supplementary Order Paper 108 would remove excise duty on drinks with less than 2.5 percent alcohol by volume. Unfortunately as I have already said price is a blunt instrument and is unlikely to be effective and that amendment is also opposed by New Zealand First. 
Supplementary Order Paper 130 would increase excise duty by 50 percent across the board. New Zealand First’s concern is that this would do immense harm to New Zealand’s wine industry which is already struggling to remain competitive. So although this is a Law Commission recommendation New Zealand First is very much opposed to that proposal. 
Finally Government Supplementary Order Paper 132 is supported by New Zealand First. Provisions such as that concerning the display and promotion of alcohol in supermarkets and grocery stores are welcome are appropriate and should be supported. Similarly New Zealand First supports the amendment to clause 35A. Determining whether premises are a grocery store or not is something that also needs attention. 
In conclusion I would like to return to Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 122 and commend that to the Committee. Like others I would call upon the Government to put politics aside and look closely at that Supplementary Order Paper because it is the one thing that can really make a very big difference. Those ready-to-drinks need control regulation—not waiting for the industry to do the right thing. It has not done so so far. We need a level playing field. That Supplementary Order Paper in the interests of all this nation’s young people needs to be supported needs to be passed.