Mapp Wayne: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20512] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will be supporting this bill to the Law and Order Committee. I did note that the Hon Phil Goff sought a call and I want to make a comment about that. Phil Goff Matt Robson and I were all on the Justice and Law Reform Committee in 1999. We heard the evidence considered it and—at least in two of our cases—actually voted to reduce the age limit which was then 20 to 18. I acknowledge that Mr Goff did not do that and that Mr Robson and I have changed our minds. 
There are good reasons for doing that. After 6 years it is time to re-examine the situation properly look at the evidence and give the public the chance to make their submissions to this Parliament. I say to those members who might be considering not supporting this bill that if they vote against it they are denying the public the opportunity to make submissions to the select committee. They are denying Parliament the opportunity to weigh those submissions and the evidence and to modify the bill in ways that might be appropriate—in short to review the decision of 6 years ago in light of new evidence and circumstances. 
I am one of those who do not support the bill in the way it is written. Parts of the bill do not adequately capture the situation but select committees are set up to deal with those issues and I noted that Mr Robson acknowledged that point. But one cannot even consider that issue unless the bill goes to the select committee. So I urge those members who are saying that we should stick with the decision of 1999 to think again and to give the public to give themselves and to give the new Parliament—because it will be a new Parliament that finally votes on this bill—the chance to reconsider. 
I specifically sought the call tonight because I was a member of the Justice and Law Reform Committee. In that select committee we heard substantial evidence from a wide variety of sources and in some respects we neglected a critical consideration. It took several months before this even emerged through the evidence. The situation in 1999 was that 18-years-olds could go to any bar or restaurant throughout this entire country unaccompanied by an adult—and I stress that—and they could drink. The only requirement was that they had to have what was referred to in those times as a “substantial meal”. In reality that was chips or nachos. So we actually had a drinking age of 18 in on-licence premises: bars restaurants and clubs. Because of that the select committee by a majority recommended to Parliament that it change what was then effectively a de facto age of 18 to a de jure age of 18 and we did that. We also recommended strengthening the identification criteria which I think is now widely acknowledged to be abused and a lot of fraudulent cards and driver’s licences have become part of that. 
Where the select committee failed—and it was not deliberate; it was essentially through ignorance—was that we did not make an adequate distinction between on-licence premises and off-licence premises. The reality—and a proper review of the evidence might bear this out—is that whilst there may be some problems in on-licence premises they are not nearly of the magnitude of the problems in off-licence premises. As the submitters said in 1999—and they have been proven to be right—if we change the age to 18 we effectively open the gate to 16-year-olds 15-year-olds and younger. The majority of the Parliament was inclined to dismiss that claim. In fact the parliamentarians were wrong and the submitters were right. We know from practical experience that that is exactly what happened. 
I acknowledge that Mr Robson has done the right thing by this Parliament and has given us the opportunity to review that move. The reason is just simple human dynamics. 
Although 18-year-olds have 16-year-old friends by and large 20-year-olds do not. That is a fact of life. So 18-year-olds can readily be prevailed upon by their 15 and 16-year-old friends to buy them alcohol and they do that. They go to liquor stores and supermarkets and buy alcohol which is then consumed by their young friends. We know the reality of the problems. Mr Robson has done a very good job of pointing out the scientific evidence about binge drinking and the increase in consumption of alcohol by those who are 15 and 16—something I might add that parliamentarians did not want to happen but in reality has happened. The only way we can deal with this is to refer the bill to the select committee to hear that evidence. 
Some time ago a newspaper polled members of Parliament and I think most members responded. We had to choose between the ages of 18 20 and in some cases a mixed age. I happen to be one of those who said: “Split the age.” In reality the problem is not nearly so significant in bars and restaurants. I will be persuaded by the evidence on that. But I am very aware of the serious problems to do with off-licences—liquor stores and supermarkets. I would like to take at least some personal credit for ensuring that supermarkets do not sell hard spirits and alcopops. I moved the particular amendment to that effect and at least that was carried. But it has not been enough. 
Rod Donald 
: What about wine? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I actually knew people in the armed forces—young men—who killed themselves through drinking spirits. That was a pretty tragic situation. Two young men who did not know how to handle liquor—if one can put it that way—died as a result of their consumption of spirits. It could not happen with beer or with wine but the concentration of alcohol in spirits is such that people can literally drink themselves to death in the course of an evening and it has happened. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: They can do that at any age. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes that is true but we have made it worse. I say to my colleague Dr Smith that the change in the law has made it worse and that we as a Parliament need to fix that. So we do have an obligation to look again at that decision. The select committee with all the best intentions thought it was doing the right thing. In some respects at least we were not. 
My normal practice is to poll the electorate I represent North Shore to ask their views. In 1999 the choice between an age limit of 18 or 20 resulted in an extremely close call. It was not a close call on Sunday trading; there was overwhelming support for that. But on the issue of an age limit of 18 or 20 the result was an extremely close call. Because of the short time frame in which this bill has come up there has not really been an opportunity to conduct a subsequent poll. But based on the calls I receive and the views of people I speak to many of those who 6 years ago supported the change to 18 would now like that issue to be reviewed. 
This Parliament owes it to the people of New Zealand to review the law to assess whether we got it right or whether we got it wrong. Tonight parliamentarians—the 120 members in this House—get the opportunity to give the people of New Zealand that chance. I ask my colleagues at least to vote for the bill to go to the select committee. Defects in the bill which Mr Robson acknowledges can be fixed at that stage. But at least we should allow that reconsideration.