Chadwick Steve: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6358] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 This will be just a very quick call because I certainly agree with the sentiments being expressed in the House tonight. This is a vexed question and here we are all concerned anxious and worried. We are a bit like the worried well looking to show that we have a hook to hang our hats on to show that we care about our kids. Well this bill is not that hook and I certainly will not be supporting it. 
I take exception to the idea that we women should vote to raise the drinking age to 20 just to get the women’s vote. We should be taking this issue really seriously and asking what the solutions to the problems of binge drinking and the supply of alcohol to minors are. I was a mother of three teenage children and yes it was a challenging time when they were under the age of 18. But my husband and I took that responsibility together as parents. We provided food at home and allowed our children to socialise at home. We made sure that they slept over when they spent nights with their friends and had a bit of alcohol. We also made sure that if they decided to go away—and they do sneak away—there was a sober driver. Those were the rules when young people came to our house and we never had a problem. I think more parents should show that kind of responsibility. It is not the age that matters here; it is the culture of support and the responsible attitude to drinking that we inculcate in our children. 
I grew up under the shadow of the intergenerational effects of the 6 o’clock swill. My father was an alcoholic and I loathed seeing him drunk when he came home every Friday night and could not balance the peas on his fork. I resolved then that I would be more open as a parent with my own children. I would teach them to be socially responsible to be able to handle alcohol and to not overindulge. We managed it in our own house under our supervision. I am astonished at this bill. Members think that putting the age up to 20 will solve this situation. There is nothing in this bill that will solve this problem. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Ban marijuana—that would be a good idea. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right; that is my next point. Let us look at the proliferation of liquor outlets that exists now. This bill does nothing about that. We should look at the mobility of our young kids. Let us talk about the statistics from the Dunedin school of medicine study. Cars are faster now. We had an old Austin A40—it could not go over 30 miles an hour—with a flagon in the back seat. I am not proud of that but we could not speed. They were not mean machines and they were not killing machines. We also have kids driving around with a lethal cocktail—a mix of cannabis P and alcohol—in their systems but are we being honest in the education we give our children about the cocktails and mixes of drugs that they are imbibing? 
This bill really worries me. I think it stigmatises young people. Every 2 years young people come to the Youth Parliament and say to us that they do not want the age raised. This bill ignores that. Its supporters think raising the age will help young people. In my community for every school ball this year there was not one problem afterwards. Why? Young children took responsibility. They had their after-ball parties and managed the effects of their partying after the ball. Why were those children not congratulated? No they are stigmatised and they become statistics. 
This bill is muddled. The amendments that I have heard about would make it even more muddled and murky. I will not support the bill and I certainly hope it does not pass its second reading tonight.