Borrows Chester: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6087. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise just to address the Supplementary Order Papers that have been brought forward by members so far. I think it is important at the outset to speak to a number of ancillary points that have been raised in the course of this debate. The first one which was raised by the member David Clark talked about conscience votes. What Mr Clark did not have the opportunity to draw on was the discussions that occurred within the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last term of Government. It is important to note that in the whole course of those discussions it was accepted by people from across the parties represented there that there would probably be party votes on everything except age. That was very clearly where the select committee members went to with the knowledge of their wider parties. There was no suggestion that there were going to be conscience votes on anything other than the age question and that was the recommendation of the Law Commission’s report. This is the same Law Commission report that every spokesman from the Opposition draws out and holds up as the absolute gospel in respect of alcohol debate in this country and yet they have moved away from a sentinel part of that report: that parties nail their colours to the mast and vote as parties in respect of these matters. 
Another point that the Hon Lianne Dalziel raises consistently is what happened to her bill the bill she introduced when she was part of the last Labour Government prior to the 2008 election. It is important to note this point. Her bill was introduced to the House on 8 August 2008. The House rose on 23 September 2008 for an election. There were only 11 sitting days between 8 August and 23 September. What happened after that was the bill went on to the select committee and what happened after that was that the incoming National Government under the then Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power replaced the bill that we hear about from the Hon Lianne Dalziel with his own bill. That is not unusual. In fact it certainly happened under the Labour Government which replaced bills that the then National Government introduced prior to the 1999 election and rewrote them itself. I cite the victims legislation that the Hon Phil Goff as was his right replaced the Hon Tony Ryall’s bill with in respect of victims of crime. I lay out for those people who are interested—those people at home who are interested and those members who are newer to the House—that this is the way it is done and it is done by Governments of both colour like it or not. 
Another point that is interesting that was made by David Clark was around culture. Whether we want to accept it or not we have got a horrible culture of binge drinking in this country. It sticks to us like it does to the Aussies like it does to the North Americans and like it does to the Poms. But to try to overlay then another European culture’s approach to alcohol such as the Germans’ for instance and expect that that would be picked up would be exactly the same mistake that this Parliament made in the 1990s when it decided that we were all going to start drinking like the French like a friend of Mr Hague over there mentioned. I have some personal experience of this too. I have shared our house for the last year with my daughter-in-law who is a Slovakian who for some reason when she is making a coffee in the morning would put a slug of alcohol in it much to my astonishment. That was the way they did it. At the same time at 10 o’clock in the morning she might ask whether anyone else wants a beer. Well it was not even lunchtime. It was abhorrent to be drinking beer before lunchtime if you have just cut up a cord of wood as I am sure Mr Chair would attest to. In any event that is part of the culture. Having said that I would offer her a glass of wine at night and she would sit on it for 3 hours. It happens to be the culture of the way some countries drink. So to try to overlay those cultures into our culture is something that is totally different and we cannot do that in this country. 
We must remember in considering these Supplementary Order Papers that the biggest encourager in respect of drinking alcohol is personal role modelling that we do within our own homes and within our own environments and we should not try to walk away from that responsibility. 
In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 91 introduced by Mr Lees-Galloway which talks about banning billboards and poster advertisements within 300 metres of certain locations creating a new watershed time for alcohol advertising banning alcohol advertising in cinemas etc. it is important to note that the Government has already agreed to establish an expert forum to consider further restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship. Whereas we know that during the course of the select committee debates on both bills that were considered in the last term of Government there was a significant push against alcohol advertising and alcohol sponsorship it is also important to recognise that the evidence we were confronted with was also countered by others as well. I believe that it is an important thing for us to establish our own forum to report back initially within 12 months to have a look at how alcohol advertising influences the way people drink and their purchase behaviours in this country rather than overseas. What we know for instance within this country in respect of the rapid take-up of technology is that although there may still be advertising on our television screens at regular and frequent intervals after certain times people are watching less and less advertising as we have the ability to screen past it. 
In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 115 from Dr David Clark the Government will not support this Supplementary Order Paper because as mentioned the Government is setting up its own expert forum on alcohol advertising and sponsorship and it will consider whether further restrictions are needed to reduce alcohol-related harm. The forum will be established after the bill is passed and it will report back to the Minister of Health within a year. 
In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 81 from Te Ururoa Flavell the Government does not recommend supporting this proposal because there is little research about the effectiveness of these restrictions at reducing alcohol-related harm. Most of us would— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Oh come on! 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Ka pai bro. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: —give him a smack—agree that the advertising we see in respect of alcohol is ludicrous. We wonder how it can possibly be affected. But the point that he made quite well in his speech was that the alcohol companies would not be spending $150 million a year if it was not making some difference. However they tend to do that as they continually make the point that they are trying to establish a brand as opposed to starting people drinking. Well none of us are too sucked in by that. However I return to the fact that this Government wants to be able to have a look at its own research and create its own response to that. 
The member’s Supplementary Order Paper would also have a significant consequence for many clubs and organisations which would lose income. The responsibility for making transitional funding— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We’ve heard all this before. Benson and Hedges Rothmans—they all ran this argument every single one of them. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: —will be very expensive to a Government at a time when there is not a lot of money about. I do not know whether the member interjecting would even concede that bearing in mind that a lot of that money is going to parts of her electorate. 
These restrictions would be premature ahead of recommendations from the expert forum and that will be established after the passing of this bill.