O'Rourke Denis: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9730. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this bill. The two corrections it makes are OK: firstly permitting low and non-alcohol beer wine and mead to be displayed for sale in a single area of supermarkets and secondly clarifying that any company can hold a licence under the Act. But big deal! What a pathetic little bill when you think about the magnitude of the harm that alcohol abuse does in this country. This bill is just tinkering when what is really needed is a full overhaul of the 2012 legislation which was itself a piece of legislation that was so changed so altered so reduced and is now so pathetic that it really did not make much difference and the problems that it sought to address are still with us.The truth is that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 had generated at that time very high expectations amongst the public that those reforms would be comprehensive and would make a difference as was in fact recommended by the Law Commission. Those expectations were grossly not met. This Government’s attempts over all these recent years at the reforms needed around alcohol have been an utter and complete failure. The drinking culture amongst the young is getting worse not better. The big commercial interests in alcohol are obviously feeling very satisfied with this Government whose arm they have twisted up its back. They will be well and truly off the hook and doing well as an alcohol industry all because of the utter inaction and pathetic response of this Government to the public’s expectations of realistic reform. The 2012 Act was an opportunity lost for meaningful and effective reform. It was an opportunity to turn back the tide of alcohol abuse especially amongst the young.In New Zealand First’s view there are a number of things that this bill should now be doing instead of these pathetic little measures which will make little or no difference. Amongst those there were three particular things that we in New Zealand First felt needed attention. I might say that we did not treat those matters as conscience issues—we were unified. We knew what we wanted as a party and we said it at the time. These were those three things: the first was the failure to return the age for purchasing alcohol to 20 years. That would have really resulted in a significant reduction in consumption by that age group. It would have given them also a good signal that they needed to try to change the culture of binge drinking that has developed amongst that age group and that continues unchecked today.The second matter was the failure to deal with the problem of those ready-to-drinks—those sugary alcohol-loaded easy-to-drink beverages that are so popular amongst the young and that can get them so drunk so quickly. Their sugar levels are very high. The drinks are very attractive and yet very harmful.This bill should be attending to some of those things not just what can be presented and how in a supermarket. What we are seeing is that those problem drinks are still being pushed and are not being limited. They are condemned by the experts and the Law Commission itself. They are the most potentially harmful to young people. Those are the things that this bill is not addressing. Instead it is addressing what can be displayed on supermarket shelves. Well that is pathetic. It is not enough.The third issue—and others have mentioned it—is the need for targeted minimum pricing. I would say to Mr Bishop that nobody ever intended to increase the price of wine but other alcohol drinks should have minimum pricing and that can be done through excise taxes and other means. It would have been worthwhile. The Law Commission recommended it. Other experts recommended it. Mr Bishop may not understand it but that just means that he does not understand the issues.Chris Bishop: I understand it perfectly well Denis.DENIS O’ROURKE: That just means he does not understand the issues and he thinks the experts and the Law Commission are wrong. In fact it is he and his party who are wrong.I will finish on this. Although this pathetic little bill is supportable—it does some good; hardly any—it will not be noticed it will not make any difference and the problem will still get worse whether it is passed or not. Much much more is needed by this Government and hopefully the next time it looks at alcohol reform it will do something worthwhile.