Quinn Paul: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: Alcohol Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I preface my contribution by acknowledging the harm that alcohol causes in our society; that has been alluded to during the course of this debate on the Alcohol Reform Bill. 
One of the things that I understand and am told about politics is that it is about the exchange of ideas. In my view when exchanging ideas it is very important that those ideas are based on fact and not mistruths and rhetoric. Sadly this debate on alcohol reform is riddled with mistruths and rhetoric. We heard the contribution from the Green Party member Sue Kedgley who repeatedly said that supermarkets sell alcohol as loss leaders. She knows full well that the pricing lists were provided to the Justice and Electoral Committee as well as the discount regimes that they provide depending on volume. I have them in front of me. Yet she insisted on in my view misleading this House by saying that supermarkets sell alcohol as loss leaders. 
The other point that I will note was made by Chester Borrows. Two things surprised me about the submissions. I say in response to the urgings of Lianne Dalziel in this debate and the praise that she gave to Geoffrey Palmer that my suggestion to Geoffrey Palmer was that he did not need to spend thousands and thousands of dollars travelling the country to find out and inform himself about alcohol. All he had to do was open up his window on to Roxburgh Street and take a whiff of the air or walk 2 minutes down the road—it is all downhill as Charles Chauvel knows—to Courtenay Place. He would then have found out the problems with alcohol. But no. Typical Geoffrey Palmer was bludging on the taxpayer doing a roadshow around New Zealand and then producing a report full of rhetoric. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would not normally do this but those last comments—although I know they were not directed at a member of this House but to a former Prime Minister and now the head of our Law Commission who has provided an independent report to the Government on the subject matter of this debate—were completely out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not persuaded at this point that they are. Can I just ask the person controlling the sound to moderate that a little bit in this instance as well. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the comment from Mr Quinn earlier that my colleague Sue Kedgley was misleading the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that the member who was speaking was referring to the information given. I do not think with the way in which he couched that comment that any slur was intended. That is my interpretation. I listened very carefully. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: May I speak to the point of order? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have ruled on it but I will hear the member. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: My understanding and we could check the record in due course is that he said that in full knowledge of information that was supplied to the committee she made a comment that in his view was misleading the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that is a debating point. 
PAUL QUINN 
: An overwhelming impression is left with me from the select committee process. I should say that the days of passing judgment based on the roar of the coliseum are way gone. I would have thought that if anyone would know that it would be the Green Party members. But as Chester Borrows said two things stood out. One was that everyone blamed everyone else. Of course the classic was Mr Bruce Robertson the hospitality industry representative. He said: “Not us; blame the supermarkets.” Everyone blamed the supermarkets. 
The other thing that stood out was to “Do as I say not as I do.” The classic example of that for me was when five doctors turned up and espoused the view that alcohol sales should be banned from supermarkets. Charles Chauvel was chairing the meeting and after everyone had had their go I quietly asked how many of them drink. Four of them put their hand up. Then I asked where they buy their alcohol from. They said it was the supermarkets. I said: “The supermarkets? You want me to ban it from supermarkets because you cannot stop yourself buying it from the supermarkets.” They said that it was not them; they were saving the young people. This was the problem with the whole of the submissions. Everyone blamed everyone else. 
Here is another classic. We heard a lot about the Law Commission report. In the report there are three pages— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Have you read it? 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yes I have. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The whole lot? 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yes I have. There are three pages dedicated to licensing trusts. Only two licensing trusts in New Zealand still have monopoly sale rights. One is in Southland and the other is in Waitakere. The statistics out of Southland on the licensing trusts show—and this is from research from the Parliamentary Library—that the rate of alcohol-related violent crime in Southland is 36 percent. In the Southern Police District which takes in a much wider group it is 31 percent. The national average is 33 percent. In other words in an area where alcohol is sold only through licensing authority outlets—no supermarkets can sell it—there is actually a higher violent crime rate yet everyone is blaming the supermarkets. 
I say that if we are going to actually get a paradigm shift in our drinking culture then let us focus on the facts. There is no simple solution—I agree. In fact I often think that the simplest solution to this problem and the way to get a paradigm shift is probably to increase the age to about 25. Will that ever happen? No. In fact in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
we saw a new theory. The latest theory in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
is that research shows the link to poor parenting. Do members see? I ask them to tell me what the reality is. This is the sort of rhetoric that goes around. 
Here is just one last example by Garth George from the  
New Zealand Herald.  
I am sorry about this I say to Derek. Garth said on 16 June that the Law Commission alcohol report “recommended raising the legal drinking age to 20.” It did no such thing. It actually recommended that the purchase age be raised to 20. Even the commentators cannot get it right. I say let us focus on the real facts and try to reach a long-lasting solution. Thank you.