Lees-Galloway Iain: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Before I get under way I offer my congratulations to my colleague and friend Dr Rajen Prasad on becoming a grandfather for the first time today. Dr Prasad can see that the whole House is congratulating him and his family on the beautiful baby girl who has joined their family. 
But getting down to business I say I gave the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill quite serious thought because it is after all a conscience vote on the bill tonight although people may be surprised to hear that if they have just tuned into this debate. Earlier on in the debate Sandra Goudie made the slight mistake of using the word “we”. I do not know whether it was the royal “we” but she accidentally said: “We will not be supporting this bill.” I thought: “OK the National Party has had a bit of this lately. It doesn’t quite get around to telling its junior members exactly what its position is on everything.” After all that happened to Melissa Lee with regard to the Waterview extension. She was not quite told what National’s position was on it and then she was hung out to dry. I thought the use of the word “we” might show a lack of communication but then as the speeches went on we heard the same arguments being made over and over again. Obviously the National research unit did not produce very many notes on this bill so we heard the same arguments the same reasons for not voting in favour of this bill. 
Then the previous speaker Mr Bennett let that royal “we” slip in there again just by mistake I am sure. It was just a slip of the tongue. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It wasn’t a mistake. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It was not a mistake at all. It is not that the National caucus is not talking; actually the conversation at caucus probably went something along these lines: “We can’t whip you but here’s how you’re going to vote.” Members opposite have all been whipped into line even if just quietly— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been listening very intently since that gentleman rose to his feet but I have not heard one thing about the bill. All that he has spoken about so far is how supposedly National members are going to vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member makes a point but this debate does tend to be a little wider ranging than the member’s expectation. I would have to say that some other members have transgressed in that respect. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: This is a conscience vote and I know there have been some discussions of that. If I get time this evening I will refer to the Law Commission’s  
Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor  
and the commission’s thoughts on conscience voting to do with alcohol issues. 
This bill as we have discussed several times tonight does essentially two things: first it amends the watershed time for liquor advertising from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and second it seeks to transfer the jurisdiction for liquor advertising from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Mr Burns has put in a lot of work to make sure the Labour caucus is very well informed about the history of this bill. It was first introduced to the House by Matt Robson back in 2005. The torch was then passed to Martin Gallagher and it has now been passed to Brendon Burns. That is not a reflection at all on the quality of the bill; it is simply the nature of members’ bills I think. We have very few members’ days and members’ bills can languish at select committees. 
This is a good bill. It is a small step but a step very much in the right direction. We do have problems—not a problem but problems—with alcohol in this country and there is an expectation that we as politicians will be prepared to do something about that. We have heard from a lot of speakers on the other side of the House tonight about how we must do something about alcohol or about how we as a society must accept that we have to do something. But given the chance to do something that will do no harm—this bill will do no harm whatsoever; although this step may be a small step it is a step in the right direction—given the chance to take a step in the right direction and given the chance to take a favourable position on a public health issue the Government has failed to do so. The Government has absolutely failed to do so. Those members have been pulled into line on a conscience vote and— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They know. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is right; those members know. Some of them should surely be able to see the merits of this bill and of getting in behind a small step in the right direction. 
When we talk to the police to social agencies to community drug and alcohol treatment services or to youth workers we find that they all want to talk to us about alcohol: about how alcohol is a driver of crime a driver of social deprivation and a driver of family and domestic violence. We have heard already this evening about the economic impact of harmful alcohol misuse and abuse. The cost to this country of alcohol abuse is $5.3 billion annually and that is out of a total cost of $6.2 billion—that is just $0.9 billion more—associated with harmful drug and alcohol abuse. That $5.3 billion cost is attributable to alcohol. Alcohol stands out; by far and away the single biggest drug issue we have in this country is the harmful misuse and abuse of alcohol. Yet given the opportunity to take one small step to do something about it the Government has failed to do so. 
We get nervous about tackling alcohol issues. Why is that? It is because there is a reasonable sociable and responsible way to use alcohol. I am sure that most members in this House probably enjoy a drink or two from time to time and enjoy it in an absolutely responsible and socially acceptable way. We get nervous around alcohol but we do not get that same kind of nervousness when we are talking about other drugs. One of those other drugs in particular at the moment is methamphetamine. Methamphetamine has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever—none whatsoever. It is highly addictive just like alcohol but it does not foster any social behaviour patterns in the way that alcohol can. The damage caused by methamphetamine use is absolutely minuscule in comparison with that caused by alcohol yet the Prime Minister amongst others has been banging on and on about P and methamphetamine. I do not disagree that we need to be vigilant about the harder drugs but why do we have such a disproportional attitude and response to something that has such a tiny impact in comparison with alcohol? I think that that is something we really have to come to terms with in this House. 
Alcohol is a drug. Geoffrey Palmer is on record as saying “Alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is a drug. Alcohol would be classed as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 if it were treated on its merits … Obviously that is not going to happen but the properties of alcohol are the reason why it must be closely regulated. Alcohol like any other drug can do harm.” The opportunity is here tonight for members to take a small step and it is an opportunity where we are not being whipped but can stand up and speak on our own behalf and say what our position is. But unfortunately the Government is not prepared to take that opportunity. It is not prepared to take that opportunity at all. 
Some people would say to us that the advertising of alcohol does not really have very much of an impact and that it does not really encourage people to drink more. Do members know what I say to that? Yeah right! That Tui advertising campaign is now so much a part of New Zealand culture that it almost does not stand apart as an advertising campaign in itself. It is part of our culture. It is as much a part of our culture as binge drinking is. It is part of the normalisation of a harmful approach to alcohol. So advertising does work and I am sure most people will remember an example of that—and we are going back a couple of years here—namely the Lion Red Chin Heads advertising campaign. The penetration of that advertising to minors was illustrated through research that showed that 97 percent of minors recalled seeing the Chin Heads ad 71 percent knew that it was for Lion Red 92 percent had positive views about the ad and 64 percent thought the Chin Heads humour would appeal to minors. OK advertising works. It is why the liquor industry engages in advertising it is why Coca-Cola engages in advertising and it is why the tobacco industry has found the one last bastion of advertising which is point-of-sale advertising. 
We know that advertising works so an opportunity to restrict the consumption of alcohol should be leapt at. But Government members—and I say this again—have absolutely failed to take that opportunity. As I have said I have given this bill considerable thought. It is a small step but it is a step worth taking. I am very very pleased to vote in favour of this bill and to support my colleague Brendon Burns.