Power Simon: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5408] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The issues relating to the commencement dates in Part 1 have already been covered by my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry and I do not intend to canvass them again. But I do want to spend a bit of time on the purpose of the bill which is contained in clause 3(a) and (b). Just for the sake of clarity I want to say that the purpose clause states that the purpose is “to align the duty payable on beverages containing more than 14% but not more than 23% alcohol by volume”. Clause 3(b) states that a further purpose is “to increase the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty payable” on drinks in that bracket—more than 14 percent alcohol but not more than 23 percent. 
I would be obliged if the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton who to the best of my recollection has not taken a call at all on this bill would explain this to me. If he takes the time to look up from his correspondence and turns to schedule 2 in particular to page 14 he will see that under “Other fermented beverages (for example cider perry mead)”—and that is not Colin Meads—percentages of alcohol per litre are set out. It states: “Containing more than 6% vol. but not more than 9% vol.” and “Containing more than 9% vol. but not more than 14% vol.” and then we go to “Containing more than 23% vol.” What happened to the bit between 14 and 23 percent? That is the operative part of this bill. I could have missed something here but I think it would be worth the Minister taking a call and explaining to the Committee how that came about and on what basis that particular omission for “other fermented beverages” came about. 
The omission is not just there. If members have taken the time to look through the schedules they will have seen that it is difficult for the purpose of this bill to be fulfilled because this matter arises again on page 15. Members will see again: “Containing more than 9% vol. but not more than 14% vol.” and then it goes straight to “Containing more than 23% vol.” Where is the operative bit? Where is the bit that says “more than 14% but no more than 23%”? That is the operative part of this legislation; it is on the front page but unfortunately the explanatory note does not create law. If we move through the bill we can see that omission again on page 16. 
If the Minister in the chair would be good enough to take at least a short call he could perhaps put me out of my misery and explain to me why the schedules—which are the parts of the document that contain the detail about the products that the operational clauses in the bill are to apply to—omit those specific percentages. It might be something I have missed—I am sure it probably is—but it would be worth the Minister at least taking a call and explaining that to me. I do not think the Minister has taken a call at all during the Committee stage of this bill. When rushing a bill through under extraordinary urgency at 4 minutes to 1 in the morning the Minister should at least have the decency to respond to what I consider to be a reasonably legitimate question. 
I think that matter also aligns with the fact that what the purpose clause does not contain is the actual purpose of the bill which is a tax grab. Clause 3(a) states it is “to align the duty payable” clause 3(b) states it is “to increase the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty payable” and a clause 3(c) should state it is to grab some tax dosh. It is my guess that the $18 million the Government will grab will not be used at all to help young people who are accessing alcohol and creating social problems as a result of that access. The purpose clause should reflect that.