Gallagher Martin: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6334] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. First of all I acknowledge and pay tribute to the Hon Matt Robson who was the original sponsor of this bill. Even though he is not in Parliament at the moment he has continued to take a very keen interest in the bill’s progress and I wish to acknowledge also his ongoing assistance and advice. 
I acknowledge also the splendid work of the acting chair of the Law and Order Committee Ron Mark and all members of that select committee. Notwithstanding their individual views they have conscientiously listened to the nearly 200 submissions and have returned this bill in a workable form. I thank and pay tribute to each individual member of that select committee for the very professional job they did. I acknowledge that there were differences and members will hear tonight from members of that select committee. 
Most of all however I pay tribute to the many many New Zealanders who are working in the field to try to minimise the devastating consequences of harmful and inappropriate consumption of alcohol amongst our young. I wish to deal in further detail with regard to the submissions made to the select committee by these groups. I also wish to reiterate the fact that their considered submissions definitely do not represent a knee-jerk reaction to a problem as argued by some who oppose this particular bill. 
I am aware also that many members have apparently not made up their minds on this issue and I am aware that there are members of this House who wish to consider fully some amendments to this bill including the split age of purchase of alcohol in terms of on-licence and off-licence premises. To state the obvious in order to do that members must clearly support the second reading of this bill so that we can discuss it line by line and clause by clause in the Committee of the whole House. 
More important even than that is this simple reason: poll after poll from a variety of organisations is recording anything from 65 percent to at least 71 percent public support for this bill. It is my view that the Parliament of this country should at least consider in depth this bill on a clause by clause basis along with the recommendations reported back from the select committee. As previously mentioned this can be done only during the Committee of the whole House to ensure this happens. On that basis and indeed for some members on that basis alone I urge members to support the next reading of this bill. I note that many members will have not had the opportunity yet—particularly of course those who did not sit on the Law and Order Committee—to read some very well-thought-out and researched submissions albeit I acknowledge the very good summary report produced by the select committee. 
In 1999 this Parliament voted to lower the age of purchase of liquor from 20 to 18. While I personally did not support this at the time and indeed I was not even a member of the House at that particular time I do not question the sincerity of many members who were genuinely convinced by the promise of a new drinking culture and also were promised that there would be a rigorous enforcement of the new age of purchase in terms of lowering the age of purchase from 20 to 18. 
The unfortunate reality however is that lowering the alcohol purchasing age combined with the other rules affecting liquor retailing in our society has meant that the negative outcome predicted by opponents of that 1999 bill has come to sad fruition. The evidence from around the country is an indictment of the fact that the legislation lowering the age of purchase has clearly not worked and has been very detrimental in our country. Professor Langley of Otago University and a team of international researchers concluded that there were significantly more alcohol-involved crashes among 15 to 19-year-olds than would have occurred had the purchase age not been reduced to age 18. 
There were some very positive submissions but one of the most thought-provoking researched and concise submissions came from Professor John Langley director of the injury prevention research unit Department of Preventive and Social Medicine Dunedin School of Medicine University of Otago and his team. As members will be aware they were engaged in an exercise for the  
American Journal of Public Health 
 and indeed I want to express my gratitude for the comprehensiveness of their research and also their submissions to the select committee. They concluded that lowering the purchase age has had large trickle-down negative health effects for 15 to 17-year-olds. Their research estimates that if the purchase age were returned to 20 years an annual saving of over 400 injury hospitalisations and 12 fatalities among 15 to 19-year-olds from road traffic crashes alone could be expected. I am very grateful for the comprehensive evidence that they presented. 
In terms of the significant problem of off-licence sales to under 18-year-olds I certainly note—indeed I think my Waikato colleagues do—the sting operation in Hamilton last year that found nearly 70 percent of licensed premises in the city sold alcohol to underage people during the weekend operation. Police and Hamilton council staff sent two volunteers aged 16 and 17 into 32 licensed premises during Operation Scramble and they successfully bought alcohol in 22 of the licensed premises. Sting operations in Opotiki Dunedin Taupo Hutt Valley and more recently I believe even in Te Awamutu near my town and elsewhere have found similar findings. 
Speaking very personally I think as a society we want to teach our 15 16 and 17-year-olds how to drink alcohol in a happy social and safe setting if that is their choice and their families’ choice. Let me acknowledge right now that there are a number of families in this country who very clearly make a very conscious choice not to consume alcohol full stop. Having a beer with dad or wine with mum—or the other way around—at the dinner table is a great way to learn about alcohol and maybe to bring around drink cultural change. 
However the lowering of the purchasing age of alcohol has had a large trickle-down negative health effect for our 14 to 17-year-olds by them either directly buying or getting supply via their 18-year-old mates from alcohol purchased at the local licensed dairy supermarket or wherever. Indeed when in 1999 Parliament voted by a narrow margin to lower the minimum age for the purchasing of alcohol to 18 the New Zealand Drug Foundation the Ministry of Health the Alcohol Advisory Council and other public health organisations opposed at the time the lowering of the drinking age. It is my best understanding certainly in terms of the submissions that were read to the select committee that the views of those organisations have not changed since then. 
Indeed as previously noted by the Hon Matt Robson in his first reading of the bill in 2005 police have strongly stated: “Alcohol is increasingly available in today’s New Zealand. As well as the 1999 lowering of the minimum legal age for purchasing alcohol which has legally allowed a whole new group of 18 to 19-year-olds to buy liquor and to drink on licensed premises there have never been as many places where you can get hold of alcohol as there are today. As the policing task has got bigger and bigger more and more pressure is placed on already stretched resources.” I note the New Zealand Police Association survey of front-line officers. If members have one reason and one reason alone to give this bill a second reading and to discuss it in great depth at the Committee of the whole House please listen to front-line police officers in our country the majority of whom favoured raising the age of purchase from 18 to 20. 
 I also acknowledge in terms of Dr Mapp and Gordon Copeland’s proposed amendments that they were more split on the issue of off-licensed premises and on-licensed premises. But for that reason and for that reason alone I ask my colleagues and members of this House to please please send this bill to the Committee of the whole House so that we can look at some of those issues in depth. Indeed there is much talk about 18 being the magic age for example and I have heard this statement: “If you are old enough to die for your country you are old enough to drink.” I think that statement is seriously flawed and I suspect that Ron Mark as the acting chair of the Law and Order Committee and a former professional soldier will clearly state why when he speaks later in the debate. There are plenty of examples where graduated ages of entitlement apply. The graduated driver’s licence is a good example as is the lower permissible breath-alcohol level and blood-alcohol level for all drivers aged under 20. I do not think that anyone would see 18 as being the magic age. 
Finally I pay a final tribute to the submitters to this bill particularly to the Students Against Drunk Driving Alcohol Healthwatch and the New Zealand Drug and Alcohol Foundation. I would urge those members who have not read some of those submissions to read them. Those submitters have made a very excellent contribution. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.