Copeland Gordon: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5428] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In speaking to these numbered schedules in Part 2 I think it would be good to comment on a few things that have come from some of the previous speeches. I am a bit disappointed that Ron Mark having made his speech has now disappeared from the Chamber because he asked some provocative questions— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Those comments are completely out of order. Mr Copeland is a new new member but it is out of order to refer to the absence of someone and in that particular case it is extremely unfair because Mr Ron Mark has been participating all the way through the debate. I can now see he is in the lobby so by raising the point of order I have done the member a favour but I think he should apologise to Mr Mark for that remark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you very much for raising that. I was responsible for that point of order because I should have raised the matter myself. The member is not to make that reference again please. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is getting ridiculous. You have properly called my colleague to order for referring to the absence of a member. We have had an interjection from two members over there referring to the fact that he has not been in the Chamber all evening. Equally they should be called to order for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you. That applies right around the Chamber. I do not want to hear any more references to members not being in the Chamber or any inference along those lines. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I was just referring to the question raised by Ron Mark as to whether the alcohol represented by the drinks—his bottles and labels are in the Chamber and some are on the desk of members of the National Party and the New Zealand First Party—is referred to in the bill and whether the bill refers to the alcohol in those drinks. The answer is yes it does. The bill does cover the alcohol in those drinks. It adjusts for the consumer price index the content of those drinks and just to answer the question yes it is referred to. 
I also refer to some comments made by Simon Power when he asked the question several times whether teenagers drink—again the drinks are represented by those bottles by what he calls those pop alcohol labels. The answer to that is yes teenagers do drink those kinds of drinks. Teenagers in this country also drink beer. The excise duty on most types of beer is also being adjusted tonight by the consumer price index. However the important thing is that this bill is primarily aimed at the alcohol content—and I stress the alcohol content—in the band of 14 to 23 percent. 
The rest is pretty straightforward. At the moment one can buy a bottle of that size with 23 percent alcohol for less than 10 bucks. From the date this bill is passed the price of that alcohol will go up quite significantly. Because it is price sensitive people will therefore buy less of it. There is a very simple adage here: if something is discouraged there will be less of it and that is exactly what will happen. The consumption of that kind of alcohol will diminish. 
Will it be replaced by the pop alcohol? Probably so but the difference of course is that if there is 5 percent alcohol in that one would have to drink four and three-fifths bottles to gain the equivalent of one bottle at 23 percent. If there is 3 percent alcohol the fraction will be seven bottles and two-sevenths. Therefore the amount of alcohol consumed will decrease. 
Members should not forget that this bill is about alcohol content. It is about intoxication and about how much alcohol it takes a person to drink to become intoxicated. Believe me at the 23 percent level a person will get drunk a lot faster than with a bottle with only 5 percent of alcohol in it as I have just pointed out. I think that covers the main points. 
I make one further observation and that is that there may be some people—insomniacs probably—listening to the radio tonight who may be a bit disappointed that the price of their Baileys or sherry will go up. That is true it will because of the adjustment of that 14 to 23 percent band. But if those people are a bit brassed off about that they should know they can lay the blame squarely and solely at the feet of the liquor industry. The liquor industry has quite cynically set out to market alcohol in the range of 14 to 23 percent to the teenagers of this country and that is not good enough. That is a wrong cynical and greedy action to take. That is where the blame lies. 
I commend this Government and I wholeheartedly support the action that is being taken here tonight to try to turn off the tap a bit to reduce the level of drunkenness—not the quantity of the drinks but the drunkenness that results from alcohol for teenagers in this country. I continue to be amazed at that drunkenness and I know for certain that the great majority of parents in this country are good parents and that they will overwhelmingly be with us—United Future the Labour Party and the Greens—on this bill and that the minority of bad parents who do not seem to mind that they give their kids drinks containing alcohol will be disappointed.