Parker David: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6064. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. I rise to take a call on the preliminary part of this bill the Alcohol Reform Bill. As other speakers have said there does not really seem to be much dispute that in New Zealand we currently have a worse problem with the abuse of alcohol than we did before liberalisation of alcohol sales laws in the 1980s and that therefore there is a need to redress that balance and introduce some more restrictions around the sale of alcohol in an effort to reduce the harm that is done in society from the abuse of alcohol. Most people in this Chamber drink alcohol from time to time and most people in this Chamber do not abuse alcohol but it is true that too many people in New Zealand do abuse alcohol to the detriment of themselves and their families and at considerable cost to the taxpayer. 
 One thing I would want to raise with the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice at the moment is that the proposal in the legislation to change the default closing time to 4 a.m. for licensed premises still seems to me to be overly permissive. I think that the cost caused to our tax system as well as the harm done to our population by those late closing hours is in need of further remedy. I think that Mr Flavell’s amendment in that regard is probably quite a good step. He says that the closing hour should be 3 a.m. and that between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. there should be a one-way policy so that if you go into a licensed premise and you leave it you cannot hop into another one after 1 in the morning. I am struck by a statement that was made to me probably about 3 or 4 years ago by the then head of police in Queenstown who said that the cost of policing is effectively driven to quite a significant extent by the closing hour of licensed premises. Rosters need to be maintained and cars need to be kept on the road until the licensed premises close and if those licensed premises close earlier then they do not have to keep those rosters going as long. 
I think that is pretty clear. It is not that long ago that we had 10 o’clock closing then 11 p.m. closing on Fridays and Saturdays—I think that is where it was extended to first. Since then we have effectively had open slather with very very late licensing hours including in premises that border on residential areas which causes a nuisance to those around them. So one of the things I would like to see passed as we go through this debate is the Flavell amendment in that regard. There are other aspects of his amendments I disagree with. I do not think it is practical to limit off-licences to only one within every 5 kilometres of each other. That would effectively mean that in a place like Wellington there might be one or two off-licence premises in the whole of Wellington central which would just be I think wrong. In respect of small towns it would effectively mean there would be one monopoly provider. So I do not agree with that but I do agree that we need to truncate the hours of these licensed premises. 
I am personally disappointed that in respect of the debate we had on the age we did not move on the age for off-licence premises. I think that has been a mistake this Parliament may rue. There is no doubt that the scientists tell us that the younger a person is when they start drinking the more likely it is that they develop an alcohol problem long term. In addition to their greater likelihood of developing an alcohol problem we also know that whatever damage is done through drinking it is more long term for a younger person because of the stage of development of their brain. Again there is good scientific evidence to show that the damage that is done to a young person’s brain before that brain completely matures is greater than the damage to the brain of an older person who has had the same level of alcohol consumption. So I think that for both of those reasons it would have been appropriate to increase the age for off-licences. There is indeed an argument that we should have done it for on-licences as well but the argument in respect of on-licences is not quite as strong in that there are at least in theory meant to be controls relating to serving intoxicated people that make it less likely that there will be harm to those people on licensed premises. 
I think that whatever happens with this legislation I would like to see the Government putting more focus on enforcement of the law. I live in the very heart of Dunedin in the central area and I can tell you that at 3 or 4 a.m. most— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I thought you were from Remuera. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have got a foot in more than one camp Mr Williamson but none of them is in Remuera. I do know that the state of people when they come out of those premises at 3 or 4 in the morning is such that it is impossible that they were not being served when they were absolutely totalled when they were in these licensed premises. I would like to see more Government resources be put into closing down some of those irresponsible licensed premises. I think the courts are ready to take a hard line and to close down some of these places and make them lose their licences for a month or 6 months on a graduated scale. Some of those businesses would go to the wall and they deserve to do so if they act irresponsibly and breach the laws that this Parliament passes and that society wants us to uphold. 
I would also speak in support of a couple of other amendments. I agree with Jackie Blue in respect of the amendment relating to the non-sale supply to young people. This is an issue on which I have had a lot of discussions with Lianne Dalziel through the years and we both thought it was important for it to be in the original bills that were discharged some 3 or 4 years ago. It is a nonsense that it is illegal to sell liquor to a person who is a minor while under current law there are very few restrictions on the non-sale supply to a young person even if that supply is without parental consent even if it is for hideous amounts of strong spirits and even if they are in a car. There are so many gaps in the existing law relating to non-sale supply to minors that it is no wonder that the police cannot effectively enforce the current law such as it is. So I am pleased that the non-sale supply to minors is going to be significantly tightened so that it can be legal only if there is parental consent and there is then a responsible level in terms of the provision of alcohol. It will take some of the pressure off parents around some of these pre-ball and post-ball parties where parents are put under pressure because they are told by Johnny that everyone else is doing it and therefore they have to do the same thing. So I think that is a good step in the right direction but I would note that it could have been done 3 years earlier if the earlier bill had not been discharged. 
I also agree with local liquor plans. I think that local authorities should be able to control how many off-licences or on-licences they have in areas. I think local people have a right in a democratic society to exercise some control of that. I would also speak in favour of the measure in respect of the liquor-laden soft drinks the ready-to-drink soft drinks that have become so pervasive. Some of the richest people in New Zealand have made their fortunes on the back of the misery caused by ready-to-drinks and we ought not to shrink from concluding that those ready-to-drinks really are marketed in a way that is meant to disguise the taste of alcohol—they are soft drinks essentially. Phil Goff’s amendment to limit the concentration of alcohol in those drinks and the size and number of standard drinks that can be in a ready-to-drink is I think worthy of the support of this Parliament. The misery that flows particularly for the younger people who are most attracted to these ready-to-drinks is something that can be remedied by this Parliament if we vote in support of that amendment. 
As others have said this bill does not go as far as it needs to in order to remedy some of the harm. I intend to support the bill notwithstanding those failures because it does go further than the existing law and I think that for me probably the most significant thing in this bill is improving local control over the number of outlets and the non-sale supply of alcohol to minors.