King Annette: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6091. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I am sure my colleague who has just resumed her seat Lianne Dalziel will continue this debate because she has probably more knowledge on this issue than any other member in this House and feels very passionately about it. I would like to continue from where Lianne Dalziel left off and that is in terms of having a principled position on alcohol in New Zealand. I am absolutely amazed that the members opposite are not participating in this debate. This is the first big opportunity we have had in over 12 years to debate an issue of major importance to New Zealand but they sit with their heads down and are not prepared to get up even if it is to disagree and at least participate in a major issue of importance to New Zealanders. New Zealanders have made it clear that they do believe it is an issue. As a former Minister of Police I have never forgotten the police coming to me and saying that in just over 70 percent of crimes there is an alcohol component. We have members opposite who stand up and talk about law and order but are not prepared to address one of the key issues related to crime and that is the control of the sale and purchase of alcohol. 
I notice that the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice said that the Government wants to look at its own research. Well I say Minister that I am in favour of looking at your own research but look at the research that was provided to the Government by the most comprehensive work that has been done in many years—the Law Commission report of 2010. It is an absolutely amazing piece of work where the commission went out and spoke to the people in a way that a select committee cannot do in the brief time that it has to hear submissions. You heard from Lianne Dalziel that the people said overwhelmingly that they wanted a ban or restriction on alcohol advertising. Does that count for anything? Do the over 2281 submissions 86 percent of which supported a ban on advertising and restrictions on advertising count for anything to the members opposite? Do the members opposite think it is even worthwhile making a submission on an important piece of work like the Law Commission’s or even to a select committee for that matter if it does not count for anything? So I say to the Minister yes look at the research. Plenty of it was offered in the Law Commission’s report but it seems to me that in this area it has been ignored and continues to be ignored. 
I am going to support the amendment from my colleague Dr David Clark Supplementary Order Paper 115. This is not some piece of amendment that he has got from a German model. This is based on the restriction and banning of the advertising of tobacco. We know that since 1990 when the Smoke-free Environments Act was brought in with a ban on advertising in combination with a number of other public health programmes and education we have seen a drop in tobacco consumption. We have seen the number of people smoking reduce considerably and we have had members opposite proudly saying “Look how the smoking rates have dropped in New Zealand.” That came from a menu of things including a ban on advertising. So why can members support it for tobacco which is another dangerous product if it is not handled properly—in fact probably with tobacco none of it can be handled properly—and why can they see that it is OK for tobacco but they cannot see it for alcohol? It just does not make sense to me. 
And we know the power of advertising. Why else do they advertise? I find it fascinating that we have got the British American Tobacco company advertising on television at the moment in a very discreet way against plain packaging of tobacco and this week they started on alcohol. They are using an advert that I think is just a scare tactic to say to the public “They’re coming for alcohol next. Look out. You don’t know what’s going to happen to your alcohol.” You see they know that the public are influenced by advertising and particularly young people. We ought to have the courage to make some decisions for the benefit of New Zealanders and young New Zealanders. So will members opposite get on their feet and debate this issue or are they just going to sit as if they have been muzzled as if they do not care about what is a massive debate that we ought to be having? 
I do not believe in a conscience vote on alcohol. I think we are gutless in this Parliament because this is not a conscience issue. This is a public health issue. This is an issue that affects New Zealanders. This is an issue that affects the health of our young people. This is an issue that costs this country millions of dollars a year not because everybody abuses alcohol but because there are enough people who are affected by alcohol even when they are not abusing it because alcohol is a substance that affects the body. This is a public health issue. When are we going to have the courage and the guts in this place to say that this an issue we treat as a Parliament? 
What we have got now is a dog’s breakfast. This bill the Alcohol Reform Bill is a dog’s breakfast. At least if we had picked up the Law Commission and allowed it to write the legislation we could have gone out and debated it and made the change as a sensible Parliament. But what we have got now is a whole lot of amendments as people try to fix up a bill that does not do what it ought to do. I am really disappointed that we as a Parliament have not taken this opportunity. We will not get the opportunity to follow a big report like the Law Commission’s one for many many years to come. We are squandering that opportunity because we do not have the courage in this Parliament to make the decisions that we ought to. I just think if members have got a conscience at all on this issue at least vote for some changes that are going to strengthen the bill that is there and maybe make a difference for young New Zealanders in particular. But I fear that that will not happen.