Hutchison Paul: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1888] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is indeed excellent that the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill is finally reaching its third reading in the House and that everybody is supporting it. But where there is some degree of concern is about the fact that the bill was introduced on 11 December 2007. This is a bill to simplify outdated legislation and one would have thought that if the previous Labour Government had been studious it would have got on and passed it during its time in office. Instead it was concentrating on absolutely undemocratic legislation that cluttered up the whole workings of Parliament—legislation like the Electoral Finance Bill. That is what Labour was concentrating on instead of getting on with good sensible legislation that would simplify and put into line a measure where the need for it was quite obvious. 
I understand that the Health Committee worked extremely well together during the consideration of the bill. There were six submissions and there was unanimity of opinion as to the result. 
This bill will address problems with the current method of setting the levy that funds the Alcohol Advisory Council. We recently heard a very good contribution from Iain Lees-Galloway pointing out the extraordinary contribution made by the Alcohol Advisory Council. The work that it does in research dissemination of information educational programmes and innovative treatment programmes is absolutely vital. It does all that work on a budget of about $12.4 million. I believe that the council’s task is undoubtedly an enormous one and the council does it with extraordinary commitment and dedication. The speaker before Iain Lees-Galloway the Hon Dr Richard Worth gave an excellent contribution and pointed out just how much the total levies are. They are in the order of three-quarters of a billion dollars. So it is a very small amount that goes to the Alcohol Advisory Council. 
But it is important to note that this bill is not intended to contribute to reducing alcohol-related harm; instead it aims to simplify the calculation of the levy that funds the council. It of course has a very significant role to play in reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm. 
Hon Member 
: They’re a bit loose. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: He is right; my glasses are a bit loose. I must say it makes me think that there must be a huge number of combinations and permutations of riveting new information that one could contribute to this debate so I do not want to be deflected by the fact that my glasses are indeed a bit loose. I will get them fixed. 
The Government is very concerned about alcohol-related harm in New Zealand. However a technical amendment to simplify the funding of a Crown entity is not the place to debate ways to reduce alcohol-related harm. The good news is that the excellent new National Government is introducing a whole raft of measures to help combat both violence and alcohol-related harm. Only last evening in the House there was a vigorous debate along those lines. 
The key point of this bill is to bring the levy-setting regime into line with the excise-setting regime. In 2004 a Ministry of Health review of the levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 found four major problems which are dealt with by the new bill and which were described so eloquently by my colleague the Hon Dr Richard Worth. Firstly the levy-setting mechanism is outdated. Secondly it is based on only four classes of liquor. For example ready-to-drink beverages commonly known as the “RTDs” did not exist at the time the Act was passed into law. Proof litres have not been used to measure spirits since 1986. The New Zealand Customs Service measures the volume of spirits as litres of alcohol. 
Thirdly the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex when compared with the method of setting excise and excise-equivalent duty based on alcohol content. That bears out the very fact that the lazy previous Labour Government did not get on and pass this bill. 
Shane Ardern 
: It had 9 long years. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: As my excellent colleague Shane Ardern points out the previous Government had 9 long years to pass the bill. But with alacrity the excellent new National Government is expeditiously passing the bill within our fourth month. The fourth area is that although the current Act allows the levy to be set by the Minister of Health by  
Gazette  
notice there is no process for Cabinet to be involved and that is inconsistent with other levy-setting approaches. 
The bill repeals the four current definitions of “wine” and replaces them with a single definition. [ 
Interruption 
] One has to think of innovative ways to go over the same subject matter time and time again. My glasses have done me well! The Act currently defines the term “wine” as “all products that if imported would be admissible for the time being” under a variety of headings. The term “fortified wine” means “any product that if imported would be admissible for the time being” under those same headings “and that exceeds in strength 14 percent alcohol by volume”. The definition “fruit wine” means “wine manufactured in New Zealand from any product other than grapes”. 
The bill repeals all those definitions and replaces them with one definition: that of wine.  
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 describes wine in noun form as “an alcoholic drink made from fermented grape juice” or “a fermented alcoholic drink made from other fruit or plants.” The bill is indeed very much in alignment with  
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 in its new definition. It states: “wine means the product of the complete or partial fermentation of any fruit (including grapes) vegetable or honey and—(a) includes—(i) cider perry”—pear wine—“and mead; and (ii) fortified wines such as sherry port and fruit or vegetable-based liquors; but (b) does not include—(i) beer or spirits; or (ii) any liquor containing no more than 1.15% volume of alcohol.” 
Undoubtedly this bill does some very very useful things. The proposed regime is up to date and simple to calculate. The new regime is flexible enough to allow for the emergence of new types of beverages which keep on being changed from month to month by somewhat innovative brewers. There is minimal impact on those who pay the levy and the price changes will be very small. Finally the new schedule addresses the concerns raised by New Zealand winegrowers about the need to clarify which rates will be applicable to particular products. It is with great pleasure that I support the third reading of this bill.