Power Simon: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5394] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Madam Chair— 
Jill Pettis 
: You had better do something about raising your profile! 
SIMON POWER 
: Or in fact the octaves of my voice then I too could sound like a strangled seagull in a clothes line. The general policy statement of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill refers to the fact that light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption within these groups. We have just heard the Hon Roger Sowry and the Hon Dr Nick Smith on this side of the Chamber say that it is not often that one gets a bill where the general policy statement has no direct relationship to the operative clauses of the bill at all. What we have heard so far is that this bill does nothing to address those drinks that young people consume. In fact by the very nature of the level of alcohol contained in those drinks they are excluded from this legislation. They are no more expensive to buy. So the general policy statement of the bill does not reflect what the bill will do. 
In fact the title of this bill should simply be the dressing up of a tax grab because that is all it is. To try to paint this as some social policy helping teenage people with drinking difficulties is just stupid. What worries me most about this is that clearly Government members on the other side of the Chamber have not read this bill. Clearly they have not worked out what the bill does. It does nothing to address those concerns. It should in fact be called the “Anti - McLeod Report Bill”. 
It is worth referring to the McLeod report because what is interesting about that report is that it outlines in a section called “Excises and Duties” the following: “We believe that the levels of alcohol excise that could be justified on externality grounds are likely to be well below those currently applied in New Zealand.” At the time it was produced in October 2001 the McLeod report stated that excise duty and customs duty on alcohol was too high. We now have a bill before Parliament under extraordinary urgency that purports to do exactly the opposite to the recommendations contained in the McLeod report despite the fact that this Government spent millions of dollars having the McLeod report produced. 
The report states: “In our issues paper we concluded that excise taxes were difficult to justify on either tax efficiency or tax equity grounds.” In other words the McLeod report has stated very clearly that this is the wrong way to go about collecting revenue. If this Government considers this to be just a revenue-gathering exercise the McLeod report takes care of that issue in the sense that it states that it is the wrong way to go about it. On the other hand if the Government believes the general policy statement on the front page of the bill that states it is aimed at young people and their over-indulgence in consuming these types of alcoholic drinks it does nothing to meet that need either. 
The drinks that young people consume which have been so well outlined by the Hon Dr Nick Smith are not even covered by this bill. As my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall said earlier in the piece when young people turn 18 the least likely thing they will do is to march into a public bar and say: “Give me a port.” or “Give me a sherry and one for my mate too. No guys I’ll get this round of sherries.” It just will not happen. This bill has completely missed the point of either being revenue gathering or protecting young people.