Clark David: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6066. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the Alcohol Reform Bill broadly and of Part 1. Part 1 contains the objects as we all know. I do feel overall that the Government is wasting a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put through more pervasive legislation that would address the issues at the heart of the problem that our society has. However overall I want to signal from the beginning that I will support the legislation because it takes some steps in the right direction. 
I had the privilege in my previous role as head of a university college to be on the vice-chancellor’s alcohol advisory task force at Otago. That experience confirmed for me a number of things that I already understood about alcohol culture primarily through access to alcohol experts in the field. Primary health experts in New Zealand are pretty much of one mind on this stuff. It is not like the “100% pure” matter where Mr Key can say: “You find one expert who says we’re no longer 100 percent pure and I’ll find you another one who says we are.” Perhaps that is not a good example as I do not think that is a fair case either. 
In this area in primary health people are of one mind. The research is really clear that alcohol-related harm can best be curbed through the use of mechanisms like pricing marketing distribution and supply. There is no wavering on this. It is not that there is debate around what the best measures are for curbing alcohol-related harm—there is really clear evidence. So I would challenge those members opposite who have not yet sat down with experts in this area to do so because they are more than willing to share their learnings. The primary health experts in this country are very generous with what they have learnt as a result of their studies and they are keen to see change for the betterment of New Zealand society. This is one area where our universities do take a strong role in being critic and conscience. 
Dunedin North the electorate that I represent is an electorate that wrestles with alcohol issues in respect of the student population in particular. I would argue that those alcohol-related issues are no better nor any worse than previous generations. Much media centres on the general concept that the world is going to hell in a handbasket in that respect. I do not buy into that. I think that different generations have treated alcohol in a similar way. This is an intergenerational issue that we are dealing with here. There is some evidence that fewer people are drinking heavily and those who are are now drinking more heavily but overall the picture is very similar to what it was a generation ago. 
We now know though a little more about alcohol-related harm than we did a generation ago and that is why it is imperative that we act now in a way that was not clear to us a generation ago. Who knows if in my day society’s leaders had acted to curb alcohol-related harm when I was a student whether we would not have solved the problem of world peace by now. Anything is possible. It is certainly the case that generations up until now have had their development impaired in one form or another through the use of alcohol. 
We now know through the use of magnetic resource imaging scanners that adolescence stretches from 13 to 23 and that frontal lobe development which happens towards the end of that period is at its peak between the ages of 18 and 21 when students are undertaking studies—undergraduate studies in particular at university—and that is when they are developing their critical faculties the powers of rational thought and laying out an argument. 
Those processes are being hardwired into the frontal lobe at that point in their development. But that frontal lobe we also know is responsible for addictions. It is the centre in the human body for addictions. So at the same time as those students are studying by day to improve their rational thought processes many of them are out drinking and creating a lifetime of addiction for themselves. 
This is not knowledge that was as immediately clear to us a generation ago but it is now much much more evident through advances in science. So it is imperative upon us as those who have inherited this science that we speak out about it and make the case for change. 
We also know that education does not make a great impact in respect of addictions and in respect certainly of student behaviour. Students drink because it is a risky practice; that is why they drink heavily. They choose to drink heavily because it is a risky practice. Telling students that drinking is a risky practice simply reinforces the reasons why they want to do it. In fact it increases the incentive and encourages the behaviour. There are studies across the States that demonstrate the way in which education programmes have led to absolutely no change in trends of behaviour in respect of teenage risk-taking. 
I am disappointed personally at the way in which the Government has succeeded in framing the alcohol issue as an age issue overall. Personally that is one of the greatest disappointments to me in respect of this legislation. Opposition parties I guess must question themselves—particularly those who feel in conscience educated about this issue and want to speak out about it—about how they have not done better at countering that particular framing. When people think this is an age issue they forget to ask the wider questions about how we make that societal change and lump the burden of responsibility back on that younger age group or at least the interest in the debate back on that younger age group and who is in and who is out of the drinking. We know as I have said earlier that pricing marketing distribution and supply are well above age in terms of influence and in terms of people’s drinking patterns. I will put forward two Supplementary Order Papers in my name later in the debate in respect of price and marketing. 
I do compliment the Government on some of the changes it is making in respect of distribution. I know that local councils are grateful that some changes are being made in that area. It is certainly the case that in Dunedin there are examples of local liquor suppliers setting up business in the middle of town and the council having no redress. Although the public were against those outlets setting up wholesale outlets where there are already plenty around the council was without powers to change it. That will change as I understand it if the Government’s legislation succeeds so I want to compliment the Government on that change. 
Some of the changes that are being made are positive. However overall I feel that this is a real missed opportunity. I am also disappointed that National members are choosing not to exercise their consciences on this issue. I think that conscience like all human faculties is a use it or lose it thing and it is no different in this respect. I think Government members should choose to exercise their conscience on this issue. 
So overall there is an amount of tinkering here. The changes that could be made are not going to be made but some of those that are worthy of our support will mean that I personally will offer my support to the overall legislation albeit with some disappointment that some of the bigger levers are being put to one side in favour of what I see as expediency.