Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7290. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on the point made by Dr Hutchison just before that we need evidence-based policy and evidence-based initiatives. He suggested that the evidence base around lowering the drink-drive limit is not yet there. I simply refer Dr Hutchison to the Ministry of Transport’s own advice to the Minister of Transport. It collected the evidence from around the world which showed that in every instance where the rate was lowered from 0.08 to 0.05 the impact on road safety was enormously positive and the impact on alcohol-related harm was nothing other than to reduce it. The evidence is there Dr Hutchison. We do not need to wait any longer. We did not need to wait until after the last election and we do not need to wait until after the Alcohol Reform Bill has passed. The evidence is there and it is time to move on. 
I also want to talk about the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Rev. Dr David Clark to re-establish a Part 8 in the legislation and to use another mechanism to address price. We have discussed price in the number of different initiatives in front of us today regarding price. There is minimum pricing there is increasing excise tax and there is Maryan Street’s very worthy idea of a health levy to be applied at the point of sale. That has the advantage over excise tax in that the health levy would be factored in to the final retail price. But it would also achieve what Kevin Hague was talking about with taxation in that it would raise funds for our alcohol and drug treatment programmes which are excellent but there are simply not enough of them and accessibility is an enormous problem. 
In fact I was at Odyssey House in Auckland recently—just visiting Mr Chauvel. I spoke to one of the people who were participating in its programme. It took nearly 6 months from the time that she identified that she needed to go into the programme to when she was actually accepted in. Thankfully she was motivated enough to go into the programme even after that 6-month wait but what we know is that for many people with addictions there is a limited window when they self-identify that they need to get into rehab or some addiction programme. If they are denied access then when that access becomes available they may well have moved on and not be willing to participate at that point. So access is a huge issue. 
Coming back to David Clark’s amendment this takes a slightly different approach to using price as a way of providing an indicator to the market about the type of alcohol that people should be purchasing and that is to reduce or eliminate excise tax on low-alcohol beverages. I think this is a smart move. It makes the low-alcohol option more palatable and gives people a lower-price option that is not only lower cost but also safer and less harmful than the usual low-cost options which of course the police refer to as a crime scene in a can—that is drinks like Cody’s or Woodstock which tend to be the cheapest alcohol that is available. They are the high-alcohol high-volume ready-to-drink products that Phil Goff’s amendment is trying to deal with. What Dr Clark is saying is that while we look at how we can maybe use price by increasing the price on the high-alcohol beverages maybe we can give people a bit of a break and offer a lower-priced option for lower-alcohol beverages. I think that is a smart move which could be part of the suite of initiatives that Kevin Hague was talking about when he had the call. 
So I would like to hear from the National members why they think these initiatives do not have an evidence base and why they think they are a bad idea. If they are going to be voting against them then we need to hear their reasoning because the communities are crying out for us to do more. They see the bill that is being passed as not enough too weak and insipid and they want to see it strengthened. We are offering the opportunity to do that and if the National Party—