Goff Phil: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6059. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 This has been described by various speakers as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with one of the biggest social problems that we confront in 21st century New Zealand. I am not a wowser; I drink but I am equally conscious as a New Zealander of the cost of alcohol abuse and misuse to our whole society—the economic cost the social cost and the individual human cost—and that is the reason why the last Labour Government set up the Law Commission to do a full inquiry into alcohol abuse in this country. It seemed a sensible thing to do to take it out of the political arena to give it to a group of experts who consulted widely across New Zealand society—over 3000 submissions were received by the Law Commission—and to take what they themselves described as an evidence-based approach. What other approach makes sense than to look at the evidence—to look at it objectively openly honestly and transparently—and then act on the evidence? That is why I believe that the Alcohol Reform Bill is a disappointment. 
There are some things that it does and I applaud the careful steps that it takes in that regard but most of the things that it does actually date back to the time when Lianne Dalziel was Associate Minister of Justice and talked about the need for local alcohol policies and for giving local communities the ability to control the supply of alcohol in those areas. I heard a very frustrated mayor on the radio the other day in Auckland saying that we needed these policies 2 years ago. We did need them 2 years ago and we could have had them 2 years ago but the Government sat on this bill then acted very cautiously and rejected the main recommendations of the Law Commission. The main recommendations of the Law Commission included the raising of the age of consumption to 20. I voted for that because I believe that we have a huge problem with teenage binge drinking. The Committee in its wisdom decided not to do that. Well if we are not going to do that then the Committee has to consider what in some of the Supplementary Order Papers will have an impact on binge drinking. 
I want to express my disappointment again that the Minister of Justice met with the liquor industry interests—the vested interests that make hundreds of millions of dollars out of this area. Yes of course they produce jobs but that should not prevent us from saying that we have an obligation in this House to pass legislation that will moderate the impact of abuse. One of the things that Simon Power the previous Minister of Justice was adamant that the Government should do was to limit the alcohol content of the ready-to-drinks the alcopops to 5 percent which is pretty much the same as beer. I saw the comments that Simon Power made and I agree with those. These drinks appeal particularly to our young people. They are the preferred drink of 63 percent of female school-age drinkers and have had the biggest single impact on raising the level of alcohol consumption in this country. Spirits soared because of the introduction of ready-to-drinks. Ready-to-drinks were designed to taste so sweet that you could not taste the alcohol to appeal to young people. They were to be marketed like soft drinks and to be drunk like soft drinks. Selling half a million containers of alcopops a day has resulted in an enormous increase in alcohol consumption. 
It is easy to deal with Minister and that is by restricting the level of alcohol to 5 percent for companies that have moved the alcohol level of ready-to-drinks up quite significantly. Many are now selling at 8 percent some as high as 10 percent. What I want is for this Committee to look even at this late stage at an evidence-based approach and for Government members of Parliament to have the right to vote according to the evidence and not to be whipped into line and agree to everything they have been told by the Minister to do to protect the liquor industry. I urge National members of Parliament to vote according to the evidence and to their own views. I have done a bit of research and I have seen what National members of Parliament have said including the Minister’s own predecessor about ready-to-drinks and the need to restrict the alcohol content. So I urge the Government to allow the freedom to its own members to vote according to what they believe is right. The MPs whom I have talked to—and I do not name them because it was in confidence—from the other side of the House have expressed concern about that and have expressed concern that the liquor industry might be paramount over health and policing people on the front line. 
I want to bring it back to what the cost of alcohol is and why we need to act. I took time out to go down to an accident and emergency department in this case at Auckland City Hospital to spend the early hours of Sunday morning there to witness what the staff of those hospitals have to deal with daily. I do not know Minister whether you have had that experience but I would certainly recommend it to you. Ministers from the Government and the Prime Minister were invited to do so. I was appalled at the sheer number of people coming in injured because of alcohol ill to the point of endangering their health because of alcohol and often abusive of the staff in the hospital. You have only to spend time with the doctors who are working there through the small hours of the morning absolutely frustrated that they are spending their time working on people who have abused alcohol rather than doing the work they want to do to improve the overall health of the community. 
Imagine the bonus to New Zealand if we were able to cut down the abuse of alcohol and cut down the $5 billion in costs that the Alcohol Advisory Council says that the abuse of alcohol is causing each year—$5 billion. Instead of slashing social services instead of cutting back the sorts of services that New Zealand wants if we could bring down alcohol abuse we could do something about it. But this bill is a wasted opportunity because it does not tackle basic things that the Law Commission said it should tackle—for example price and advertising. Why do we allow alcohol to be promoted? Why do we allow ready-to-drinks to be sold with higher and higher levels of alcohol in what the industry is producing rather than dealing with it? Let us have the courage in this House to do what is right and not surrender to pressure from the industry. This House is obliged to act for the benefit of New Zealanders not for the benefit of those people who make money out of promoting alcohol to younger and younger people all the time. We need to do something about that. 
Can I say that there is another Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway on the level of alcohol that can be consumed before you are driving unlawfully. I have got the Cabinet paper in my hand that tells us what the Government was advised on this. It says that lowering the adult limit is arguably the most cost-effective way we have got of improving road safety. That is the advice given to Cabinet and I want to ask the Minister why the Government has ignored that advice and said that we need more research. We have got all the research we need. At 0.05 grams your driving starts to become impaired. At 0.08 you are three times more likely to have an accident. I say the Committee should exercise its independent judgment. Look at the evidence. If we are worried about the hundreds of people who are dying and being maimed on the road each year because of too much alcohol in their blood then let us act in this House because we can make a difference. 
It would be remiss of the House to simply go down the path of caution and say “Great this bill doesn’t liberalise alcohol.” No it does not but nor does it address the critical problems that are causing billions of dollars to be spent in health and in policing in this country. I want to say to those who said “It’s a minor problem. Let’s not hurt the majority because it’s a minor problem.” that there are 444000 people who in one of the recent surveys that were done said they felt drunk when they were driving—nearly half a million New Zealanders. One in three violent offences is alcohol related. One in three domestic violence offences is alcohol related. The Minister in the chair is the Minister of Justice. These things must be deeply troubling to her. She was the Minister of Police. 
We have to do something more than say “Let’s not offend the liquor industry. Let’s not offend those who are making money out of promoting a good that is legally saleable but actually isn’t an ordinary commodity.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No one’s saying that. Silly thing to say. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is not a silly thing to say; it is absolutely true and Mr Williamson ought to consider what the cost is. You know we heard it from Kevin Hague not so long ago—275000 New Zealanders set out when they went drinking on their last occasion to get drunk. That is a serious problem.