Anderton Jim: Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill — First Reading 
Anderton Jim: Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1809] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I support the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill but I am under no illusions that it needs to go much further than it does if we are seriously to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Alcohol causes between $1.5 and $2.5 billion worth of economic and social harm each year in New Zealand. It is by far the most damaging drug in this country. It is the most damaging drug not because it is intrinsically the most dangerous drug—far from it. It is the most damaging drug because it is the most available drug. In recent years when alcohol was made much more available predictably the harm caused by alcohol has also risen. In recent years we have lowered the drinking age and more young people are being harmed much more often. We have allowed more widespread alcohol advertising. We have allowed the sale of liquor in more places and for longer hours. The resulting harm is there to be seen by anyone who cares to look: in the carnage on the streets and in alcohol-fuelled crime waves. 
Nothing makes it more obvious that the Government has its priorities wrong than the casual attitude towards alcohol that we just heard from the previous speaker. If the Government truly wanted to reduce crime it would make alcohol less available. If the Government truly wanted to reduce the health bill and make New Zealand more productive it would reduce the availability of alcohol. It is cynical if people come in here to Parliament and pronounce grimly about the toll that alcohol causes yet they do not take effective action against it. Some of the Government members were the first to sneer about a nanny State when someone tried to fix problems such as this. They claim to be anti-crime but they also sneer and call anyone who tries to reduce crime the “fun police”. 
Let us look at what they mean by “fun”. In 1999 500 people were killed on our roads. By 2007 total road deaths had declined to 410—a reduction of 90. But the number of road deaths among 15 to 29-year-old New Zealanders did not fall anywhere near as much as that. Last year if the toll among 15 to 29-year-olds had fallen by the same amount as the rate fell for the general population there would have been 20 fewer deaths of young New Zealanders. In the context of 410 deaths 20 fewer does not sound much but the Transport Agency values the life of anyone killed on the road at about $2.5 million. If we multiply that by 20 we are up to $50 million and that is only the direct economic cost. The social and human cost is much greater. So why would the toll not fall among young people in the way it fell among the rest of the population? There is only one reason: the drinking age was lowered. 
In the years prior to 1999 when the drinking age was lowered the number of dead drivers who had an alcohol level above the legal limit was tracking down. Since 1999 when the purchase age was lowered the number of dead drivers in that category has stopped tracking down. Because we reduced the age more young people are being killed and injured. Those are the brutal facts. In 2000 there were 4079 15 to 29-year-old car and van drivers involved in injury crashes. In 2007 7 years after the lowering of the drinking age there were 6538 injury crashes involving 15 to 29-year-olds which is an increase of 60 percent. Is that just an accident of history or is there a causal relationship between lowering the drinking age and that figure? I leave members to draw the obvious conclusion. The number of injury crashes among young people is far greater than the number among the general population. The research in New Zealand and around the world is clear: there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by it. 
Alcohol is also an enormous factor in crime. Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse. If we talk to police on the front line we will hear many of them say that over 90 percent of the criminal activity they deal with is caused through alcohol abuse. That is what they are dealing with. Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated with that problem. Two out of three people whom the police deal with as offenders have been using alcohol prior to the offence being committed. Is that some kind of accident or is there a causal factor there? 
So I support the measure in the bill to reduce access to alcohol and I have no truck with people who call it “nanny State” or who call anyone who is voting for this bill the “fun police”. This issue is not funny. I condemn anyone who says that a vote for mild restrictions on this dangerous drug is a vote for prohibition. Sensible control of alcohol is not prohibition and pretending they are the same is both irresponsible and distorted. Restricting the availability of alcohol will make a huge difference. 
About 5 or 6 years ago some members who are now in the Government bitterly attacked me when by accident I was acting for the then Minister of Customs the Hon Rick Barker who was in the Chair just a little while ago. I copped all the flak for what actually happened but I took steps on that night to increase the excise rate charged on alcoholic drinks in the range of 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume. Those drinks were euphemistically described as light spirits but they were 23 percent proof alcohol by volume. They were being sold cheaply and were being advertised in the school holidays so the kids could buy bottles of gin vodka brandy and whisky for around $8. The increase in the excise duty on those light spirits stopped almost at once those spirits being sold and the binge drinking that had taken place as a result of drinking them. The reduction in alcoholic drinks released for sale as a result of that excise duty increase was 80 percent. So 80 percent of the light spirits—23 percent proof alcohol—were stopped by an increase in excise duty. That shows how sensitive alcohol is to price in terms of young people. The decline in the quantity of so-called light spirits drunk by young people was half a million litres. 
I was criticised for not making any difference. I think half a million litres of high-level alcoholic spirits not being drunk is a pretty good result. I must say that some parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House were abusing me for being the “fun police” or the “nanny State” saying none of it would work and all the rest of it. Well it actually did. One of the principal manufacturers immediately reduced the alcohol content of the product from 23 percent to 13.9 percent because that complied with the new law but eventually the company went out of the business because the increased cost was effective in terms of restricting use. That shows that we can make a difference. To anyone who asks what we can do I say it was done. That measure meant half a million fewer litres of high-level alcohol were drunk sales were 80 percent lower and eventually the product was driven off the market. 
I support the objectives of this bill. I support reducing the availability of alcohol particularly for young people. I support more restrictions being put on alcohol advertising and availability in the community. I must admit it is a constant irritant to me to see major sporting events celebrating the use and abuse of alcohol. After every game people are going out to “have a few quiet ones” and we see the result of that in the newspapers usually on a Monday morning. So if the Government wants to keep the wild promises it has made to seriously reduce crime in New Zealand it had better come back to this House very soon with some more significant issues on alcohol abuse. I am not at all confident that it will because the issue is not very popular. I know that but it happens to be right. I support the start that is being made here but I hope it is not the end of what we need to do in this matter.