Jones Dail: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5448] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The Minister in charge of this bill the Hon Jim Anderton has said that this legislation will stop binge drinking. He was asked many many questions during the Committee stage. Yet he was silent throughout virtually all the Committee stage which I think lasted over 3 hours or so. 
John Carter 
: 4 hours. 
DAIL JONES 
: It was close to 4 hours. It was virtually impossible to get an answer from the Minister to our questions. But one of the key things that we hammered throughout the Committee stage was this: when he gave his first reading speech on this bill was he referring to the bottles that are in the cupboard now and with which he is very familiar—the small bottles of drink containing 5 percent alcohol? I know that when I spoke in the first reading debate I had the clear impression that Mr Anderton was talking about the little bottles of drink that young people enjoy drinking. We had the clear impression that he thought that type of alcohol would be hit by this legislation. 
Of course it transpired through the research done by various Opposition members through the course of the evening that that type of alcohol is not affected by this legislation other than by the usual consumer price index increase which will be undertaken on 1 June. The Minister I believe owed an apology to this House when he made his third reading speech. He could have put it on the record that at least an inference might have been drawn from his first reading speech that could have misled members of this House and that certainly did mislead them. No Labour Party member tried at all to clarify that misleading view. I think it is because the Labour Party members themselves were misled. When they were walked into their caucus and told what was to happen I am sure they were under the clear impression that this legislation would hit the small bottles of drink. I think they were as horrified as they could possibly be when they discovered that those small bottles of drink are not the ones that are involved. 
After all the explanatory note of the bill states: “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. Increasing the duty payable on these products to more correctly price them is aimed at reducing this consumption.” I would have thought that 5 percent alcohol content was a light spirit. I would have thought that 23 percent alcohol content was getting to the medium to high side in terms of spirits. Of course that does reflect that this Government has rushed this legislation through without doing adequate research itself and without an adequate explanation to the Opposition parties. It has created utter confusion as to what is meant by “light spirits”. 
It should also be noted on the record that at no stage did the Minister do anything to clarify what the term “light spirit” meant. He could have stood up and made the speech that Larry Baldock has just given saying that it means a mysterious bottle of gin containing 23 percent of alcohol by volume. But the Minister did not say that; I cannot recall him saying that. It is the Minister’s duty to inform the House about the type of liquor that is involved not Larry Baldock’s or Rod Donald’s. What goes down on the record of this House if it is ever looked at by a court subsequently will be the Minister’s speech not the speech of a member of a minor joint Government party like United Future or the Greens. It will be the Minister’s speech that a court will look at when it tries to interpret what is meant by this legislation. If that ever becomes necessary the court will have no idea what was meant by a light spirit insofar as the Minister’s early speech and the explanatory note of the bill are concerned. I think that insofar as members on the Opposition side of the House are concerned it is very clear to us that it was only after Dr Lynda Scott Nick Smith and Ron Mark produced these small bottles that there was somehow a change of direction in the way in which the Government approached this matter. 
If the Government was really serious about reducing the effects of alcohol on young people it should have introduced a tax on the small bottles with 5 percent alcohol content. We have heard quite clearly tonight that it is those small bottles that are consumed by young people. If the Government was serious about reducing the effect of alcohol on them—at various parties and suchlike events—it should have had the bottles with 5 percent alcohol content included in this legislation. Why did it not do so? After all here we are being forced to sit here in the House under extraordinary urgency. New Zealand First has maintained 13 votes on this bill throughout almost all the night. We have sat here to fight and oppose this legislation; we have been prepared to do that. Surely the Government could have made sure that this legislation which it is imposing on this country with the support of United Future and the Greens hit those bottles with 5 percent alcohol content if it had wished to do so. Why did it not do that? After all the Government has given the clear impression that those drinks are the mischief that has been affecting young people in this country. 
I say to younger people of 14 15 16 and 17 years of age—and this is known to all of those members for example who were in the House when the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council was established way back in about 1977—that it is the younger leaner female person who is more inclined to feel the effects of alcohol at an early stage than an older person who is carrying a bit more weight and suchlike. The trap for a young person would be to follow the advice of the mother mentioned by Roger Sowry who tells her daughter to drink the bottles containing 5 percent alcohol because I believe a young person of 14 15 or 16 years of age who is female and of a slight build would probably suffer serious effects after drinking only one of those bottles let alone after having a second one. If the Labour Government was concerned about the effects of alcohol on young people it had every duty to include that type of alcohol in this rushed legislation that we are passing under extraordinary urgency. It has failed to do so and United Future has failed to insist that it do so. 
After all the only reason that this bill is going through the House is United Future. If United Future had any impact on this Labour Government it should have insisted that the bottles with 5 percent alcohol content be included in the legislation as well. It is no use for United Future to put up the sad story about the effects of the demon drink and to say the liquor industry is to blame for them not the people who drink the liquor. It always seems to be the liquor industry that is the demon in this area insofar as people like the United Future members are concerned. The people who consume alcohol have some part to play in becoming drunk. After all if they did not consume it they would not become drunk. No one forces them to drink the stuff. United Future if it had any real concern about young people who drink should have insisted that that type of alcohol be included in this legislation. 
Of course the real solution for this House would be as I indicated earlier to accept Ron Mark’s bill to raise the drinking age back to 20. That is the real solution. That is New Zealand First’s preferred position. Obviously we oppose this legislation. It mainly hits the elderly who have a little drink of port or sherry. Perhaps they have a half-gallon a week which is staggered through the week. They are the people who will mainly pay this tax not the young people. After all the young people who drink drinks with a 5 percent alcohol content will not pay anything other than the norm. It will be the older people who will pay the additional amount of money. People will be hit for example in the Returned Services Association. Soon perhaps they will not be allowed to smoke in their association’s premises; it will be interesting to see whether that legislation goes through. People will not be allowed to smoke in those premises if the Labour Party has anything to do with it—people whose port and sherry will have doubled in price as a result of this legislation. The Labour Party does not care about the working person. That is for sure!