Chauvel Charles: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6096. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I listened earlier to the remarks of the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice about the discussion in the Justice and Electoral Committee concerning the way in which votes were likely to occur on this issue. I am not sure that we share a recollection of the way in which that discussion proceeded. That is probably the fairest way to put it. In saying that I will repeat what I have said on earlier occasions. I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister—then the member—did chair the committee. It was a courteous exercise in which all submitters were heard I think carefully. But I think it is important that we do not make assumptions on the basis of discussions in the committee as to how the Committee of the whole House ought to act. I certainly repeat my earlier plea to National Party members to think about these Supplementary Order Papers on their merits. 
The evidence as I said at the select committee was overwhelming from all players other than those directly representing the industry. There was a real desire to see controls around the advertising the pricing and the availability of alcohol. What I want to do if I may is just take the Committee of the whole House through what we know is the advice that the Government received from the officials concerning each of the Supplementary Order Papers and discuss that advice starting with what I think is the excellent and far-sighted Supplementary Order Paper 81 from the Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell. 
The first thing that his Supplementary Order Paper would do would be to bring in a prohibition on advertising of alcohol products and alcohol sponsorship and introduce an offence for breaching advertising and sponsorship restrictions. The officials—and we know this because the Minister circulated this advice to every member of Parliament—gave advice that that part of the Supplementary Order Paper should not be supported. The advice conceded that there was strong public support for a complete ban but little research regarding its effectiveness and said that some evidence suggests that a complete ban could have a modest effect on drinking by young people. Well I would say particularly to those members who were emphatic in their support for either a split purchase age or a uniform age of 20 that even a modest decrease in youth drinking surely in your view members would be a good thing. I would ask that on the basis of the official advice those of you who did vote for other than a uniform age of 18 look again at this Supplementary Order Paper. Even the advice received from the officials indicates that it would go some way to achieving the aims that you were so keen to see at an earlier stage of this debate. 
There is also some concern expressed around transitional funding—the same sorts of concerns that were expressed at the time that the Health Sponsorship Council had to look at replacement advertising and funding for tobacco. But that was something this Parliament showed it had the ability to deal with and overcome. I am confident that we would be able to rise to the same challenge on this occasion if there were a will from the Government and the Minister of Finance to look carefully at this issue. 
Finally there is the response that the Government has already agreed to establish an expert forum to consider further restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship to reduce alcohol-related harm. There is the advice that the forum will be set up once the bill is passed and is due to report back to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health within a year. Well the question has to be on that point how long do we want to wait. We have got the opportunity now to legislate and to deal with these problems. Why would we kick something off to yet another so-called expert committee when as the previous speaker Kevin Hague noted there is actually sufficient evidence before the House for us to act now? 
The second part of the Supplementary Order Paper is new clause 35B which would establish a sinking lid on off-licence premises where 85 percent of the annual sales revenue is expected to come from alcohol sales unless the premise is replacing another identical or larger premise in the same territorial authority—termed a relocation—and the premise is not located within a 5-kilometre radius of any existing bottle stores. The advice here concedes that there is a definite link between outlet density and alcohol-related harm and notes that reducing density would therefore reduce alcohol-related harm. Again that is a good reason to look at the Supplementary Order Paper on its merits. The advice goes on to note that local alcohol policies something that we will deal with in debate on a later part can limit the density of licences without contravening certain other— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! That is Part 3. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am aware of that but I am dealing with the officials’ advice on this Supplementary Order Paper and one of the components of the advice is that it should not be supported because the local alcohol policies which we deal with in a later part deal with the issue. So I would appreciate it if you would just let me complete the point. 
The problem of course with that part of the advice is that the local alcohol policies which we will come to deal with later are not mandatory. So they might well provide a mechanism to deal with the explosion of liquor outlets that we have seen since 1989 but the trouble is many local authorities simply will not operate them because they are not required to—at least in terms of the legislation as it stands. 
Then Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper would add a power to the bill to introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol sold on licensed premises and would introduce an offence of the sale of alcohol at below minimum price. Basically the advisers say to the Minister and thence to MPs: “Well that is premature because the Government is already investigating a minimum pricing regime for alcohol.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! That is definitely Part 3. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am aware of that but as I said what I am doing—with respect—is running through the advice from the officials which the Minister has published to members of Parliament as to why this Supplementary Order Paper should be opposed. What I am inviting members to do is look at that advice and consider why it should not be taken on board. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well we have got—with all respect to the member—three amendments under new Part 2A and new Part 7 and that is really what I ask the member to come back to. Tie in what you are saying but we are really concentrating on those. What you are saying is fine but all that should be covered in debate on Part 3. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Clause 44 on the Supplementary Order Paper would change the national minimum trading hours to 10 a.m. to 3 a.m. with a compulsory one-way door from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. for premises that have an on-licence or a club licence and 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. for off-licences. Again the advice that is received—this is in Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand that it is in his Supplementary Order Paper. What you are saying is correct—it is in the Supplementary Order Paper—but we are not dealing with that part which is in Part 3. We are dealing only with what is in new Part 2A and new Part 7. So if you could just— 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: In that case what I will do is I will move to the other two excellent Supplementary Order Papers that are before the Committee in this part of the debate—that of Iain Lees-Galloway and that of Dr David Clark. Supplementary Order Paper 91 would insert a new Part 2A banning billboard and poster advertising within 300 metres of schools and early childhood centres creating a 9 p.m. watershed for alcohol advertising on TV and banning alcohol advertising in cinemas and public screenings for all films that are not rated R18. The advice again is not to support that because there is this expert forum that is going to be convened and it is premature to move in that area. Again I would simply say what I said in respect of the earlier part and the earlier Supplementary Order Paper: we have the evidence about the harm we need not wait this is the opportunity to legislate and we should proceed. 
Finally Supplementary Order Paper 115 from my colleague Dr David Clark would add restrictions on the advertising of alcohol on television and also on radio. Again the officials say there is strong public support for a complete ban but little research regarding its effectiveness and some evidence suggests that a complete ban could have a modest effect on drinking by young people. So the same point arises as in respect of the first part of Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81: if we can as the officials concede have some effect on drinking particularly by young people—irresponsible drinking—we ought to take it. This is the opportunity that we have. There is no benefit in further delay. We have heard the strong public urging that we ought to legislate more strongly in these areas. Here is an example of strong legislation that could make a real difference. And then there is the chestnut around the expert forum. Well again I think that has been comprehensively dealt with in the debate. 
These are three excellent Supplementary Order Papers. They do tighten up on advertising and on availability and they do deserve careful consideration and certainly in my view support by the Committee.