Shirley Ken: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5450] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think the member who just resumed her seat gave us the full content of her great knowledge in that very very short speech. This is a taxation bill. It was brought to the House under the pretence that it was a health bill—a matter addressing a social concern. That has been exposed for the fraud that it was and we have been through that at length. 
Members are talking about young people. I think they are generally talking about 15 16 and 17-year-olds who are out binge drinking. But let us remind ourselves that our liquor laws make it illegal for people under 18 to purchase alcohol now or for people to supply minors. The problem is actually the lack of policing of the existing laws. I would put it to members that 18 19 and 20-year-olds are more responsible than 15 16 and 17-year-olds. Some of them still engage in binge drinking but the real social concern is about those early teenagers and mid-teenagers who are getting into the alcopops and all the rest of what we have heard about. So point No. 1 is the basic issue that our existing laws make it illegal to supply minors with alcohol and for minors to purchase alcohol. But as we all know those laws are not being policed. To think that we can somehow cover for that by increasing the excise tax—because youth are price sensitive—means that we are missing the basic point are we not? The fact is that those young people are under age anyway and it is illegal for them to buy or to be supplied with alcohol. Surely we should be policing our existing laws rather than engaging in another $14 million tax grab. 
On that point the Government’s own advice in the McLeod report recommended that we do away with excise tax. It stated that such taxes are not good policy. The McLeod report also addressed the health issue and stated there was no evidence to suggest that we could somehow use excise tax to improve health situations be they concerning alcohol or other substances. Then we come to the report of the economist Brian Easton who was commissioned by the Alcohol Advisory Council and who reported last November. He recommended that the excise tax on spirits above the 23 percent alcohol by volume threshold be reduced. That was his recommendation and somehow with some kind of convoluted logic the Government is saying that if we increase the taxation on the medium or light liquors that will overcome the problem. 
Clearly that position is quite illogical. And as has already been pointed out the Government has the wrong target. By targeting products with 14 to 23 percent alcohol content the Government does not pick up the alcopops. The point has been made that we are picking up ports sherries and Madeiras but those are not the drinks of preference for young people. Then of course the Government has thrown in ice cream. We have had a lot of debate about ice cream. How on earth does the Government explain that away? 
I was pleased to see one thing cleared up. I was concerned about the timing of this debate under extraordinary urgency. Of course we are still debating in yesterday’s date and the bill is to become effective from the day it receives the royal assent. That would have been effectively midnight of what would have been last night. There are various outlets still open for business that could be caught by that. But the Minister made the point that alcohol is in bond. I presume that the bond stores will not open until 9 a.m. and possibly the royal assent will be on this legislation by then so that should overcome that problem. 
Just as an aside I remember an excise tax back in 1986 or 1987. The then Minister of Finance—who was either my former colleague Roger Douglas or maybe Trevor de Cleene—foreshadowed that there would be an increase in the excise duty on petrol. One very keen member of the House Rob Talbot who actually sat right here at the time rushed out—I have never seen anyone leave the Chamber so fast—and 20 minutes later he came roaring back. He said that he had gone out and filled up his car with petrol and came in beaming and saying that he had beaten the system. He had topped his car up with petrol—only to find that the excise tax had gone down. Poor old Rob! Never mind! 
If the Government is serious about addressing the concerns in terms of youth alcoholism why on earth did it close down Queen Mary Hospital’s youth alcohol programme at Hanmer Springs? Can anyone explain that? That was a very good programme for those unfortunate youths who become alcoholics at an early age. This Government is happy to grab tax and to take another $14 million net in taxation but to close down—[ 
Interruption 
]—Perhaps Damien O’Connor the Associate Minister of Health can address that question. This Government closed down the Hanmer Springs youth alcohol programme. That was an outrage. 
The other thing we are likely to see come out of this legislation is an increase in home brewing. We know that there are now very sophisticated kits which are legal as long as one does not sell the brew. A lot of people have those kits now in their garages. I do not know whether this is so but members of the House may even have them. One can produce vodka gin bourbon—anything one likes—by adding a flavouring essence and the alcohol content is way up there in the 45 percent range. I think we will see young people now engaging in those sorts of activities because of this greedy Government’s legislation which tries to gouge more taxation dollars. That is what this legislation is all about. 
Why on earth are we debating this legislation tonight under extraordinary urgency? Is it because this bill is a trophy for United Future? Is it something that United Future has been asking for—or possibly Jim Anderton—and all the bad publicity was not wanted with the Budget next week? That is when one would normally expect a matter like this to be addressed but for a very strange reason that has not been explained the Government today decided at short notice to rush this bill through all stages without any consideration by a select committee. If the bill had gone to a select committee obviously some of the deficiencies that have been identified in the Chamber tonight and pointed out to the Government could have been addressed but that opportunity has been denied. 
This is bad legislation; ACT will certainly be opposing it. It does not achieve the objective it purports to and it is nothing to do with health as has been claimed by the Minister who introduced it. It is all about more taxation and more excise duty and that is against the advice of the Government’s own advisers. This legislation is bad public policy; ACT will be opposing it.