Ardern Shane: Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1807] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I could not agree more with my colleague who has just resumed his seat Te Ururoa Flavell. Much of what he had to say was absolutely right. I also say that it would be hypocritical of me to take a pious view of the consumption of alcohol now at age 49 or to while thinking back to when I was in my 20s take some sort of position that would be inconsistent with my own lifestyle. 
As the father of two young adult boys I am fully aware of the impact that alcohol can and does have on a lot of families. I also say that I believe that this generation of young New Zealanders is actually far better than we were. On the whole they are much more responsible and much less likely to get involved in alcohol-related activity shenanigans legal disobedience or other such activities than was our own generation notwithstanding some of the television footage we see of students in Dunedin and other places—and that is certainly at the top of the news at the moment. I firmly believe that percentage-wise they are not as bad as some would have us believe. That said we do see a large number of young people—and I mean very young people—overindulging in alcohol. Whom do we blame for that? Whom should we ask why that is so? 
I congratulate the former Labour Minister Lianne Dalziel who recently took a call and put forward some of the research that had gone into the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. The bill states that something like 60 percent of the minors surveyed identified their parents as being the suppliers of alcohol. Their parents of course are people of our generation so we need to look no further than the type of culture that has developed in our time rather than in the time of the children who are now offenders. 
 The bill itself as other speakers have said covers a number of issues around the advertising activities of licence distributors and other such things. But according to the research done for the bill only 10 to 15 percent of those who are involved in under-age drinking actually purchase the alcohol themselves. There is already a fairly powerful law around the purchasing of alcohol by minors which is that one must present either a driver’s licence with a photograph on it a passport or a special identification card before the licensed premises can serve alcohol. If the licensed premises do not obey that law then some fairly hefty penalties apply. So clearly the argument in that regard is about enforcement rather than about a change of law. 
We must come back then to the basic principles. Some speakers have talked about advertising. My 23-year-old son arrived home from Victoria University wearing a T-shirt that stated “Tuiversity”. I asked him what “Tuiversity” meant and whether he knew how big the cheques were that I was writing out so that he could enjoy this so-called higher level of learning in Wellington. We never had to have T-shirts with “Tuiversity” on them to learn the values of the consumption of that fine product from Mangatainoka. I asked him what he was doing wearing these T-shirts. He said to me that I needed to get with it and that if he wore the “Tuiversity” T-shirt to the Speight’s Ale House often enough they would give him a Speight’s T-shirt so that he would be kept in clothing throughout his university studies without it being a burden on his parents. I do not know how much one has to invest in the Tui product to be eligible for these shirts but certainly he collected a fair volume of them. 
I will also share with the House a small anecdote. On the weekend a number of colleagues and myself went to the Hurricanes match in New Plymouth and watched the Hurricanes thrash the Australians again. At that great occasion I ran into the father of a close friend of my son who was also a Victoria University graduate. He said to me that at his son’s wedding the “teenagers” as we call them—but they are not actually teenagers; they are young adults now—were very very responsible. There was no drunkenness or stupidity. In fact they behaved at a very high standard. He was surprised; I do not know why that is but he was. I suggested to him that I had experienced that situation a number of times in that I had been nervous about one or two things that were likely to take place at our place and then I had been pleasantly surprised not to have had my apprehensions borne out. I suspect that a minority of children consume alcohol—that is children from the age of 14 to the legal age of being able to purchase alcohol as the Minister rightly said— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Former Minister. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —as the previous Minister said. Of course that is right. The law has never ever prescribed a drinking age; it has prescribed a purchasing age. There is a lot of debate around at the moment about whether that issue should be revisited. I suggest that it should be properly enforced. That would be a better approach. 
An expert multidisciplinary steering group reviewed the self-regulatory system for alcohol advertising. It considered a broad range of evidence and concluded that alcohol advertising plays a role in shaping the culture of drinking and that it reflects and amplifies drinking practices in the context of a country’s social economic and cultural history. I suspect that that is absolutely right. Hopefully this bill once it becomes law will go some way—at least we hope it will—to addressing the culture that has developed in society around the problem drinking that we see so often now in television bulletins particularly around universities and the behaviour that is taking place as a result of that drinking as well as some of the crime statistics that we see from time to time. 
The review also found that there were a number of gaps. The gaps are that industry is largely accountable for the system with limited opportunity for influence by the Government. In other words there is a self-governing regime as far as advertising is concerned. This bill goes some way to giving both local and central government the opportunity to say: “Well look we have given you guys a go. You haven’t played ball in terms of what society expects from you in general so you either do that or we will bring in some law regulation local body law or other such thing that will make you do so.” The report identified that there was no real legislative framework to do that so this bill brings that in. 
The system is not underpinned by clear policy goals. In other words in one area one thing applies; in another area another thing applies so therefore there is confusion and uncertainty around what is expected of various providers. We have heard tonight in this debate a lot of anecdotal evidence at least of various suppliers running loss-leader wars on alcohol. The previous Minister said that in her view it was a great pity that we allowed beer to be sold in supermarkets. Well as someone who goes into the supermarket on the way home occasionally and picks up a few dozen for friends who are coming round to watch the rugby match or whatever I actually find it very convenient to buy beer from supermarkets. Why would she penalise 90 percent of society for those who would offend given as has been stated many times that it is the parents themselves who need to be accountable for teaching young people or showing responsibility in respect of the use of alcohol? I am not sure I agree with the previous Minister on that point but some clear guidelines around advertising and how supermarkets and other outlets should run loss-leaders and other such things in the promotion of alcohol may need to be looked at. 
There are no infringement powers in cases of persistent and serious non-compliance so clearly this bill does something in regard to giving local authorities in particular—but not just local authorities—an opportunity to do something about that. 
This bill is a small step to overcoming what has become a growing problem in our country but I think it is a problem that is more cultural and more parent-driven and will be resolved within the community as opposed to being resolved by legislation. But the legislation will give more powers to those who wish to do something. Thank you.