Hague Kevin: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6095. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I want to follow on from those thoughtful remarks from Dr Clark and perhaps make an initial point that what he is saying about culture is very interesting. What we know about culture is that culture changes over time so it is entirely relevant to draw examples from other cultures about how we could aspire for our culture to be. 
I want to pick up on the remarks made by the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice and to cite the World Health Organization—in particular its comment that “Exposure of young people to alcohol marketing speeds up the onset of drinking and increases the amount consumed by those already drinking.” There is no question at all that alcohol advertising and sponsorship works. It gets people drinking earlier and actually increases the amount that they drink. In particular it increases the amount drunk by those who are already heavy drinkers. In other words it fuels the binge drinking culture that we have now. And it is interesting to me that the Government is placing the entirety of its defence of what is currently in the Alcohol Reform Bill on the shoulders of Chester Borrows and that none of the other members of the Government—some of whom were lions in the debate on the age provisions—seem to have anything at all to say about this issue despite the fact that there is considerably more evidence about the effectiveness of the measures that are promoted in the Supplementary Order Papers on this particular issue than there was around age. 
The Hon Chester Borrows talked about the Government’s wish to have New Zealand research and said that is why it was not moving on this right now. I found that a little surprising because there is a wealth of New Zealand evidence available to the Government on this point already. I will cite just a few examples of that. For example penetration of alcohol advertising to minors was illustrated by research on the Chin Heads ad. Some members of the House will remember the Chin Heads ad and I see people nodding around the Chamber. Indeed that is evidence of the pervasiveness of that advertising. Research showed that 97 percent of minors recalled the Chin Head advertisements 71 percent of those young people—those minors—knew that the ad was for Lion Red 92 percent had positive views about the ads and 64 percent thought the Chin Head humour would appeal to minors and indeed that is whom it was aimed at. So that is a piece of New Zealand research that we already have. For me that is evidence enough to move. 
In another piece of research New Zealand boys aged between 10 and 13 said that they knew more about drinking from watching ads but none of that alcohol advertising of course depicted any of the harms. The 10 to 17-year-old New Zealanders who recalled the most alcohol ads were more likely to think that it was OK for kids their age to get drunk to think that their friends drank frequently and consequently to drink more themselves. Again that is New Zealand research on the impact of advertising and sponsorship. 
 The highly internationally respected Dunedin multidisciplinary study found an impact and response to advertising on later consumption. Numbers of alcohol ads recalled at age 15 in response to a question about the portrayal of alcohol in the media significantly predicted heavier drinking among males at the age of 18. Those who responded positively to alcohol advertising at the age of 18 were heavier drinkers and reported more alcohol-related aggression at the age of 21. By the age of 26 the amounts drunk but not the frequency of drinking had declined for most of these young people. Those who had responded most positively to alcohol advertising at the age of 18 were the most frequent drinkers at the age of 26. 
I could go on. There is no shortage of New Zealand research on the impact of advertising and sponsorship from the alcohol industry on problem drinking. The jury is absolutely in; it is simply that this Government is choosing not to respond to that evidence. The evidence is there. If the Government was seriously interested in doing what the object of this bill was which is to minimise harm it would be taking the steps advocated by the commission.