Chauvel Charles: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:5003. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to begin by just acknowledging the Minister in the chair the Hon Chester Borrows. Mr Borrows chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee which heard all the evidence on the Alcohol Reform Bill and so I am delighted that he is in the chair today. I want to pay tribute to the way he chaired the committee. I acted as one of the two deputy chairs of the committee for the purposes of these hearings because we heard so many submissions that we had to divide up into two subcommittees in order to do them justice. What I want to do today is bring the debate back as much as possible to the evidence that was actually heard before the select committee because we ought to be basing our decisions in respect of this debate on that evidence. 
The point about this particular part of the debate is that the group that is being targeted here is not the problem. As we have heard from both Tau Henare and just now from Kevin Hague the claims that drinking amongst under 20s is now out of control since the lowering of the drinking age is just not borne out by the evidence. By pointing the finger at the under 20s it detracts from the real problem which is the binge-drinkers of all ages. It sends a message to all those heavy drinkers who are in denial about their behaviour that we have dealt with the problem—i.e. youth drinking—and so we do not need to change anything and that is patently wrong. 
The issues around binge drinking by some young people will never be solved or even helped by trying to restrict supply to 18 and 19-year-olds. If supply were the issue then there would be many many more young people drinking since the lowering of the age not fewer. As we have heard as I said from Tau Henare and now Kevin Hague that is not what the evidence shows. 
The issue is the culture price access and supervision—all issues that need to be dealt with in the next phase of this debate and hopefully will be whether or not by way of this Government bill or by way of Supplementary Order Papers put forward by my colleagues and me with the aim to strengthen the bill. Those proposals really are going to need to be considered as part of the whole solution here. 
 As my colleague Lianne Dalziel said it is wrong to single out age in isolation. We have to deal with issues like minimum pricing and restricting the number of liquor outlets and the hours they are open. All of these proposals would have a far greater impact on the problem of our binge drinking culture across all age groups than simply lifting the purchase age by restricting supply to 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: It would help though. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am being interjected on by Mr O’Rourke who did not participate in the select committee hearings and who knows nothing about the evidence. But never mind that—never mind that—let us just have grumpy and ignorant interjections— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Can I just interrupt. Sorry to interrupt the member. Can I just say to members that when you are in close proximity like we are over here on the cross benches interjections can actually be heard through the mike and it muffles the sound. It is the convention that when you are in that sort of position you do not interject from that seat. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I know that many colleagues across the Committee are considering voting for a split age. Again the evidence does not support the split age actually producing any positive results. The Law Commission did not favour a split age. Another factor to consider is one that was raised earlier I think by Kevin Hague again. Young people in rural areas may live some distance from the nearest pub and taxi services do not operate in those areas. A split age is essentially lifting the purchase age to 20 for all young adults in rural areas. Also I want to say this—and I am sure the Minister in the chair will have a perspective on this—my partner is an ex - police officer. I have talked to him at length about this issue because he had a lot of experience in enforcing licensing matters. He tells me that the practical realities of trying to enforce a split age would be a nightmare for our already hard-pressed police. I do not want to put that on them. 
The evidence does show that we have to get tough on our binge drinking culture. There is no doubt about that. Everybody bar the industry itself who came before the select committee gave us that message loud and clear. But the way to do that is not to single out age not to make that the major issue and not to pretend that by stopping 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds or at least trying to stop them from purchasing alcohol we can make a difference. Raising the drinking age is not the way. We need to keep it at 18.