Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5400] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a bit of a sad day when we look at the title of a bill like this particularly having listened to some of the speeches in the first and second readings. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague and I know you will allow him to continue with his address but I just want to point out that under the Standing Orders a member who has not had a call gets priority over one who has. Mr Mark has made a contribution in this part of the debate. 
RON MARK 
: No I have not. 
John Carter 
: The member has not been called on this part? 
RON MARK 
: No. 
John Carter 
: I do apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I also remind the member that Standing Order 178 is now suspended. A member can speak twice. It is not necessarily a preference. 
RON MARK 
: We have heard enough already about what this bill is designed to do. What I clearly take exception to is hearing members of this Committee and particularly the Minister himself playing on the heart strings of parents whose children have suffered as a result of alcohol abuse. They have been telling the nation that this bill has been brought to Parliament out of some heartfelt desire to address the alcoholic problems facing our youth and the temptations of alcopops and light spirits. Men like the Hon Jim Anderton and women like the Labour member whose name I have forgotten—that is not unusual a lot of people do—told us that this bill was aimed at redressing the drinking habits of the young and that young people’s drinking habits were price-sensitive only to find that there is no price adjustment for the very drinks they are indulging in. 
I am appalled at the Greens and at United Future in particular. United Future members came to the House and gave many fine maiden speeches about Christian values and principles and about how they would stand on those principles. Those members have since had it clearly demonstrated by the drink bottles I am holding in my hand—and I will spell it out like  
Janet and John 
; like 
kindergarten because I know they are not listening but need to understand and it needs to be in  
Hansard— 
that they are supporting a bill under the apprehension that the Minister is addressing the drinking habits of young people who are being lured into buying alcopops. I am holding an empty Vodka Cruiser drink bottle in my hand. The young lady who served me at the Wellington Sports Café said it was a popular drink for young people. Its price at that place at this time of night is $6 a bottle. How can their drinking habits be price-sensitive when the price of this drink will not alter after this bill is passed? 
Speaker after speaker from United Future and the Government have told the Committee that these are the drinks they are targeting. The explanatory note of the bill says that light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excess levels of alcohol consumption within those groups. This is the drink they are talking about—the one I am holding in my hand. Why are people worried about that? They should smell one. This Vodka Cruiser which has a raspberry flavour smells very syrupy and is very sweet and is the very type of drink that Mr Anderton says he is concerned about. Is it covered by this bill? No it is not. Will its price go up? No it will not. So what is this bill here for? 
What is this drink that the young lady told me is very popular amongst young people? It is manufactured by Independent Liquor New Zealand and it is called a Vodka Teaser. It is a very cute-looking bottle white with lovely orange flames all over it. The alcohol content stated on the bottom of the bottle is 5 percent. Is it covered by this bill? No it is not. So what is all the hoo-ha about? What is all the raru raru about over on that side of the Chamber? How is it that Helen Duncan can say: “Oh we’re doing this to benefit the young people to adjust their drinking habits because parents have suffered from their children being traumatised by alcohol abuse and binge drinking.” But hello it is all a lie. Maybe this bill should be called the “We Can Fool Some of the People Some of the Time But We Can’t Fool Them All of the Time Amendment Bill”. Maybe this bill should have been called the “We in the Labour Party Believe Our Own Propaganda But Nobody Else Does Bill”. 
The Committee has been sold a crock and here we are at 20 past 12 debating a bill that will not achieve what the Minister has led everybody to believe it will achieve. That is why John Tamihere stormed out of the Chamber. He did the honourable thing as a Minister but sitting here are people who cannot be excused because on their votes this bill will pass and this dishonesty will be perpetuated. They are the members of United Future which once again is the poodle party. I probably should give those members a couple of these bottles to drink because they certainly need them. They do not understand how they have been hoodwinked or they choose not to believe. 
This bill targets ice cream. How can Mark Peck supposedly a southern man—a shorter version I know—allow Speights ice cream to be taxed?