O'Rourke Denis: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:5000. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. I could not claim to be as good-looking as the other member. But thank you for the call. Of the three basic options on the purchasing age in the Alcohol Reform Bill—firstly 18 for both on-licence and off-licence premises; secondly 20 for both on-licence and off-licence premises; and thirdly 18 for on-licence and 20 for off-licence premises which is the split-age option—only one has no logic or credibility in my view and that is the split-age option. 
The argument that somehow young drinkers in on-licence premises are more responsible or better behaved there is specious. We can see them every night in every bar in every town misbehaving and drinking excessively in those places. The argument that somehow young drinkers in on-licence premises are likely to drink less there is also implausible and in fact the opposite may well be the case. There is actually no convincing evidence that behaviour is better or worse or drinking is lesser or greater in on-licence or off-licence premises. We simply do not know. But expert opinion does say that there is actually no reason to discriminate between on-licence and off-licence as far as age is concerned. 
The split age is not a useful compromise. I think it is really just a cop-out. So which age is appropriate then? I think we need to judge that by the magnitude of harm that is potentially going to come down upon young people and that refers to health issues to personal development issues and to mental well-being. I believe that the latest possible age for those reasons is the best and that age is 20 years. That has been the age of majority in New Zealand since the Age of Majority Act 1970. Twenty-one I think would actually be better personally but that is neither legally nor reasonably viable in New Zealand. So 20 is the correct age I believe for both on-licence and off-licence premises. 
 I do not think it is too much to ask that people aged 18 should wait another 2 years so that they can purchase alcohol wherever that may be. Arguments for relativity to other ages as a justification for 18 are also specious. Some people say that if you can join the army and fight for New Zealand at the age of 17 you should be able to buy alcohol. In fact the army is a highly disciplined environment where obedience and compliance are absolutely central whereas a high degree of disobedience and very bad behaviour is what happens with young people imbibing alcohol. 
There is a long list of ages in the law for imposing duties and conferring personal rights. I will give you just some examples. At the age of 14 years for example you are now legally a young person and you can babysit children. At 16 years you can sit a driving test and obtain your learner licence and you can get a tattoo without your parents’ permission. At the age of 17 years you can join the navy the army and the air force. At the age of 18 years your parents are no longer your legal guardians. You can make a will you can join the police and you can apply for an unemployment benefit. At the age of 19 you stop being eligible for free primary and secondary education. At the age of 20 you can adopt a child who is related to you. At the age of 25 you can adopt a child who is at least 20 years younger than you. 
The point is this: what happens in terms of the conferring of rights or the imposing of duties at other ages is completely irrelevant to the purchasing age for alcohol. They just have no relevance whatsoever. There is only one genuine criterion I believe for the alcohol age and that is what age is in the best interests of young people. My answer to that is 20 years because the later age creates more maturity.