Mallard Trevor: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6068. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think I will start where my colleague David Clark has left off and say that this Alcohol Reform Bill does not put before the Committee in a way that I would have hoped a number of choices for the Committee. I do regret the fact that National has decided to hide behind its whips on this particular issue but I think that when it does come to the election campaign people will be asked how they voted on the issues that come up here and the fact that it was a whipped vote on what has often been a conscience area will not be a protection for those members. 
Having said that and regretted the fact that we have not really got an opportunity to debate and make decisions as a Parliament on this occasion as we have on every other occasion where we have debated this legislation I have to say that there are a lot of areas that I disagree with. The last two of my colleagues who have just spoken David Clark and David Parker have considered the issues over time looked at some of the evidence and come to different conclusions. 
I would agree that academics for example should play a positive role in informing the debate on liquor legislation and that they should be the critics and the conscience. But the problem I have especially with the leading academics in this particular area the most quoted academics in this particular area is that they are zealots. I do not think the evidence matters to them and— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Some of them are practitioners. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Some of them are practitioners but the people whom I am talking about especially a couple of individuals from the member’s own city have in fact been shown to twist the evidence in reaching their conclusions. And if anyone has any doubt about that can I recommend—[ 
Interruption 
] No take a call and debate it. Can I recommend that they look at the work of Ruth Laugesen when she did some work that looked into that area. The name of course is not one that is unknown in the public health area and she is certainly a journalist with a good reputation for analysis. 
When people looked at allegations of fact and opinion what was found was that the evidence that is being presented to the public is not always backed up by the research. I will say also that that was my experience as a member of the select committee when dealing with the Rugby World Cup and the shifts that the people I have described as zealots in the area of alcohol law reform wanted to make as part of that exercise and that actually their arguments did not stack up. 
 I want to disagree with my colleague about trends in alcohol use. I do not think there are many people left in the Chamber who can remember seeing—though in my case not being part of—evidence of the six o’clock swill. That was outrageous. The type of drinking that we saw at that time far exceeds—far exceeds—the behaviour that occurs now. It occurred with just about everyone who was in hotels at the time—and there were many more hotels at the time—and people were much more likely to drive after that occurred. I will get back to that. 
The other trend was just the practice as to the type—[ 
Interruption 
] They might have been slower cars but we did have cars and they were not like Fred Flintstone’s either. People used to drink off premises using flagons. That was the standard measure. I can remember people who thought it was progress when we shifted from flagons to crates as being the standard measure. So for people to argue that there has been a massive decline in the approach to drinking is in my opinion incorrect. 
I disagree with the comments that David Parker made and also with the proposals in the bill with regard to closing hours. I have worked on occasions as a shift worker—different sorts of shifts. There was one shift where we worked week-on week-off and we finished up at 8 o’clock on a Friday morning and we used to go to the pub. But there was another job where I worked a 4-to-midnight shift; therefore our work day and our work week finished at midnight. The idea that we could not go off to the pub then—we worked different hours we slept different hours. I think one of the good things that has happened is that that has been recognised in the ability of shift workers to socialise. 
I do agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and his amendment with regard to drink-driving. I think there has been a major cultural change in that area in New Zealand in my lifetime. I think it is no secret that many people of my generation especially but not only those who lived in rural areas used to regularly drive way over the limit. We had mickey mouse testing systems and a lack of policing—and in fact in some cases police actively ignoring the law because they themselves used to be involved in the drink-driving. But I think times have changed and that is a good thing. We are now ready I think for a change from a blood-alcohol level of 80 milligrams back to 50. 
I want to make a comment to the amendment that is proposed by my friend the Hon Phil Goff to do with ready-to-drinks and to say that I disagree with him. I will give an example for myself from last Thursday night. I went to an event at the Civic Theatre and I wanted to have a rum and Coke. I could have had the same alcohol concentration poured out of a bottle and mixed with Coke or I could have bought it in a little bottle as a ready-to-drink. Why is it that you should be allowed it if it comes in a glass or in a bit of plastic but not be allowed it if it is the same mixture in a bottle? My view is that there is a degree of overreaction to a format that is more popular with younger people. People go on about drinks being sweet. Well I happen to like dessert wines and I do not mind rum and Coke myself either. They are sweet drinks and because they are not fashionable with some generations and more fashionable with others that might need to be considered when we are looking at this. 
There is one other issue for me that I still want to hear evidence on and listen to. I know we have at least two sets of amendments around minimum pricing. I have to say that I am not yet convinced but I want to listen to the evidence and listen to the debate on these issues as part of this Committee. I would say that I am reluctant on behalf of my poorer constituents to have them disproportionately affected by this sort of change as is being proposed. It was proposed by the Law Commission and it is being proposed by some members. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in her name to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.