Prebble Richard: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20516] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am a little surprised to find that I am the first speaker to speak against the bill— 
Hon Member 
: You are opposing it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I sincerely hope so and I was a little disappointed I was missed out of the previous member’s list because my vote has not changed. I realise I may be the only ACT member to speak tonight so let me make it clear that for the ACT party this matter is a conscience issue. I have proxies here for two members who intend to vote for the bill and seven who are going to vote against. 
The argument of those two members who are going to vote for the bill has I think been eloquently put. It is the argument that if we do send the bill to a select committee at least the matter can be reviewed by MPs and there is an argument to say that after 6 years we should look at the issue again. But if members think about it they would see that that is actually an argument to vote for every single bill. The other seven members take this view. Firstly—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the Ministry of Justice has produced not one but four reports that refute the emotional statements that there is some sort of disaster happening with our young people. 
I want to put a second argument which I think Mr Goff put in a way and it is certainly a position that I hold. We should hold people individually responsible for their actions and 18-year-olds are old enough to vote and they should be held responsible for their actions. Those who misuse alcohol—and of course there are some; just as there are some 22-year-olds and some 82-year-olds who misuse alcohol—should be held responsible. The idea that we should have collective guilt for all 18 and 19-year-olds is abhorrent. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of 18 and 19-year-olds have behaved in the way that members of this House hoped. 
The next thing I have to say after listening to Mr Mapp talk about this and about how 18-year-olds know 16-year-olds—I think that was the logic—is that I remember Mr Ken Shirley telling me that he was 6 foot 3 inches tall when he was 10 and when he was 14 and the liquor age was 21 he was sent by 20-year-olds to get the liquor for them. Some members think that this problem has developed only in the last few years. What planet are those members on? 
I have another objection. I am a former Minister of Police. I was well aware when I was the Minister of Police that that restriction to 20-year-olds could not be enforced. The police told me they could not do it. Now they could not do it 10 years ago and no member really believes that they can do it today. It is bad lawmaking to pass a law that we know our over-stretched police cannot carry out. But it is also bad lawmaking to pass a law that will mean that a lot of 18-year-olds of good character who will not take any notice of this law if we pass it could have convictions against them. If members think that is wrong they should go down to their local university drinking hole and have a look as I did prior to the passing of the last bill. I actually did a survey at Victoria University and I discovered some drinking establishments where the people were drinking very well and over half of those who were there—and this was before the law was changed—were actually under age. 
But there are other things. I can remember as Minister of Police suddenly being confronted by what appeared to be a crime wave in Hastings. The newspapers were full of it. Crime arrests were way up. I asked for the data and I read it. Of course as a lawyer I realised that a large number of the people arrested were being arrested for under-age drinking and others were arrested for resisting the police arresting their mates for under-age drinking. I suggested that the local constable who was doing such a good job should be transferred to Ruatoria where the Rastafarians were and suddenly the crime wave in Hastings came to an end. It was a nonsense and this bill is a nonsense. I am sure that amongst New Zealand First’s Grey Power supporters there are people who would vote for a bill to have the age limit set at 30 or probably 40. The truth of the matter as Mr Goff eloquently put it is that there are people aged 30 and 40 who do not handle alcohol well. But we know as a Parliament that prohibitions do not work. They may be populist but we have a duty as a House to pass good legislation.