Turei Metiria: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6346] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and be here in the Parliament to vote against this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. My legal background has taught me that laws must be made on the basis of sound evidence and demonstrable efficacy. Although the issues surrounding alcohol the harm that is caused by alcohol—which is undeniable—and the issues around youth drinking are very serious the bill itself fails the test of being based on sound evidence and being demonstrably efficacious. It should not become law. 
So let us look at some of the facts around young people and alcohol and the way to deal with them. Parents guardians educators and all those who have concerns about the impact of alcohol on adolescents have a reason to celebrate actually. The number of under-age drinkers is decreasing. This information comes from the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC)—the most up-to-date research on young people by a truly independent body. The proportion of 14 to 17-year-olds who are non-drinkers doubled in 4 years and the trend is continuing. Education and social marketing is successfully reducing young people’s drinking entirely independent of the legal purchasing age. This is not evidence that supports the raising of the purchasing age of alcohol. 
One of the main justifications for raising the age from 18 to 20 has been that lowering the age to 18 has decreased the unofficial drinking age—that is more younger people are drinking because 18 is the legal purchasing age. But we have to remember that we have no minimum legal drinking age in this country. So for all Jim Anderton’s fury and passion the fact is that 14-year-olds can drink legally in this country and 12-year-olds can drink legally in this country. So if we are going to be worried and concerned about young people—very young people—drinking we need to address that specifically. It is legal to provide minors with alcohol as long as there is parental supervision and it is a private party. 
The ALAC research shows that 50 percent of under-age drinkers are supplied alcohol by their parents; not by 18-year-olds but by their parents. Eighty-seven percent of under-age drinkers had their last drink at home—and Simon Power dealt with this issue very well—under the legal supervision of their parents and families. This bill allows and continues to allow adults to supply alcohol to minors at private parties. It seems timely to remind members that under-age drinking at private parties with parental supervision has some very serious consequences. One might want to remember the very tragic case of Julie Johnson and the death of Renee Brown that was the result of alcohol drunk at a parentally supervised party in Northland. This bill will keep that situation alive and will retain that ability to supply this alcohol to under-age drinkers. 
So how exactly would raising the age from 18 to 20 fix this issue for these under-age drinkers? How would it interfere with the supply chain of alcohol when it is being supplied predominantly by parents? The Law and Order Committee recommends that 18-year-olds in a marriage or in a civil union should still be able to purchase alcohol and it creates this new legal fiction called a “former guardian”. But given the existing problems with enforcement around the existing law how on earth will this practically work? Will pubs be required to see a marriage licence or a birth certificate that names a former guardian before they supply a person with a drink? Will people have to identify themselves with photo ID to make sure they are the same person that is named on the birth certificate? 
Do we really want to legislate to discriminate against de facto couples? Because even those who have lived together perhaps for several years but who for their own reasons have chosen not to get married will not be able to drink as their married counterparts will be able to. So on the one hand this Parliament has recognised the status of de facto couples and their ability to be responsible adults through the Property (Relationships) Act and all that that entails yet is now prepared to draw a line around married and unmarried people just for the purposes of having a drink in a pub or buying a bottle of wine from a bottle store. 
The Care of Children Act extinguishes guardianship at 18. This bill will reinstate it for just that small little purpose. It is a ridiculous piece of legislative “pretzelism” if one likes to try to get to a solution that is easy but effectively without substance. I do not support the split age proposal. It is a means to create a second class of 18 and 19-year-olds and there is no evidence that it will have any advantageous impact on the harm that having a raised age is supposed to cure. This is all about appearance. It is appearance that makes people and MPs feel that they are doing something but in effect it has no substance. 
Another argument for raising the age is the association of purchasing age and traffic incidents. There has been a lot of talk tonight about the Otago research from the injury prevention unit. But while this research argues that there is a direct correlation between purchasing age and traffic accidents what it actually says when one reads it carefully is that the rate of decline in these accidents is slightly slower for 18 and 19-year-olds and then it also goes on to say that it has not considered the impact of easy accessible alcohol. It has looked only at the age issue. 
The fact is that there is considerable access to alcohol now and these rules were changed at around the same time that the age was lowered. There were many changes during the 1990s around alcohol. There was an increase in the number and the nature of alcohol outlets. In Auckland the number doubled in 5 years. Sunday trading was allowed there were extended opening hours and the lowering of the age. 
The only research that factors in all these different aspects and all these different changes is the Ministry of Health report  
Young People and Alcohol: Some Statistics to 2003 and 2004 on Possible Effects of Lowering the Drinking Age 
. This report shows that the number of 14 to 17-year-olds prosecuted for driving with excess breath or blood alcohol has been increasing since 1997—2 years before the legal age was raised but after the liberalisation of access to alcohol through supermarkets and dairies. The report states that the number and percentage of 15 to 19-year-old drivers involved in alcohol-related crashes decreased between 1994 and 2000. So during the period that the age was raised and although there have been some little raises in between we are still sitting at a level lower than was present in 1994. So we have not increased significantly during the period that the age was lowered. 
So the evidence is clearly showing that the correlation between lowering the age and incidence of harm is not certain. It is not certain and it is not clear and the other factors have to be taken into account. What is clear is that there is a failure to enforce the law. The Pseudo Patrons Project in 2004 showed that over half of the bottle stores that they went to sold alcohol to young people without asking for ID. Since the lowering of the age the number of convictions for selling alcohol to minors has decreased. So there is less enforcement now of the law than there was prior to 1999. I am surprised there are not more harms as a result given the plethora of access to alcohol and the failure to properly enforce the law. We should be looking at much worse statistics but we are not and we need to take that into account. 
 I know the Law and Order Committee worked very hard and dealt with a lot of issues but I think this Parliament and the people of New Zealand deserved a better report with better evidence than the one we received particularly when we are talking about stripping away the existing legal rights of adults. At 18 a person in this country is an adult. He or she can raise a mortgage die in defence of our country become a member of Parliament own and use a firearm and like all adults go to a bar and buy a beer or go to a bottle store and get a bottle of wine. If we are going to strip away these legal rights from adults we need to do it on the basis of very sound evidence and proven efficacy. That is simply not the case with this bill. I urge members to vote against this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The gallery will be cleared if there is any more of that.