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:5018. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! I know that he member has had a call before. He is the only spokesman for New Zealand First and he will have this call. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am keeping track of who has calls. It is Denis O’Rourke. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Could I begin by thanking other members for their various contributions which I think for the most part have been good-natured. I have enjoyed listening to the debate whatever people have said and whichever way they think. 
I cannot accept that the 20-20 option for the purchasing age—and it is the purchasing age and not the drinking age as some people seem to think—would not make a contribution to reducing the youth binge-drinking culture. It is the youth binge-drinking culture that we are concerned about with the purchasing age because that is what is relevant to youth—the purchasing age. Those members who keep talking about the problem amongst older people are simply not addressing the nexus of the issue. 
 The real issue is this: is a person more mature and able to handle alcohol at the age of 20 than at 18? The answer has to be yes. That is utterly undeniable and that is why I am voting for 20 and not 18. It is as simple as that in the end. Another thing is this: if there are many steps we need to take other than addressing the purchasing age then we should do that but that does not mean we should not address the purchasing age as well. That is what this debate is about. 
I want to refer now to what has happened in the past because I think we can learn from the past as well. First of all in the period 1881 to 1904 a period of 23 years the purchasing age was 16 years of age—in a period when there was high tolerance of the abuse of alcohol. In the following period of 6 years from 1904 to 1910 the purchasing age was raised to 18 years. But it was found that that age did not work so then in 1910 the age was increased to 21 years. That was maintained for 59 years until 1969—21 years of age was the purchasing age for that period of 59 years. It was not until 1999 after a period of 30 years that it was reduced to 20 years of age simply because that was the age of majority. In 1970 of course the Age of Majority Act had been passed. Then in 1999 for some misguided reason it was reduced again to 18 years of age. So after 89 years it was reduced to 18 years of age which has done nothing but cause harm since then. 
So if we are going to learn anything from history it is that previous generations found that the appropriate age for purchasing for most of that period by far was either 21 or 20 years of age. The lesson is simply this: lower ages have never worked and never will. The appropriate age for purchasing—and it is the purchasing and not the drinking we are talking about—is 20 years of age. That is currently the age of majority. The issue of other ages for other duties and other rights is completely irrelevant. This is a matter of judgment for us all about what is the correct age the most appropriate age for the purchasing of alcohol. 
I would remind some of those members who keep talking about evidence of one sort or another that the Law Commission in 2010 did in fact conclude that the reduction to 18 had resulted in greater harm to the young from alcohol. I know that my friends here in the Labour Party—some of them anyway—deny that. They talk about evidence and they produce it but that conclusion was made after a review of the evidence by people who knew how to do exactly that. 
So in my view and in the view of New Zealand First as a whole 20-20 is the correct option 20-18 is completely illogical and confusing and 18 has never worked and never will and we should not allow it to continue. However like many other members I do agree that addressing just the purchasing age alone is not enough. Many other things are needed too. That is something we will debate later. It is not for debate here and now as some members have tried to do. We need to look at penalties.