Clark David: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6084. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this part new Part 2A and new Part 7 in particular because I have Supplementary Order Paper 115 in my name to the Alcohol Reform Bill around the issue of advertising. The issue of advertising is one of the top things that can make a difference in this area as I said in one of my previous contributions in this debate. Price and marketing are the two big levers that can be pulled in the alcohol sphere to effect behavioural change. That is the finding of the Law Commission’s report to which 3000 New Zealanders submitted and those New Zealanders who submitted their concerns will be very disappointed to learn that the National Government is not allowing its own members to exercise their consciences on this issue. It is a terrible disappointment I think and a sadness in this Parliament that MPs are not treating this issue as a conscience issue in the traditional fashion because here we do have the opportunity—an opportunity that does not present itself very often—to make a real change in the culture we have in New Zealand. 
Before I go directly on to advertising I just want to make a brief comparison with the culture in Germany where I had the good fortune to live as an exchange student many years ago and latterly during some post-graduate study. In Germany the drinking age is a split age but of a different kind from that which we debated in this Parliament. Beer and wine is able to be purchased at age 16 and spirits at age 18. What happens in practice is that in Germany the young people get access to those drinks roughly 2 years before the official age that is designated by their Parliament. They have a much more permissive culture around alcohol and indeed I would argue a healthier culture around alcohol because it is something that is consumed with family under supervision and in a way that indicates that those who do experiment with it are younger and therefore curiously more immature whereas in New Zealand our age of entitlement is often tied up with adulthood in respect of alcohol. That produces a slightly different cultural norm and expectation. People experiment with alcohol when they reach adulthood and therefore it is an adult drink as opposed to Germany where in my observation it is considered a drink that is more associated with— 
Jonathan Young 
: A juvenile drink. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —juvenile behaviour. The member opposite makes the point; he is right. So there are different cultures and we have the opportunity to change our culture for the better. 
The debate has focused largely on age up until now which in my view is a shame because that is not where the real opportunities lie. I was told by one researcher that the age debate in alcohol was like emptying a bucket with a teaspoon: it does make a difference but it takes a very long time and the impact is less noticeable than pulling on levers like advertising and price. So my Supplementary Order Paper which is in respect of advertising aims to reduce the amount of advertising available on New Zealand television to promote liquor products and that is intended to stop the growth of the alcohol market in New Zealand. I am sure that those who already drink will notice limited change in their own behaviour but those who are new to alcohol will not find the array of colourful advertising that they might otherwise find on television and on radio. 
For the benefit of those at home who do not have access to these Supplementary Order Papers and might be watching this I will read the first subclause of new clause 220A which states: “(1) No person or entity may broadcast or arrange for any other person or entity to broadcast any alcohol product advertisement on television or radio in New Zealand.” The Supplementary Order Paper is modelled on what was done in the tobacco field where this has become law in a similar way and there are unintended consequences ruled out. Likewise in the Supplementary Order Paper in the way in which it is modelled it makes sure that overseas broadcasts for example that are taken through a pay network that has advertising as part of the package are allowed to proceed where it is difficult to weed out that advertising. So it is not intended to make an overly burdensome compliance on local content; it is intended to make sure that no additional advertising is being created. 
Likewise the unintended consequence is alluded to in the final subclause on the Supplementary Order Paper which states: “(3) Nothing in this subsection (1) applies to—(a) the exhibition in any museum or art gallery of any work or artefact:” where an aspect of alcohol advertising is permitted. So the Supplementary Order Paper is designed to make sure that we do not have any silly situations where the law might be called into question or ridicule. It is designed to make sure that we are not creating advertising that is glorifying alcohol in the New Zealand context and making it out to be a particularly healthy lifestyle choice. The majority of New Zealanders we know will drink alcohol in a fair way for most of their lives but what we also know is that the evidence suggests that there are ways in which we can curb alcohol-related harm. There is a lot of science around these things and the experts in the field are very clear about what we can change and what we should change. The Government’s legislation as it has proposed it does not really pull the levers that it can pull in respect of price and marketing. So my Supplementary Order Paper aims to get at the marketing issue. I will also be supporting other amendments in a similar vein being put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell and Iain Lees-Galloway because they get to the heart of a similar issue and are designed to restrict advertising that will lead to harmful consequences for our people. 
As I conclude I want to say that it is indeed a disappointment that this legislation is not tackling these issues directly head-on. It is left to Supplementary Order Papers to be debated. It is a shame that the National Party members we are told are going to be whipped into exercising their consciences in a particular way which makes it hard to imagine how those are indeed working consciences. This whipping of the vote means that these issues which are important to New Zealand society are not getting the opportunity to be properly debated. We are debating them as energetically as we can on this side of the Chamber but there is not much debate coming from the other side where those members are succumbing to the pressure put on them to toe the line to not rock the boat and to make sure that they do not upset the apple cart or have an opinion of their own. 
I really think that that is a terrible shame because these are issues—Mr Woodhouse is calling out. I know that he will know that in Dunedin this is a very real issue which the senior members of our community are concerned about which the council is concerned about—he is nodding; he knows this to be true—and which the university is concerned about. I know he too is concerned about this issue. I think it is a real shame that he is not free to exercise his own vote and his own conscience on this issue because it is an issue that affects our community. We know from the evidence that there are harms to our community when we do not have effective legislation and that we do have a problem in New Zealand that needs to be addressed. 
I want to conclude with that remark. It is a shame that the Government is passing up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make good on the recommendations the Law Commission put forward from the 300 submissions it received many from experts in the field. I suggest that the Government is tinkering with the law rather than making the substantive changes that are really needed. Thank you.