Robson Matt: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Robson Matt: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20510] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Progressive) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Law and Order Committee. In 1999 Parliament voted by a narrow margin to lower the minimum age for the purchasing of alcohol to 18. The New Zealand Drug Foundation the Ministry of Health the Alcohol Advisory Council and other public health organisations at the time opposed the lowering of the drinking age. 
There was one speech in this Parliament that I remember well. It went like this: “I have to say that the term ‘conscience vote’ is something of a misnomer because I believe that I also have a responsibility to the people who elected me to Parliament to represent their viewpoints. On the key controversial issue of the drinking age every poll conducted including a poll I did in my own electorate shows that overwhelmingly by a margin of two to one the public does not want the legal drinking age lowered.” The member went on to say: “… a national survey showed that a quarter of 16 and 17-year-olds were binge drinkers each week. I wonder whether lowering the drinking age with the impact that will inevitably have of lowering the de facto age of drinking will make that situation better.” The member does not have to wonder any more. The Hon Phil Goff the Minister of Justice has evidence from his own officials and from those of the Ministry of Health to show that his direst predictions have eventuated. 
If the justice officials and officials from the Ministry of Health are not enough to confirm what Mr Goff wondered about the New Zealand Police can present him with conclusive evidence that his worst fears have come to pass. In a recent report available to Minister Goff the police state: “Alcohol is increasingly available in today’s New Zealand. As well as the 1999 lowering of the minimum legal age for purchasing alcohol which has legally allowed a whole new group of 18 to 19-year-olds to buy liquor and to drink on licensed premises there have never been as many places where you can get hold of alcohol as there are today. As the policing task has got bigger and bigger more and more pressure is placed on already stretched resources. In some cases this means police cells filling up with grossly intoxicated people on Thursday and Friday and Saturday nights. For all those who are less intoxicated too much alcohol has contributed to them getting into a fight or being caught drink-driving or wanting to carry on drinking in a public place despite there being a liquor ban by law in effect. So we are seeing greater numbers of young people being referred to Youth Aid for alcohol-related incidents involved in alcohol-related crashes or driving offences and greater numbers of young people being picked up for disorderly behaviour or receiving liquor infringement notices for various offences. And LTSA figures consistently tell us that alcohol is a contributing factor in around 25 percent of fatal crashes and 20 percent of serious injury crashes on our roads.” 
The police concur with the ministry officials who report to Minister Goff that all the evidence “presents a picture of the change in legislation having a detrimental effect on young people’s drinking behaviour.” Yet despite the overwhelming evidence that our legislation needs urgently to be reviewed Minister of Justice Goff and Associate Minister of Justice Barker having helpfully given me the notes of their Labour caucus have advised the caucus not to vote for this bill. I can tell them that their Progressive colleagues in Government will vote for it and will campaign for the public health evidence on this crucial issue to see the light of day. Associate Minister of Health and Progressive leader Jim Anderton has told me that in the countless number of forums he has held on drugs and alcohol up and down the country the voice of the public health experts the police and the community is that they want effective action on the No. 1 drug problem that of alcohol. 
In 2004 public health experts were asked to report to the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy on the effect of the 1999 legislation to lower the drinking age. The report was delivered in August 2004. Its finding was unequivocal: “From a public health perspective there is enough international and New Zealand evidence to strongly suggest that there would be overall population health benefits from raising New Zealand’s current minimum legal purchasing age back to 20 years.” I read that report and many others on the effect of lowering the drinking age. I talked with many public health agencies and their experts. I concurred with the ministerial report that we the members of Parliament had got it wrong. All the New Zealand evidence along with international studies were in agreement with the June 2004 study by a university in Finland that: “Delaying the initiation of drinking from early adolescence to late adolescence is an important goal for prevention efforts.” 
In our ministerial report the research showed that with the lowering of the drinking age in 1999 harmful patterns of drinking alcohol had emerged and that those harms had extended to young people well below the new legal age of 18. The hopes in 1999 that civilised drinking patterns would develop in the 18 to 19 age group and that strict enforcement would prevent under-age alcohol consumption have not been fulfilled. Hospital admissions for heavily intoxicated 13 to 17-year-olds have increased along with those for 18 to 19-year-olds. Traffic crash data for both age groups in both fatal and non-fatal accidents have shown that the contribution of alcohol has dramatically increased. The number of fatal crashes during high-alcohol hours has increased sharply. In all areas studied from hospital admissions to sexually transmitted diseases the lowering of the drinking age was associated with greater alcohol-related harm. 
It was that evidence that has caused me to submit my member’s bill which will raise the minimum legal purchase age of alcohol back to 20 and set strict controls on the advertising of alcohol. I must say to members that if any defects in this bill are shown by the public evidence that comes before us then that is the time for the experts from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health to help us to craft a bill that will meet the needs of all our people and particularly of our young people. 
Opponents of the bill have stated that the genie once released cannot be put back into the bottle. I am not sure whether those opponents have consciously used the image of the bottle but Parliament has to deal with the real world not the imaginary one. We have to learn from other public health measures what the appropriate steps to take are. We cannot use magic. We have to rely on scientific methods and on tried and tested techniques. Some opponents have also criticised my bill as taking a narrow legalistic approach and they say that we face a deeper social question. I agree that if we do not take up the deeper social questions and have a range of responses legislation in itself will be insufficient to deal with alcohol abuse. But an appropriate legal framework is required to keep the genie in the bottle and to allow us to carry out educational activity that is not fruitless. Parliament needs to set a legal age that is in accord with the best public health advice available. 
Furthermore Parliament needs to regulate—as my bill does—the advertising by the liquor industry. That industry does not put forward the public good as its paramount pursuit. Its alliance with the sporting and entertainment worlds to showcase the glamour of alcohol is an alliance with those bodies in pursuit of profit. Alcohol is a mind-altering depressant drug. It is no ordinary commodity that should be marketed like toothpaste or porridge. Without appropriate legislation on and regulation of advertising all the education in the world to change the culture of drinking will fall on barren soil. In excess of fifty million advertising dollars per year are spent in the broadcast media alone to promote alcohol. Sport and sex are becoming the common ingredients to promote that mind-altering drug. The target audiences are becoming younger and younger. The harm and the staggering number of cancers arising from alcohol are not part of the advertising. Liquor industry psychology researchers callously target the drinking of 11 to 14-year-olds and of 15 to 17-year-olds. They use the knowledge that educationalists have discovered of developmental stages in order to target our young people. New longitudinal studies particularly in the United States show that advertising in all mediums is having a great effect on young people in inducing them to drink at a younger and younger age and more frequently. Our Parliament needs to study those trends if we are to make appropriate decisions for the public good. We need to decide whether it is in the public interest for Heineken to place two bottles of its beer in the two holders in PlayStation controls. Members will know that advertising like that is aimed squarely at teenage and pre-teenage drinkers. 
Appropriate analogies to show the need for legislation while accepting that a comprehensive approach is required can be drawn with other public health measures. Safer driving is a good place to start as alcohol plays a large role in unsafe driving. It is also a major factor in youth crime. Education campaigns and methods that teach us and exhort us to drive safely are an important part of our efforts to lower the road toll and protect our citizens from dangerous careless and negligent driving but a legal framework is needed to ensure that drivers comply with the rules and regulations that make us safe. One important part of that law that is being debated now is the wisdom of the driving age. We have gone from allowing a full driver’s licence to be gained at 15 years and 1 day to putting in place a range of restrictive conditions and hurdles that have to be passed before a full licence is granted. Consideration is now being given by experts as to whether the age of application for a learner’s licence—the first step—should be raised. The objective is the safety of the younger driver and the public. It is not to prevent young people from having fun; it is aimed at allowing them to live a long life. 
I would ask members of this Parliament to send this bill to the select committee on the basis that public health evidence is telling us that we urgently need to review the legislation that lowered the drinking age to 18. That would also allow the select committee to soberly—and I use the word advisedly—judge the evidence that comes before it and allow the public to have their say and have their input into this bill. Parliament could then link science with policy so that we get the best drinking policy possible for the people of this country. If there are defects in this bill they should be fixed in the select committee.