Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:5010. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I have listened to the impassioned contributions that members have made this afternoon. I have watched members interject on one another with considerable passion. I have read the pages and pages of media articles on this issue of the purchase age. I have read the hundreds of emails that I have received on this issue. I still stand this afternoon to speak in this debate without any enthusiasm for any of the options that we have before us this afternoon. 
Despite this vote on the purchase age once we have completed it today at the end of the day—this afternoon when we have voted—we will be no closer to dealing with alcohol-related harm than we were at the beginning of the day. This aspect of the Alcohol Reform Bill will have the least impact on alcohol-related harm. In fact I expect that it will have almost no impact on alcohol-related harm. I have tried to figure out what the best approach is to this option. Knowing that it is going to have very little effect I am tempted to vote for 18 because that is the status quo. I have listened to the evidence that people have offered for raising the age to 20. It is true that young people’s brains are developing. If we were going to work on that basis alone maybe we should set the purchase age at 25 because that would be the appropriate age—when young people’s brains have fully developed. That is not going to happen. So whichever one of these options we choose is an arbitrary decision. 
I have decided though that I am going to vote for the split age. The reason I am going to vote for the split age is not that I think 18 and 19-year-olds are the source of the problem. I appreciate that problem drinking occurs at all different ages. When the purchase age came down to 18 in 1999 I was 21 years old. I supported the drop to 18 because I thought it would be a good thing to make young people’s drinking legal—they would be purchasing in on-licences—and to try to create a more positive drinking culture. But the unintended consequence has been that very young teenagers are more able to get their hands on alcohol because 18-year-olds whom they interact with at school are able to supply that alcohol to those very young teenagers. It is on that aspect alone that my first preference will be the split age. I think we need to put a gap between people who are able to purchase alcohol and those very young teenagers who are drinking more and more. 
I would like to address this question of rural youngsters drinking. I do not think for an instant that this option is going to stop 18 and 19-year-olds being able to get their hands on alcohol purchased by someone who is 20 and older and being able to drink it outside of an off-licence. I do not think that 18 and 19-year-old rural people are going to have any problem being able to drink at home or at somebody else’s home alcohol supplied by someone who is 20 or older. My concern is those very very young teenagers and their ability to get their hands on alcohol. 
I appreciate that the sources of alcohol for youngsters are many and varied that 18 and 19-year-olds are just one source of alcohol for those youngsters and that this option is by no means the silver bullet. There is no silver bullet in this alcohol reform legislation. But this issue is the weakest one and it really has disappointed me that there has been so much passion so much debate and so much energy that has gone into this issue. I am aware that there are plans for tactical voting to ensure that one of the options gets through. I am certainly aware of the very strong “keep it 18” lobby. My hope and passion is that we see this same amount of effort go into the issues in the Alcohol Reform Bill that will actually make a difference.