Dalziel Lianne: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I just wanted to mention a particular brand of alcohol and now I cannot remember the name of it but it comes in a can and it is something to do with Woodstock. The advertisement talks about whether it is OK if your friend’s mother gives you a “woody”. Am I getting this right? And are we all actually slightly revolted by what I just said? Because there is an implication of sexuality around that which it is designed to do. The advertisement stops and everything is freeze-framed in order to make the point that this is OK to have on our televisions. But it is OK; that has got through the self-regulatory thing. 
They said in the report: “We never encourage rapid excessive or irresponsible consumption in any of our marketing or promotions …”. Well I am sorry but whenever one looks at the advertising that is on television we see those very direct linkages to sexuality to good times and actually to not being able to have a good time without having alcohol involved. I think all of us have at different times got ourselves involved in the FebFast campaign where we take a month off from drinking. Some have not done that but— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Unpatriotic! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Some think it is unpatriotic—that is fine—but I have certainly done that and I know that others in the House have done that as well. But what struck me the first time I got involved in that campaign was the number of occasions where I said “I’m not drinking this month.” and the people who said “Well have one anyway.” or “We’ll buy you a night off.” when they realised that there was a buy-out provision in the campaign. I just think we have got ourselves into a habit of drinking on all sorts of occasions when in fact it is not necessary in order to achieve the purposes of the occasion. 
I think this link between drinking and advertising and sponsorship is compelling particularly with regard to young people. That was the finding of the Law Commission. It has looked at the evidence. I do not think the jury is still out on this. I think there are indeed some self-interested people in the industry and that is not just the liquor industry. People have to remember that it is the advertisers and it is the media that are dependent on the alcohol advertising dollar that will in fact try to push public opinion in a particular way. But no matter how much they push it the public want to see change and I do not know how anyone in this Committee can vote against some of the amendments that we are considering here today. All of them pick up a gradual move towards change that the public have been demanding for some time. 
We have never had the I think courage to look at the Loi Evin which is operating in France. Of course the Law Commission said that that is a long way from where it thinks we could be but it was passed in 1991 and despite the many challenges that have been brought against that law—which allows for no advertising targeted at young people no advertising on television or in cinemas no sponsorship of cultural or sports events and advertising permitted only in the press for adults on billboards or on radio channels under very precise conditions and its content is very controlled—it has worked. A health message is included on each advertisement to the effect that alcohol abuse is dangerous for health. 
It should go without saying but alcohol is actually dangerous to the purse of the New Zealand taxpayer. I do not know why people do not understand that for every person who takes up a hospital bed as the result of a crash caused by a drunken driver that is somebody who is not getting an elective surgery and for every person who cannot get the police officer to come after they have had a burglary because that police officer is in town dealing with a fight that has broken out in the early hours of the morning that is because of alcohol-fuelled harm. I cannot see why the people of New Zealand cannot see that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a total free-for-all in all of these areas and have alcohol advertising to the extent that it does dominate public opinion. I think it is time for real change in this House. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 2A and new clause 58A be agreed to.