Hughes Gareth: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:5009. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Alcohol Reform Bill in favour of keeping the purchase age 18. I want to outline my reasons: raising it is not fair raising it will not be effective and raising it will not deal with the real issue which is the serious cultural historical problem our country has with alcohol. I want to share some of my views because I think I have got a unique view. I am probably the only member in this House who still gets asked for ID for alcohol. I think it shows that the reforms made last time Parliament turned its attention to this issue have worked because when I was 16 and when the purchase age was 20 I could go into a pub. When I was 16 and the age was 20 I could still drink rocket fuel on the street. What we know is that we are cracking down on lack of IDs. We have got some room to go and in fact we could clamp down further on supply to minors. What we know is that since those reforms youth drinking has actually declined according to numerous studies. 
I want to also share—and you might not know this about me—that I used to be a barman across the road at the Back Bencher. There I saw the problem. It was not youth drinking. It was inappropriate drinking—inappropriate drinking no matter what the age was. There I saw regular alcoholism. I saw regular intoxication. I even saw MPs binge drinking and intoxicated across the road. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I do not think you should make that reference. I think that that is an inappropriate remark and I ask the member to withdraw it. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I withdraw. The real issue is irresponsible consumption regardless of the age. 
Raising the age is not fair. On your 18th birthday you are given a raft of rights and you are given a raft of responsibilities. You can vote you can fight you can smoke you can gamble you can even get elected to a council as Jami-Lee Ross saw but under these changes you could not go and buy a bottle of wine to have with dinner. It is astounding that the student army volunteers in Canterbury under this proposal would not be able to buy a six-pack after a hard day’s shovelling. It is unfair it is discriminatory and it is scapegoating young New Zealanders. Like lowering the blood-alcohol level for under-20-year-old drivers it is easy to target the under-20-year-olds and ignore the real issue. It is easy to target young Kiwis and ignore the real problem. It sends this signal that we are dealing with the problems but we are not. It will not be effective in reducing harm. We know that 92 percent of problem drinkers heavy drinkers are over 20. It purposefully ignores the real issues which are price availability and the $70 million spent annually on alcohol advertising. Lastly it ignores the real issue which is our cultural problem. 
The split age will be confusing and it will not work. It sends the wrong signal and there is no evidence that it will work at all. It is going to benefit only the pub owners and encourage people to pile into town. In my city a third of the crime occurs in the “golden mile” mostly as a result of alcohol. Why would we want to push our young men and young women downtown into that environment where we know crime and sexual abuse is happening now because of alcohol? 
So in summary raising the age is not fair it will not be effective and it will not address the real problem. We are missing the chance to take a bold honest approach to the real issues facing our country but sadly all we are doing is scapegoating and discriminating against young New Zealanders. It is not fair. It is not on.