Bennett David: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4411. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is really just an example of what we will face in this Parliament and have faced over many years with regard to this issue. It is not a new issue; it is not something that has just arisen in recent times. In fact this bill has its genesis in many other members’ bills that have been put forward to deal with the issue. That constant relooking at the issue of youth alcohol the advertising of alcohol and the alcohol drinking age is something that Parliament is grappling to come to terms with. In reality the constant number of members’ bills in this area reflects a concern in the community and in this Parliament but also an inability to find solutions. Governments of all descriptions have been grappling with the problem just as the members have. Members did not come to a unified approach in the last term of the previous Government and this Government is making attempts through the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill to remedy the issue. 
When we look at this bill we need to reflect quite deeply on the history and the nature of this issue. I remember that Martin Gallagher took over the bill from Matt Robson who originally brought it to the House. That was some time ago in 2005. Martin Gallagher was a member from Hamilton like me and he was a very good member. Tim Macindoe has taken over his seat representing it on behalf of the National Party and he is dealing with the very same issues in his electorate now that were there then. When Martin was bringing this bill forward he struggled to get votes for it as well. He found it difficult to get support across parties because the reality is that this Parliament has not judged the issue on its full merits yet. This Parliament is trying just to find some solutions and some stop-gap measures for something that it does not really want to face or has not had the courage to face in the appropriate manner. That is probably at the heart of what we should take from tonight’s debate. There is an issue that needs to be dealt with but this bill may not be the best way to deal with it. There may be better ways if we take a more cohesive approach and look at the wider issue and what we are actually dealing with. I think that is why from my personal point of view we will not be or I will not be supporting this bill. In the sense that— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: “We”? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: No that is my personal view and I am allowed to have my personal view. There is an issue here but it needs to be dealt with in the appropriate manner. The appropriate manner is to find a cohesive solution that deals with the issue. We have been talking about members’ bills in this area for many years now and we have not received the response we needed. National has made an attempt as a Government to do something in this area. If we look at the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which had its first reading in the first part of this year we see that it also deals with the advertising of liquor and provides a more integrated approach to dealing with that issue. It focuses on families and youth in dealing with the issue and providing for personal responsibility. That bill deals with the advertising issue and sets clearer standards and provides consistent monitoring. 
One of the negatives of the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that we are debating is the restriction on broadcasting of liquor advertising in the sense of that watershed period of 10 p.m. to midnight. Basically a young person in the age group that would be engaged in drinking will be up at that time of night. The really young will not be up then but for the others 10 p.m. to 12 p.m. is not late. That is probably the time when the TV programmes that are more suitable to their age group would be on and they would be watching them. That is why we have to look at the heart of the bill that we are debating tonight. It does not provide the right solution and that is why I am not voting for it. If it provided the right solutions then we would have a better chance of getting this bill through. 
When we look at the bill we see that it has separated out the purchase age from the restrictions on broadcasting which we are essentially talking about tonight. That purchase age is actually quite a heated issue and is part of the equation that needs to be dealt with along with the broadcasting issue. Breaking the issues up is an attempt to get one part of the approach through while leaving the other more contentious part out of the political arena at this time. From a political point of view that may be a savvy decision but it does not show that the bill intends to deal with the issues that we need to deal with. It probably shows an attempt to try to just deal with part of the issues— 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I point out that this bill does not have any reference to age issues. That matter was dealt with by the select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will resume his seat. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: My whole point was that this bill does not have any talk of the age in it. If that member had been listening he would have been aware of that. But he was not listening to the nature of the debate. He did not take cognisance of the issues that have been raised and that is a shame when we consider that he is promoting this member’s bill. 
The bill should take into account the wider issues and deal with the nature of the problem rather than have a part taken out of it when that member thinks that it is politically expedient to do so and that it will enable the passing of the legislation. The reality is that we need a cohesive approach to this issue. We need to take a constructive approach where we look at the nature of the issue and work for some common solutions that will deal with the problems. We do not need to start up a patchwork of solutions which members think they can get through this House just because a bill deals with part of the issue. We need to take a more open approach and look at it in a wider sense. That is why the bill does not have my support anyway. 
When we look at the legislation that we can pass— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Well I do not see Labour members making alcohol illegal. That really goes to the heart of how we should deal with this issue rather than using slogans like “Tough on crime” when we are debating a bill that deals with a very important issue in our community. 
There is an opportunity for the House to delve into this issue at some stage and come to a constructive solution but this bill does not provide that solution. It is an attempt to provide part of the solution and in doing that it does not take into account the real issues that we are dealing with. We encourage members to look at those real issues in the future and to look to legislation that provides real and meaningful solutions rather than a measure that has been cut down for political expediency just to get it through the House.