Goff Phil: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7279. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 I want to speak on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in my name and that is the Supplementary Order Paper that requires that ready-to-drinks or alcopops be restricted to 5 percent alcohol content and no more than 1.5 standard drinks per container. The reason for that is very clear. Alcopops have been found by every survey of problems with abuse of alcohol by young people to be a critical part of that abuse. They are marketed as if they are soft drinks they are sweet-tasting so that people cannot actually taste the alcohol and regrettably they are drunk as if they are soft drinks. 
The result of that is that we have studies such as the Massey University study that says that people who are binge drinking—more than eight drinks at one sitting—have doubled since 2004. Professor Sally Casswell is saying that ready-to-drinks are the cause of that. We have another study done by Auckland University that says that ready-to-drinks make up 70 percent of the alcohol content consumed by young girls between the ages of 14 and 17. 
This was a problem that was recognised by the former Minister of Justice Simon Power who introduced this bill. Simon Power promised the House that he would restrict the alcohol content to 5 percent and no more than 1.5 standard drinks per container. Everybody in the House applauded that. Colin King from the National Party for example told his electorate that ready-to-drinks were the real cause of young people drinking in excess and that something needed to be done about that. I have had conversations across the floor with a number of people who make that point. 
 In fact the Government said—and I want to quote what the Government said—“The Government is particularly concerned about RTDs with a high alcohol content and RTDs that are sold in large containers that hold a high number of standard drinks. We are therefore targeting those aspects of RTDs which will mean RTDs will be a lower-strength drink (on a par with beer) and will be prohibited from being sold in large containers thereby reducing the risk of excessive consumption by young people.” That was in the Government’s question and answer paper at the time the Minister introduced this bill and every National Party member thought that was a good idea. 
The problem is that along came the liquor barons the liquor industry and they knocked on Mrs Collins’ door. They said to Mrs Collins: “This won’t do. We are making good money out of ready-to-drinks you can’t restrict them it’s not done. This is a free market this is a product that is legal and you should back down.” To her shame Judith Collins backed down. That is not simply shameful; it is actually gutless. Why listen to the liquor industry which has a commercial vested interest in this instead of listening to the people who have to pick up the pieces: the doctors the nurses the police and the liquor licensing inspectors? Judith Collins turned up at the Institute of Liquor Licensing Inspectors’ conference and they told her—or they would have if she had not scuttled out early—what they thought about this. The chairman of the Institute of Liquor Licensing Inspectors said that ready-to-drinks are a major cause of young people drinking to excess and the Government needed to act. The Alcohol Advisory Council said that the Government needed to act. Everybody who looks at this problem in a rational way says that the Government needs to act except one group—the liquor interests who make money out of that product. Why is it that this Minister will listen to the liquor industry but will not listen to the people who research and study and have to deal with this problem and know that there should be a change made? 
My amendment is a moderate amendment. It does not ban ready-to-drinks; it restricts them to 5 percent to put them on a par with beer just like the former Minister said he wanted to do. It restricts the amount that can be drunk in one container. Those things would have a real and direct impact on binge drinking by young people. My amendment makes sense. It is common sense. National members applauded it when their Minister said it and they got in behind him and when their new Minister says no like sheep to the slaughter they will line up to go through the gate and they will not exercise their own good judgment. They will follow slavishly what their Minister says. I ask the National members of Parliament to have the courage in this House to vote according to what you believe to have the courage to do the right thing in this House. We have not raised the drinking age. We should at least—