Macindoe Tim: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7291. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak in support of this bill the Alcohol Reform Bill because this Government is very determined to get on top of the problem. I will answer some of Mr Lees-Galloway’s points in a moment. I would just make the point that one of the core recommendations of the Law Commission was to raise the purchase age. I have heard from a large number of speakers opposite today who voted against that particular part who are now criticising us and saying that this bill does not go far enough or it is insipid and all the rest of it. I simply— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! There are some interjections that this is out of order because it has been dealt with. The question that is before us at the moment is Parts 6 to 10 and clauses 1 and 2. Clauses 1 and 2 are a peroration of what has happened in the whole debate—that is what clauses 1 and 2 are about—so when a member is bringing up items and discussion about what has occurred in previous parts that is acceptable. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I was making the point that the member Iain Lees-Galloway who has just resumed his seat has criticised the bill for not going far enough and I was making it very clear that many of those who have spoken along those lines today actually voted against one of the core recommendations. 
But there are a number of features in the parts of the bill that we are focusing on today that I am very enthusiastic about. I want to see this bill passed and I commend the Government for bringing to Parliament the most comprehensive and toughest changes to our alcohol laws in my lifetime. One of the things we have heard a bit about is giving parents access to tools to have far greater control over managing their children’s access to alcohol. That is a very good step. 
Dr Calder spoke eloquently about the importance of empowering local communities through the provision for local alcohol policies. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to question your ruling and I do want to understand it. But in terms of the agreement that we reached in terms of dealing with this legislation it was that we were going to have a wide-ranging debate across the parts of the bill. By including clauses 1 and 2 in this way we have actually ended up in a situation where Government members who did not take calls during the relevant parts of the bill are now using the opportunity of this debate to slow up our opportunities to debate the clauses we agreed to deal with in this way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sure I hear the member. As I have already indicated the question does cover clauses that— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: But which Standing Order says— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no this is how it works. Clauses 1 and 2 are actually a peroration—a tidying-up— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No they’re not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: They are and it has always been the case. But what I have indicated is that I am giving one call per person unless there are no other calls. There will be about—well we have had some points of order so we are down to probably about 26 calls which will be available to members up to a quarter past 5. I am going to share those calls around. I keep a note here of which parties are making the calls and there is still ample opportunity for parties to contribute on the parts of the debate that they wish to so that is how I am going to deal with it. Although it is not exclusive we should be concentrating on Parts 6 to 10 but not exclusively because the clauses cover what has already been debated and passed through the Committee stage. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether I could invite you to have a look at clauses 1 and 2 just in respect of the ruling that you have made because in this case clauses 1 and 2 relate to only the title and a very technical commencement clause. There is a purpose clause clause 3 but that is in Part 1. So I understand the ruling that generally speaking the short title commencement and preliminary matters in clauses 1 and 2 can lend themselves to a wider debate. I just wonder whether that is quite so apt in this case. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member brings up a good point. Can I refer the member to the  
Review of Standing Orders 
 and I refer to page 63 in particular. I will just read to the member—I hear what the member says. This is a reflection about how we are dealing with certain parts. It goes on to say and this is a quote from the last paragraph— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What page? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: On page 63. This is page 63 of the  
Review of Standing Orders 
 from 2003 in fact. It is the 2003  
Review of the Standing Orders 
 all right? December 2003. That is how long this has been in effect so it is not something new. Let me just read this paragraph: “However we consider that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” So that is the ruling that I have given. We do not want to see new material brought in. It is a summary as it says here very clearly—and that is something that has been in effect for some time. So the points that Mr Chauvel has raised are relevant. This is a summary. Members are not to introduce new material when we are dealing with the clauses. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I am speaking about Subpart 3 of Part 6 at this point and I make the point that no other member speaking this afternoon has had to put up with this level of interruption. The other matters in Subpart 3 deal with the provision of regulations restricting products the investigation of minimum pricing regulation-making powers for ready-to-drinks and that sort of thing. Dr Calder has already touched on the regulation-making powers. I make the point that the bill provides that regulations can be made under this bill to ban or restrict alcohol products—just as for instance we have seen in New South Wales recently when a regulation was used to impose a ban on alcohol vapour. This is a healthy thing because it is showing that we will have the provision to be able to respond quickly to things as they arise. Products will be able to be restricted for any reason or banned if they are dangerous to health or are appealing to young people. 
Dr Paul Hutchison my good colleague mentioned a few minutes ago foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. That is a major concern of mine and I am very glad that he raised it. He gave praise to Professor Doug Sellman and I echo those thoughts but I also want to give praise to the efforts of Alcohol Healthwatch and its team who are doing wonderful work. They have drawn my attention to the fact that our colleagues over in Australia have recently undertaken a major study into foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and their very good report has just been tabled in the House over in Australia in the last couple of days. If I may just quote a couple of lines from it it makes the point that “Children are our hope distilled. … They personify humanity’s unlimited potential. Yet tragically for too many babies in Australia”—and equally in New Zealand—“their opportunities and circumstances are severely diminished even before they draw their first breath. The harm caused by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) is hidden in the damaged brain. It may masquerade as naughty behaviour poor parenting lack of discipline or simple-mindedness. However it is none of these things.” I commend that particular report to members for their attention. 
What I want to do now is just return to some of the issues that Mr Lees-Galloway has mentioned—in particular the issue of minimum pricing. The real flaw with minimum pricing is that we need to ensure that we send the right signal. There is a real possibility that we will only drive further profits into the pockets of the retailers and not actually effect the behaviour that is wanted. We will continue to do research into this area. If we get hard evidence that it would work that is something the Government is prepared to move in the direction of but at this stage we do not have that hard evidence. 
The problem also with minimum pricing is that—as I say it puts the profits into the hands of the industry—it will simply cause a number of young people to move from one product to another. We know that young people are very price sensitive. Suddenly products that were appealing to them become less appealing and they move on to another area. We have got to have a better way of dealing with those sorts of issues if we are going to tackle our major problems with binge drinking. As I say the sorts of policies that give more parental control are one good measure but we have also got to ensure that we look at the issues that are affecting a wider age range. There are a number of issues in the bill that are hugely significant and as I said in this particular subpart—