Mark Ron: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6342] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak in two capacities not only as a New Zealand First spokesman but also as the chairman of the Law and Order Committee that heard the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. Firstly I sincerely congratulate the select committee on the work the members did on this bill. The bill has been about a year in gestation and has presented us all with challenges. It was a privilege to chair a committee where people managed despite their personal views on this legislation and what it intended to do to put those views to one side and to try their level best to agree to produce workable legislation that if enacted would be able to be implemented—because there were many consequential changes to other legislation that had to be considered—and to produce a quality report. 
I also congratulate and thank sincerely the officials from the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Health and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who worked with the select committee. I say to Matt Robson if he is listening that this is his work. He started this bill from here and I hope that he gets the result he is seeking. 
I also want to correct a mistake that I made last night. It is not quite in line with this bill but it is in line with the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill which was reported back by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and was debated last night. I express my apology to Tariana Turia for incorrectly representing her views. In fact the Minister of Corrections who stood and blocked the “goon squad” inquiry was Matt Robson when he was the Minister of Corrections. I sincerely apologise for that; I got that one wrong. 
But what we have not got wrong is the way in which we have handled this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. The bill has posed a number of challenges to the select committee and at the end of the day we come to the point where we ask what we do with this bill from this point on. My plea to the House tonight is for members to vote for the second reading allow this bill to go before the Committee of the whole House and allow it to be debated in full part by part and clause by clause. In that way the issues highlighted by Mr Power—who has made no secret of his intention to vote against this bill since the day it first arrived in Parliament—may be teased out and debated so that the bill where appropriate may be amended. 
We did not recommend as a select committee the split-age option but we went out of our way to highlight the issues brought before us and to offer some guidance to any other member of Parliament who might see that as a compromise position to take. I note with respect the Supplementary Order Papers from Dr Wayne Mapp and Gordon Copeland and their intention to take up further discussion of the split-age option. 
For me there are a couple of issues that stand out clearly. [ 
Interruption 
] I hope I am not interrupting these people on my right by my speaking. If members are opposed to this bill the chances are that they oppose it on the basis that people who are 18 years of age and who have the right to vote the right to get married and the right to fight and die in a world war for their country should have the right to have a beer. It is a good argument and we need to discuss that more. We need to discuss it more in the Committee stage because evidence was produced that the research oft touted by people does not stack up. 
For example many young people have said to me: “I have the right to go and fight and die for my country.” but when I asked them: “Well the Army is short of people right now so if I vote to keep the drinking age at 18 will you join the Army tomorrow and go to Afghanistan?” I could not see them for a shower of small stones and pebbles as they disappeared off into the distance. They do not want to join the Army. They do not want to join the Air Force. They leave it to some little boy from Ruatoria to do that or to some little boy from way down south—from Twizel or somewhere like that. 
Those educated young people who came before the select committee like the Young Nats are the very last people in my humble experience to put their money where their mouth is and sign up for the Army. [ 
Interruption 
] I said “like the Young Nats”; I did not say they were the only ones. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The interjection is a barrage and is just too much. Only a reasonable level of interjection is acceptable. 
RON MARK 
: I take that back—it is not just Young Nats who will not join the Army. I have not seen one “young Green” in the Army yet either. 
But another group of young people came before the select committee and stated: “Since lowering the drinking age in 1999 alcohol-related harm to youth has worsened including increased per occasion drinking amongst 14 to 17-year-olds; increased alcohol-related hospitalisations; increased apprehensions of under-18-year-olds for disorderly behaviour; increased convictions for disorderly behaviour in this age group; an upward trend in 14 to 17-year-olds prosecuted for drink-driving; young teenagers accessing alcohol more easily; and increased problems with young people drinking in public. Since lowering the drinking age in the statistics of deaths caused by drink-driving 15 to 19-year-olds have increased in proportion of total deaths from 29 percent to 37 percent as an age group.” 
Students Against Drink Driving stated: “Alcohol-related harms are borne disproportionately by young people and we support the intention of Mr Gallagher’s Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill to reduce youth alcohol-related harm through key changes to the Sale of Liquor Act.” This group stated further that the driving limits for blood-alcohol levels should be dropped lower to zero. It stated: “We encourage the social supply of alcohol to young people be further addressed.” We must always remember that when some groups of young people step up and demand their rights in terms of being allowed to drink at the age of 18 and 19 they are not the only voices worth listening to. 
I listened to the evidence from the police. It is interesting that the Police National Headquarters often has a view on legislation that opposes that of the Police Association. The association came out very firmly—it was not worried about the difficulties of enforcing the legislation despite much of the protestation from some politicians in this House—and stated that it wants the age raised. 
It is the police who are on the beat on a Friday Saturday and Thursday night—not any of us. It is they who face down the bottle-throwing and the rioting. They are looking towards Christmas now and wondering what they will have to do. I have it on good authority that there are already plans to deploy teams to Tauranga and other trouble spots in preparation for more riotous behaviour on New Year’s Eve. 
 The question is this: are we going to do something or are we going to do nothing? We could at least let this bill go through to the next stage. And if after that serious debate on the bill clause by clause and part by part where we all get to put our personal views perceptions and observations the majority of this House decides to cast the bill to the wind then so be it. But to nip the bill in the bud at this point in time would do an injustice to the 71.6 percent of New Zealanders who say that we should put the drinking age back up. 
I make this plea to all members regardless of what our views might be right now and I sense there are many views. Let us at least have the next debate let us at least analyse the bill completely and then let the vote occur and the will be done. I am prepared to live with that; I hope members are also.