Wong Pansy: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5427] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 It was pleasing to see the Minister eventually take a call but I was disappointed that he did not address the substantial question that has been consistently raised during this Committee time. Ron Mark in particular once again asked the Minister to explain why the drinks most popular with teenagers are not covered by this bill. 
While we are debating Part 2 I also want to point out right now that it consists of a lot of numbers—I hope they are not random numbers—which are the numbers of scheduled items that have been withdrawn and replaced by new ones. I want the Minister to take another call to explain to the Committee why this bill is not going through a select committee and what procedure has been taken to ensure that all of those itemised numbers have been absolutely audited so that if we have gone through a session of extraordinary urgency we will not return to the House tomorrow morning to find that some of them are not correct. 
The other interesting thing—[ 
Interruption 
] Why does Ms Jill Pettis not take a call? She is always blathering on. I wonder why Labour and coalition members will not take a call but continue to interject while members in the Chamber try to pose questions. Why does the Minister who lives a blemish-free life—Steve Maharey—not take a call and explain to us whether the Minister in charge of social welfare will get a share of the $18 million to target the youth issue? Does he get a share or will he hand out all of that $18 million to the Ministry of Economic Development? What sort of Minister of social welfare is he? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member who is on her feet but I was trying to follow the debate. I think some very interesting points are being made and we have a barrage of inane interjections from the Government benches. Its members are not prepared to get up and take a speech themselves but there is a meaningless barrage against the member who has the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I was just about to ask members on that side of the Chamber to cease their interjections. The interjections they are making should be rare and reasonable. 
PANSY WONG 
: Those interjections were not even interesting but we are slightly reassured. At least we know that some members on the Labour benches are fully awake which is not a bad thing. 
I want to go back to Part 1 because I want the Minister to take a call to explain why the purpose clause of the bill—clause 3(a) and (b)—does not mention solving the problem of teenage drinking in the content of the general policy statements. I find it very interesting that while targeting teenage drinking is said to be the sole concern of this bill that particular purpose is not contained in the bill itself. It seems to me that that is very clear evidence that this bill is just a grab for revenue—$18 million—when this Minister of Finance promised that there would be no additional tax. We can entirely prove that by the fact that the purpose clause of this bill has nothing to do with the concern about teenage drinking. 
I always wonder why the Labour United Future and Green parties—so proud of their socialist principles—do not simply state in the bill that this is a redistribution of wealth. It is a socialist principle to simply tax for $18 million and levying beverages with 14 to 23 percent alcohol content is a mechanism to achieve that. Instead they have to put up a pretence of concern for young people and how to direct young people not to drink etc. What a Mother’s Day gift this Labour Government is delivering! If young people want to purchase a bottle of sherry or Bailey’s to say “thank you” to their mothers they now in effect have to save a bit more money. We shall remember this bill as Labour’s gift to Mother’s Day to penalise teenagers.