Dalziel Lianne: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7302. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is good to follow on from that member Tim Macindoe. We have heard him extol the virtues of the Alcohol Reform Bill due to its size. When one compares the size of the bill with the size of the Law Commission report—and perhaps my colleague there Kevin Hague who is holding up the report could assist in just reminding the Committee—one can see that the substance of the debate ought to be around the recommendations of that report. It is that report that provides the evidence we should be debating in this Chamber today but we have not been debating it at all. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What a ludicrous remark that is. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have listened to members. That member talked about the sorts of promotions that used to be able to be had in on-licence premises where people could drink all they liked for an amount of money and you could have all these different promotions in on-licences. I just want to remind that member that there is a section in the Sale of Liquor Act—a current section in the current Sale of Liquor Act—that prevents those things from happening in relation to on-licences. 
This bill extends it to off-licences as well but I want to remind the member—actually he does not need reminding he needs telling because he was not here when the 1999 legislation went through—that in actual fact it was a member’s amendment to the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No. 2) that brought into play that promotions clause. The member who moved that amendment in 1999 was me and that is why I remember it. 
I remember the Minister of Justice at the time telling members to come down to the Chamber to enter into the debate and to make sure they listened carefully. He gave me the courtesy of ensuring that my amendment was considered and freely voted on in this Chamber with people exercising their consciences on that provision. That Minister of Justice—who is now the Minister of Health—voted against my amendment. He voted against my amendment. He did me the courtesy of ensuring that Parliament heard the debate and because there was not a whip applied to the different members of the Committee on that occasion that amendment was accepted by Parliament and it became part of the law. So do not stand in this Chamber and say that this bill is a good measure because it extends a measure that was introduced in 1999 from on-licences to off-licences. That on-licence provision would not have been there but for members exercising their consciences and voting to support a very powerful and appropriate measure. 
I would actually have made sure that that amendment applied to off-licences as well. I had not been introduced to what they were capable of until these last 10 years. We have observed supermarkets—with the liquor industry following suit; I blame the supermarkets for starting the ball rolling—and they have dragged down the price of very very cheap alcohol in this country in a way that simply did not exist in 1999. 
There were things that we could have done in 1999 but we did not anticipate the degree to which commercial interests would drag down the price of alcohol to the extent that it is as dirt cheap as it is today. That is one of the issues that I have tried to address with my Supplementary Order Paper 113 on minimum pricing. It is one of the issues that Kevin Hague has with his Supplementary Order Paper 130 on an excise tax increase and it is the issue that Maryan Street has with her Supplementary Order Paper 112 on the question on a point-of-sale health levy. The advantage of the point-of-sale health levy—and I commend that to the Committee—is that that enables the money not to go the industry but in fact to go directly to the health services and it will sit appropriately with what should be a health measure not a justice measure. 
I hope that we one day see an alcohol bill become an alcohol Act that is supervised by the Ministry of Health not the Ministry of Justice. I think that this Parliament would be paying a great tribute to New Zealanders who have suffered the consequences of alcohol-related harm.