O'Rourke Denis: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First also supports this particular proposal in Supplementary Order Paper 121 for a review in 5 years. We see the proposal as being a positive one. It is a reasonable one and it is a forward-looking proposal. It is effectively a sunset clause in respect of the purchase age provisions of the Alcohol Reform Bill. We think it would help to unify the community if it knew that there was going to be a review in 5 years to see how the proposed legislation will get on. I think people would accept the decision that has been made about the purchase age more readily if they knew that a review would be coming up in 5 years. I have to say that in my first speech I did refer to one particular period where the purchase age of 20 years had subsisted for a period of I think something like 60 years before more recent amendments had been made. It does show therefore how time can go on and on without a review of these sorts of provisions. So I think it is a very healthy proposal and it should be supported. 
Most particularly though it does not attempt to avoid or defeat the decision that has already been made concerning the purchase age. I think that is very important. All it does is ask for a review. It is not an attempt to undo something that has already been voted upon. The review is an independent consideration of all of the other provisions in the bill and all of the Supplementary Order Papers with other proposals that have been put forward so it should therefore be welcomed by the proponents of 18 years the proponents of 20 years and indeed the proponents of a split age. All of them no matter which way they feel is appropriate should be willing to reassess what has happened after 5 years to see whether they would change their minds based on the results. It applies to on-licence and off-licence premises so those who proposed the split age would get another chance to have a look to see what had resulted and whether any further change was indicated. I think it is particularly positive that a committee would be established and that a report would be provided. So it is not just a simple sunset clause; it is one that requires much more action than that. What I would expect is that the report would provide objective and scientifically based information that a Parliament in 5 years’ time could look at to see whether any further change was then required. 
I disagree thoroughly with the Minister of Justice who says that anyone can do any of this at any time. What we know actually happens is that these things drift and they drift and they drift and no genuine review takes place. Any future proposal would presumably not have the benefit of the deliberations and the fact-finding functions of a committee of this kind. I think that is a very positive part of the proposal. We do need a Government to take this seriously in the future. Five years covers two parliamentary terms so that would mean that it may well not be this Government. It may well be a totally different Government altogether which may well wish to have the benefit of a committee’s deliberations and a committee’s fact-finding function to put before it some really important facts and assessments which could then be used to see whether the law requires further review. So I think that the 5-year period is a particularly appropriate period. I think that the review is likely to bring forward some very interesting information. I think that the public does actually want to see the results of those sorts of investigations. 
We have had investigations by some parties—the Law Commission and others—but what we have not had is a Parliament-directed review that targets the purchase age provision specifically. That I think despite what some people think really is an important part of the current legislation and I would certainly like to see that reviewed in the full course of time. As I have said I think 5 years is an appropriate period. That review will be useful only if the Government puts forward sufficient resources to ensure that the review is meaningful. Those resources would enable the committee to carry out investigations and as I have said bring forward objective and scientifically based information which would require I think surveys and the collection of data and so forth so that Parliament in the future would get a genuine opportunity to look at objective information acquired through parliamentary procedure itself and not be reliant on outside parties. It could then make a full and comprehensive review as to whether or not the current decision for 18 years was appropriate and should be continued. 
I think it is possibly one of the best Supplementary Order Papers that we have before us to consider as part of this particular bill. The purchase age should certainly be reviewed. It is not a decision to do one thing or another. It is a decision to make it possible for a future Parliament to make a better decision than has been available to us because we have not had the sort of information that I would expect to come forward as a result of this review. New Zealand First supports this proposal enthusiastically and recommends it to the rest of the members of the House.