Smith Murray: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Murray: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5441] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 If the Opposition wants to blame anybody for this bill it should blame the liquor industry. If Mr Brownlee is worried that this will shut down part of the industry then I for one am not unhappy about that. I hope that every time we look at one line of the schedules we see that as a sanction on the liquor industry because the industry has tried to exploit our young people the ones for whom this bill is necessary. The production of 23 percent proof alcoholic beverages in order to target our young people is absolutely irresponsible. The fact that the industry has targeted them at 23 percent—1 percent below the threshold at which the products would be taxed—just shows the extent to which it is prepared to go to put profits ahead of any degree of social responsibility. If our liquor industry had some sort of social conscience and looked at the effect of its products on our young people we would not have to take this sort of action to curb what it is doing. 
I am delighted that our society is moving away from the single bottom-line approach towards the triple bottom-line approach—a bottom-line approach to profits that looks not only at economic benefits but also at environmental and social benefits and gauges its businesses on the basis of how they are performing on each of those indicators. I am delighted that my legal practice was a foundation member of Business for Social Responsibility set up by Dick Hubbard. I believe that is the way for the future. In fact I know that internationally there is a tendency for businesses that are socially responsible actually to perform better in terms of profit than other businesses. I believe that is to be commended. 
What we have in the liquor industry is a “Business for Social Irresponsibility” approach because it is not taking into account the effect that this is having particularly on the social environment in which we live and particularly on our young citizens who are being sucked in by these methods simply so the industry can make extra profits. That is irresponsible of the industry. It needs to be taken to task. It should take a good look at itself in the mirror when it looks at the bill and worries about the effects this legislation might have on its bottom line. Maybe it should take a different attitude towards business. 
We have been talking about ice cream products containing alcohol. The fact that ice cream is listed in this legislation shows the extent to which the liquor industry is prepared to go to bring our young people into a liquor situation. The fact that chocolates and other products are targeted shows the extent to which the industry is prepared to take something that we all consider to be good and healthy for our families and put liquor into it to try to trap people into the liquor industry. I understand from my colleagues that John Carter has challenged United Future to name at least two ready-to-drinks that would be caught by this bill. I can do that for him. We have Bully Hayes rum-flavoured general alcoholic beverage and Kristov’s vodka-flavoured general alcoholic beverage. It is noted they are rum flavoured because they are 23 percent whereas if they were a little higher in content they could actually be called rum. But they have to get sophisticated labels for these things in order to comply with other legislation. So we do know what we are talking about. 
Ever since Parliament lowered the drinking age and provided a financial windfall for the liquor industry the community has experienced these problems. I did not vote for that change to the legislation. I wish I had been in the House at the time the lowering of the drinking age became law. It will not surprise any member to know that I and many of my party colleagues would not have supported the lowering of the drinking age. The change has opened a Pandora’s box. We are seeing drunkenness among our school children and more social problems. That is exactly what happens when we start making changes in this Parliament that are wide ranging but without having adequate consultation about the effects of those changes. That is exactly what will happen if we pass the prostitution legislation. We will open another Pandora’s box. We will find that just as with the liquor industry people will exploit for all its worth the open attitude of this House.