Kedgley Sue: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15262] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The stars were aligned for a historic once-in-a-generation law change that would reduce our heavy-drinking culture and the damage that alcohol is causing our society. We had this highly acclaimed Law Commission report that promised a comprehensive package of reforms which had overwhelming public support and cross-party support in this Parliament. But the Government has blown this one-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle this huge and damaging social problem because it does not have the political courage to stand up to the liquor advertising hospitality food and grocery industries. 
The Government has blown this opportunity because it has chosen to put the vested interests of those industries ahead of the health and well-being of New Zealanders. It really is as simple as that and that is why the question that Mr Anderton asked—whether money has been donated by those industries to the National Party—is such a relevant issue. Instead the Government has come up with the Alcohol Reform Bill that is doomed to fail because it fails to address the key drivers of alcohol abuse: the extraordinarily cheap price of alcohol and the saturation marketing and advertising of alcohol. It also fails to tackle the crucial issue of increasing the blood-alcohol limit. 
We live in an alcohol-saturated society; alcohol is absurdly cheap. It is available round the clock 7 days a week in almost every dairy and supermarket in the land. Liquor outlets have doubled over the past decade. There are 14500 of them and many of them are clustered in low-income areas. We are subjected to saturation marketing and advertising of liquor everywhere we turn. Harmful drinking has become so commonplace that it is seen as something that is inevitable and somehow normal. It is unfortunate that this bill will do little if anything to change our heavy-drinking culture or to reduce the problems related to binge drinking crime traffic accidents date rape and domestic violence. This is a tragedy. 
As Doug Sellman pointed out yesterday this bill “… fails to implement every substantial measure that would actually reduce the excessive drinking culture.” The Government appears determined to maintain the status quo of low prices high accessibility unrelenting advertising and drink-driving. That is a perfect recipe for maintaining a heavy-drinking culture or as Professor Jennie Connor from Otago University put it the measures proposed in this bill are like “fighting a bush fire with a couple of garden hoses for the next 20 years.” Although the bill refuses to act in these important areas it overacts in other areas. It includes heavy-handed provisions that give police excessive unnecessary and Draconian powers to arrest people without a warrant. These provisions infringe on the basic civil and political rights of our democracy such as the right against arbitrary arrest and the right to a presumption of innocence. We can reduce the harm of alcohol without trampling on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. These are terrible provisions and we will fight to get rid of them. 
Another general concern with the bill is it targets young people in a politically expedient way when 92 percent of heavy drinkers are aged 20 and over. It is too easy too simplistic to divert the debate into one about the drinking age when the problems of binge drinking affect every single age group in New Zealand. In diluting the Law Commission’s proposed reforms to the point where they will not be effective the Government as others have pointed out is completely out of step with public opinion which has shifted dramatically in the past year. People are clamouring for a tougher regime. They are marching in the streets for a tougher regime. They have given huge support to the Law Commission’s reforms and almost universal condemnation for the Government’s decision to rule out any price increase or reduce the blood-alcohol limit. 
It is recognised around the world that probably the most effective way of discouraging teenage drinking is to make alcohol more expensive. This of course is particularly the case in New Zealand where alcohol is sold in supermarkets in a predatory fashion at ridiculously low below-cost prices to lure people particularly young people through the door. The Government has acknowledged that putting up the price of tobacco has been an incredibly powerful tool in reducing smoking. Tariana Turia said that raising the price of cigarettes has provided a strong incentive for smokers to quit. It has helped to dissuade young people from ever starting to smoke. Why on earth do the same arguments not apply to liquor? 
It is also blindingly obvious that alcohol advertising should be treated in exactly the same way as tobacco advertising. Alcohol advertising glamorises and normalises alcohol. It acts as a powerful recruiter of young drinkers. It links the rites of passage for young people to the consumption of alcohol and it creates enormous peer pressure to drink. I know this because I have a 20-year-old son. When alcohol companies sponsor sports clubs rock concerts and other events it embeds those brands and products into the lives of young people. We know that 90 percent of 5 to 17-year-olds see at least one alcohol advertisement on television every week. International research shows that this predisposes them to drinking well before they are 18. If the Government is serious about stopping young people from drinking then this is the very first issue it should tackle. Its refusal to do so—no doubt because of the pressure from advertisers and the powerful liquor industry—seriously weakens this bill and the impact it will have. 
The Green Party has serious concerns about the Draconian provisions in this bill that will allow police to arrest a person in an area with a liquor ban without a warrant if they suspect—merely suspect—that that person is carrying alcohol. The bill also gives police powers to demand under threat of arrest that people they suspect may be breaking a liquor ban give them the name address and whereabouts of any other person connected in any way with the alleged offence. No reasons are given as to why these arbitrary powers have been sneaked into the bill. The Minister of Justice says they are there because the police want them. Of course the police would like to arrest people without a warrant but the fact is that these provisions breach civil and political rights that are fundamental in our democracy. Freedom from arbitrary arrest and presumption of innocence—we take these rights for granted at our peril and it is our job as MPs to uphold these rights on behalf of all New Zealanders. We can put in place protections against harm caused to our communities by alcohol but we should not use this bill as an excuse to sneak in additional police powers—Draconian police powers. The Green Party will fight to get rid of these incursions of police powers over our fundamental freedoms. 
There are other serious flaws in this bill. It exempts the police Fire Service and Defence Force bars from liquor licensing requirements. It exempts casinos from having to comply with licensing hours which will have the perverse effect of encouraging people in Auckland and Christchurch to head down to a casino when bars are closed in order to gamble as well as to drink. 
The Green Party will support this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee because it contains provisions we support such as giving communities a say on liquor licensing provisions and allowing local councils to develop alcohol policies and control trading hours as well as having more say over whether to grant any further liquor licences. But we will vigorously oppose the police provisions in the bill. We will put forward many amendments to remove the many flaws in this bill and to extend its provisions in relation to crucial issues such as the price and marketing of alcohol. Thank you very much.