Chauvel Charles: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6055. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The select committee that heard submissions on the Alcohol Reform Bill the Justice and Electoral Committee I think heard virtually a record number from members of the public and took time to try to listen carefully to those concerns. They were—if you set the industry submissions aside for one moment and they were numerically limited—almost overwhelmingly as far as the public were concerned in favour of going for a much stricter regime applying to the sale availability pricing and advertising of alcohol. 
It is true what a number of members including the member who has just resumed his seat Tim Macindoe have said in at least this respect: overall the bill does tighten up on those matters somewhat. But as I and a number of colleagues who sat on the select committee observed during the second reading debate on this bill and as I think Kevin Hague and Lianne Dalziel observed particularly when they made their contributions on this preliminary part of the Committee stage debate that really is not the point. The point is that we could have gone so much further on so many key issues and we failed to do so. 
The member who has just resumed his seat Mr O’Rourke and the Minister of Justice both mentioned the vote that was held in the House in late August around the purchase age. One of the problems that the debate has had has been the way in which it has proceeded first of all in dealing with the issue of age which was the subject of a conscience vote in the House and then in dealing with every other question including availability pricing advertising supply and what have you. 
All the evidence that we heard at the select committee was that if we want as a Parliament to fulfil the objects of the Act which my colleague Lianne Dalziel went into in some detail in her contribution well yes age is an issue but in the hierarchy that the experts described to us in the select committee it is not by any means the most influential or impactive criterion. The other issues—pricing availability advertising and supply—are much more influential as it happens if one wants to look at the evidence on the problem of binge drinking that we have in New Zealand than the question of the purchase age. 
For people listening to the debate and for members who might be new to that aspect of it that is the point. The point is not that I am quibbling or other colleagues with a similar view on this are quibbling that this legislation will actually result in broadly a better regime; it will and that is down to the careful work I think done by the select committee. I would join with the member who has resumed his seat in praising those members of the Justice and Electoral Committee who took the time to hear the submissions and to make the recommendations that were made and that appear in the report back that we are considering. I also thank the officials for the help that they gave us to try to negotiate our way around some of those issues and to try to make the best possible recommendations that we could in order to bring good legislation back to the House. It is better than what we have got but the gap between what we could have and what we are going to end up with if members opposite simply take the Government whip as has been indicated they will is profound. 
What I would like to say in my initial contribution in the debate is this: the evidence demands that we take much more seriously some of the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table and my plea if I can make one to National members is that they do think very carefully about these Supplementary Order Papers. They have been put together I think by and large with a lot of care and a lot of thought and with a desire to actually achieve the objects and purposes of the Act. That is why I want to mention one or two of them now. I am not going to go into any detail about them but I think if we are serious about minimising the harm that comes from our binge-drinking culture then we do need to think about some of these ideas. 
In respect of the idea for example of lowering the permitted blood-alcohol content there will be a discussion about the scope of it and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has Supplementary Order Paper 40. There is no doubt that if we were to seriously consider that we would certainly begin to deal with the sorts of harm-related issues that Kevin Hague mentioned in his contribution—the 1000 alcohol-related deaths. 
If we were for example when we are dealing with local planning issues to give boards of trustees automatic standing to make submissions about whether or not licensing decisions should be made given the evidence that we heard at the select committee about the harm that flows from locating licensed premises near or on the way to schools again we would do a lot to achieve in a much better manner than with the bill as it currently stands the objects and purposes of the Act. 
There has been mention already in this initial debate about local alcohol policies and they have been praised even by the Government member who spoke earlier. Well the problem with them is that they are optional so a local government entity does not have to have a local alcohol policy. When it does decide to have one it is going to take many many many months in order to be able to bring that local alcohol policy into effect—16 months I think is the figure that is given—and when they are chosen to be brought into effect by a particular territorial local authority they are very restricted as to the matters that they can deal with. They are very very restricted on the face of the Act to the types of matters they can deal with. 
If we were serious about the object and purpose here we would allow them to be much wider than they are. There are two Supplementary Order Papers before us one in my name Supplementary Order Paper 109 which would provide for them to be required by a territorial local authority and one in the name of my colleague Phil Twyford Supplementary Order Paper 116 which would circumvent the time that it will take to bring those local alcohol policies into place as far as the local authorities are concerned. They are both very good measures as far as trying to achieve the objects and purpose of the legislation are concerned. 
In the same vein my colleague Lianne Dalziel as is well known and as the Minister mentioned in her contribution has a Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 113 that would bring in or at least empower the Minister to bring in if she so chose a minimum pricing regime. It is entirely at the Minister’s discretion as to how that is designed. It need not be all doom and gloom in raising prices across the board. It could be a judicious measure if it were designed well. When the Minister was on her feet she told us that she had a report purporting to indicate that the Scots who as we know have put in place a minimum pricing regime have suspended that regime. 
Well we can all produce evidence about minimum pricing regimes. Only 2 weeks ago in Australia there was a report very strongly advocating that the only way in which Australia would be able to deal with its binge-drinking culture in a meaningful fashion would be amongst other things to bring in a minimum pricing regime for alcohol. The evidence is by no means overwhelming in the way that the Minister would have us believe. 
There are some other very good Supplementary Order Papers that would certainly permit the objects and purposes of the Act to be better achieved. Andrew Little has proposed one that would restrict opening hours. Iain Lees-Galloway has another one that would restrict the advertising and sponsorship regime one of the biggest obvious failures that the bill would make if it is enacted in its present form. There is one in the name of David Clark that would restrict advertising that is specifically targeted at young people. My colleague Phil Goff has a very very good one that would make restrictions on the availability of ready-to-drinks. 
 Again we know from the Justice and Electoral Committee evidence that ready-to-drinks are sweet they are sugary and they are ready-made—ready prepared. If members mean what they say and what they have said in the Chamber already about trying to promote responsible drinking amongst young people this is something that obviously according to the evidence ought to be dealt with again in respect of achieving the objects and purposes of the legislation. That is a Supplementary Order Paper that the Committee must consider seriously and independently and any member who does not have a good look at that and think about their vote on it cannot be taken seriously about a desire to promote responsible drinking amongst young people. 
David Clark has a Supplementary Order Paper that would remove the excise tax on low-alcohol products therefore promoting them again via a sensible price mechanism making them more attractive so that rather than looking at hard liquor options people are encouraged to look at softer ones. I mentioned I think the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Phil Twyford on fast tracking the local alcohol policy options but there are other good ones as well. I think Kevin Hague has a number that are well worth having a close look at. 
As I said earlier on this is not about whether or not this is not an adequate bill; it is. It does make some progress. As I have said the various players deserve credit for that but the point is it could be so much better.