Smith Nick: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15256] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I commend the Minister of Justice Simon Power for the very considered way in which he has brought together this sensible package of alcohol reform. 
History is littered with ideological lurches on alcohol law here and abroad. We have had Prohibition the 6 o’clock swill and the ultra-liberalisation that was brought in with the Sale of Liquor Act in 1989. The part I found most ironic about Lianne Dalziel’s contribution is that I remember sharing a platform with her way back in the 1990s where she championed the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act that she has just spent the last 10 minutes rubbishing. Do members know who the key Ministers were? Annette King and Phil Goff were the key Labour members who put in place the Sale of Liquor Act back in 1989. Those are the sorts of ideological lurches that we get from the left rather than common-sense reform. 
This reform package is balanced it is pragmatic and it is thorough. In contrast with what Lianne Dalziel has tried to say it picks up 126 of the 153 recommendations in the Law Commission report. It will make a difference in reducing the harm from alcohol in our community without our becoming a bunch of wowsers and without our imposing penalties on the vast bulk of New Zealanders who have a beer or a glass of wine without causing harm. 
My interest in this issue is both as a constituency MP in Nelson and as the Minister for ACC. Nelson has had a sad surge in violence over the past 6 months and most incidents were connected to the abuse of alcohol. Nelson is no worse than many other communities but I can tell members that the population has had enough and is expecting us to act. It wants a Government to tackle not just crime but the causes of crime. 
As Minister for ACC I have become far more aware of the real fiscal cost of alcohol abuse to our country. Drink-driving is just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly one-quarter of all accidents falls drownings and assaults—costing the Accident Compensation Corporation $650 million a year—have alcohol as a contributing factor. 
I like the part of the Alcohol Reform Bill about stricter licensing. The 1989 laissez-faire approach has not worked. We have too many booze outlets particularly in some of our most vulnerable communities. I also back the tough approach taken to ready-to-drinks or RTDs. The academic may argue that the form of alcohol sold does not matter but the reality is that high-alcohol ready-to-drinks are behind some of the worst abuse. The advantage of lower-alcohol drinks is simply that the bladder starts to fail before the brain does. 
I also back the measures in this bill around the drinking age. I voted for the age of 18 in 1998 but I am happy to put my hand up and say that I got it wrong. I believe that I and Parliament totally underestimated the degree to which the age being 18 has enabled 17 16 and 15-year-olds—and 14 and 13-year-olds actually—to access alcohol. The strength of this bill is that it makes it an offence to supply alcohol to under-18-year-olds it puts some onus on host responsibility and it allows only on-licence sales to 18 and 19-year-olds. 
I also back the provision in this bill that gives our councils far greater discretion over local alcohol laws. There are some areas where the sensible approach is national regulation. I am talking about things like cellphone towers—in terms of my environment portfolio—vehicle standards and building standards. But the reality is that alcohol is an inherently local issue. What is best for the Viaduct Basin in Auckland for Queenstown or for the community of a suburban street in Nelson is quite different and it is quite appropriate that we empower communities to make their own choices in terms of tourism hospitality and harm-reduction. I recognise that different rules are quite appropriate for different neighbourhoods. The extension of alcohol liquor bans as part of what councils can do through their by-laws is exactly the sort of practical measure in this bill that we need to put in place if we are to reduce harm. 
Hundreds of changes are proposed by this bill. As the Minister has said it is not the last word. The community need the opportunity to have their say on these proposals and this bill is a very good starting point for that debate. The Government is committed to listening carefully during the select committee process. 
There is no question about direction. We need to tighten our alcohol laws. We need to work hard to get the detail right so we better manage the harm caused by alcohol and build a more responsible culture in the way we use alcohol in New Zealand. I commend the work of the Minister and the bill to the House.