Anderton Jim: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
Anderton Jim: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15257] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The only reason I will vote for the Alcohol Reform Bill to be referred to a select committee is so that the Government can experience the public’s outrage at the abject weakness of its cringing approach to one of New Zealand’s most significant social and economic problems and the damage that alcohol abuse causes to New Zealand and New Zealanders. 
What would a 9-point plan on how the Government of New Zealand could create a major social problem in New Zealand look like? Well first it would take a drug that is known to be of high risk to public health for example the equivalent of a class B drug and legalise it. Better still it would choose a drug that is known to directly cause aggression and depression and is neurotoxic and carcinogenic so that the full range of health and social damage is likely to occur. Secondly the Government would deny that the drug is actually a drug by never mentioning the word and by talking about it as though it were a normal grocery item that people would naturally expect to find in a supermarket. Thirdly the Government would make it really accessible so that it can be bought just about anywhere at any time on virtually any day of the year especially in supermarkets. 
Fourthly the Government would allow full and free commercialisation of it so that the price is really low in order for everyone to easily afford lots of it. Fifthly the Government would make sure that young people of 18 years of age can legally drink on licensed premises but it would confuse the issue by requiring them to be 20 years old in order to buy alcohol to drink elsewhere. Sixth it would elevate the pushing of this drug to be one of the most highly respected careers in the land. The bestowing of New Zealand honours even a knighthood to industry leaders would be a good start and be very effective in promoting it. 
Seventh the Government would make sure that it protected the drug pushers’ right to promote the drug especially to the nation’s families through the most powerful means possible such as television and billboards. It would turn a blind eye to any deception in the advertising such as links between the drug and being cool sexy successful and part of the in-crowd. Eighth the Government would make sure that the drug is linked with everything that New Zealanders feel most proud of especially sport. If there is to be a major international event in New Zealand—dare I mention the Rugby World Cup—the Government would do everything it can to help the drug pushers promote their drug at the event. The ultimate would be if the drug becomes the centrepiece of the event—party central would be an excellent concept to work on and it would also be a great idea to get the Prime Minister behind it. Ninth knowing that New Zealanders more than people in just about any other country in the world enjoy getting around in private motor vehicles make sure that intoxication will not prevent them from driving their cars and get one’s mates in the Automobile Association to back that position. 
The first page of the Law Commission report states: “Alcohol is a legalised drug with the potential to cause serious harm. We propose”—that is the Law Commission—“a new policy framework that amounts to a paradigm shift in the regulation of alcohol compared with the current system. We anticipate there will be considerable resistance to some of the proposed measures.” Well the last outfit I thought would be the most resistant is the Government of New Zealand given the evidence in front of its eyes. 
The Government’s Alcohol Reform Bill to reduce excessive drinking is simply a recipe for the status quo which means continuing disaster. Last weekend’s appalling behaviour at Eden Park where a liquor ban was not enforced is proof that the Government has not gone far enough. My belief is that submissions to the select committee will show the Government how the people of New Zealand really feel about that. It served to highlight the inadequacies in our current laws and it shamed our nation abroad. 
Why does this Government have difficulty accepting that alcohol is a drug? This Government is not in step with the majority of New Zealanders. The mood of the country towards alcohol abuse is changing but it is being led by the public and the media not by the Government. In the same week as the Eden Park shambles organisers of Christchurch’s New Zealand Trotting Cup got it right by implementing a simple wristband system whereby wristbands were removed from patrons thought to be intoxicated. This would have been unheard of even 3 or 4 years ago. It shows that the public is willing to change entrenched drinking habits. 
Who would have thought that the Maori Affairs Committee’s proposal for a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025 would cause hardly a ripple of protest? It is because the time is right. Let us aim for a drunk-free New Zealand too. That is in step with public opinion. Seventy percent of New Zealanders support the proposition to lower the drink-driving blood-alcohol limit yet the Government needs “more research”. Really? What is this Government scared of in face of all the facts? What is this Government scared of in face of all the facts and the political polls which show that the New Zealand population is for the reduction in alcohol abuse? 
Alcohol abuse costs this country billions of dollars every year. The $1.6 billion that the Minister quoted is really just the tip of the iceberg. This Government is almost always a slave to polls yet it is ignoring the poll on liquor reform and I have to ask myself why. Cheap alcohol is one of the main problems but it is not being addressed despite advice and research from New Zealand and international experts. Our road death statistics particularly since the age at which people can purchase alcohol and drink alcohol on licensed premises was lowered to 18 are simply horrific. Reducing the blood-alcohol level from 0.8 to 0.5 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood evidently still needs “more research”. How many more deaths caused by drink-driving must this nation endure before a Government shows the remotest sense of responsibility and courage in addressing the issue? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where were you for 9 years? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I ask Mr Smith to look at my record of voting on this matter; it will be better than his I bet him. One in every five New Zealanders is a heavy drinker. That is equal to the combined populations of Wellington and Christchurch. I still hear people say that this is a small problem for a small group of New Zealanders. It is not. Sixty percent of all criminal offending in New Zealand is associated with alcohol abuse—60 percent. The Government talks about putting more police on the beat; if it did more about alcohol abuse it would not have to bother. Getting wasted should not be an ambition to which our people aspire. 
This Government is showing abject political weakness over the alcohol debate which begs the question: what is the National Party getting from the liquor industry for the Government’s unwillingness to act decisively? How much money is being put into the victory fund account by the liquor industry for the National Party’s next election campaign? Could we have an answer from National members? 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am personally offended by the suggestion that we the members of the National caucus could have been bought in such a way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that it is outside the Standing Orders to say that someone is in the control of or being in the pay of someone else; there is no question about that. The Hon Jim Anderton did not go that far I grant you but he did raise it by way of a question and I can see that people took it in an edgy way. But I have to say on balance this is to be a House of free speech and people are entitled to say what they believe. This could be a matter where we would take—I am struggling for the word at the moment— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Umbrage? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is not umbrage; it is a matter of taste. The member has spoken in a way that people might find distasteful. But I think he has raised the issue. It is sharp but he has raised it in the form of a question. He has not said that the National Party or a particular party has been bought. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I will take aboard the comment in finishing and just ask this: would the liquor industry tell us how much money it has given to the victory fund account of the National Party for the next election? I will be interested in that response as well but I am not holding my breath. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very concerned because the question that you referred to asked “How much money?”. It did not ask “Was there money?” but asked “How much money?”. Therefore this member is saying that the National Party has received money in response to policy. I again take offence. The question was not whether it had happened but how much money was involved. Therefore the inference was certainly that money has changed hands. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I want to say that the position I am now putting to the House is that the liquor industry can answer for itself. Did it give and has it given any money to the National Party’s victory fund account and/or how much? Let the liquor industry answer the question. I am not holding my breath for the answer. 
Simon Bridges 
: It seems to me that a very dangerous precedent is being set by the indication in your ruling which is effectively that a member can ask a question—put something in the form of a question—and get away with it but to do it otherwise is not allowed. Therefore it is all right for me to say that a particular member is senile or ask “Is he senile?” but I cannot make that as a statement of fact. That to me seems very dangerous. It simply means that a member must rephrase everything to ask “Is the member senile and at a point where he should retire?”. If I do it as a question somehow that is OK but if I do it as a statement it is not. It seems to me that is a very dangerous path to go down. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I believe there was genuine public interest in knowing whether and if so how much the liquor industry the advertising industry and the food and grocery industry have contributed to political parties. I believe there is genuine public interest in knowing whether there is any linkage between the amount of moneys these industries contribute to political parties and the outcome in a policy sense. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The issue here is not the electoral law and what disclosures there should be in respect of which the National Party is absolutely committed to complying with the law. The issue that the junior National whip has taken offence to very appropriately is the appalling allegation that members such as myself have been influenced in our decision on this very important public policy issue by such things. There is absolutely no evidence for that. It is grossly offensive and wrong and if you are to allow the sorts of statements and claims that have been made by Mr Anderton then in my view you are effectively allowing the names of good members of this House to be muddied in a way that I have not seen in my 20 years in this House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To take the converse of the point made by Mr Bridges were you to rule that it was outside the Standing Orders for members of this House to allege influence on a party by parties outside this Parliament I submit to you that that would unduly constrain the free and frank exercise of Parliament’s privileges—for example under Speaker’s ruling 34/2. In this case it seems obviously inexplicable to members of the Opposition that the Government which has committed itself to pro-health policies should have weakened its position on alcohol reform. We are at a loss to find any other reasonable explanation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is starting to make statements about the issue and that is out of order. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I say that the protest by the National Party is interesting because if you read the  
Hansard 
 my question asked whether any money had been given. I did not ever suggest that it influenced anybody; I asked whether money had been given. That is a question for the National Party and the liquor industry. I am interested in the answers. I did not say it influenced anybody; I just wanted to know the facts. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I refer you quite specifically to Speaker’s ruling 52/4(1): “A member may not use words suggesting that a party in the House is or has been dominated instructed or directed …”. I say the key word is “suggesting”. Did the phrase that was used by Mr Anderton suggest that members on this side of the House were influenced by the money in the claims that he made? Of course he was making that suggestion and that is why you should uphold the Speaker’s ruling and not allow such allegations to be made that members on this side of the House say are wrong and offensive. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has had two goes. I just say to members that this is a very difficult issue. One of the first things a Speaker asks of this House is the right to free speech and the right to free speech is a right to free speech. This House will suffer if people do not have free speech. In having that freedom of speech members have to be responsible for what they say. If members say something that is manifestly wrong demonstrably wrong and offensive they can be referred to the Privileges Committee and the committee can deal with that matter. So it has to be something that is particularly wrong. 
Secondly there are matters that fall into the area of taste. They may not necessarily be wrong but they are distasteful. I want to pick up on this theme a little bit because I agree with Dr Nick Smith that Speaker’s ruling 52/4(1) is interesting and it was correctly quoted: “A member may not use words suggesting that a party in the House is or has been dominated instructed or directed …”. Now “dominated instructed or directed” are direct connections. I understood Mr Anderton’s proposition to be that people had used influence. Now influence is a step well back from being dominated instructed or directed. Influence is much more diffuse; people can be influenced or not influenced. 
The second point that Mr Anderton raised and I guess it is a legitimate point for a member of Parliament to raise is whether members in the House have been influenced to a decision by way of other events outside. This is common conjecture on radio talkback or in any group of people that one meets. People do ask these questions. One of the defences we have against that as members of Parliament is the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to disclose members’ interests so that people can see that our interests have not affected our decisions and so that members are open in disclosing those. 
It is also not in order to say that the Government favours one class against another particularly when it is suggesting that this continues to be done for a party’s ends. I do not get that from what Mr Anderton said. Mr Anderton raised questions about whether money had been made available and whether it had influenced the Government. In this debate National has more calls and members can make their position very clear. I come back to one issue which I think was from the English Parliament where a person was asked to disclose a name. That person said they could not disclose the name but they could do it as quickly as they could say “Jack Robinson”. That was not offending Speakers’ rulings because it was done indirectly. 
I say to members that this is very difficult but I feel on balance and in the interests of free speech Mr Anderton has raised issues and National members have the opportunity to rebut them and he has not crossed the line of saying that National was “dominated instructed or directed”. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now ask you to give me your direction on whether Speaker’s ruling 52/6 might apply in this case given that it is my distinct memory that the member asked how much money—not whether any money—was given. I would say that Speaker’s ruling 52/6 certainly goes to the question at hand there. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I would like to thank the member opposite for raising that Speaker’s ruling and I also thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith for raising Speaker’s ruling 52/4(1). In assisting your consideration of those points I refer you to Speaker’s rulings 52/4(2) and (3) which I am sure you will have available but for the sake of listeners they state: “(2) a member making such a suggestion in an indirect way or by means of a question does not offend …”—which I think covers completely Mr Anderton’s position—and also “(3) when a member states that a party has received its marching orders directions … the member does not offend unless the Speaker is satisfied there is a clear suggestion that such orders directions or instructions have been or are being acted upon …” and there is no clear suggestion of that nature. 
A question was raised because we could not explain the Government’s behaviour but no direct suggestion has been made that the Government has acted in a particular way. The question has simply been raised and it should be a matter of public record whether any donations have been made to the Government on or around the same period that there has been consideration of this issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This is a very difficult issue. As members can see it is very difficult to make decisions off the cuff but I say to members that had Mr Anderton said that the National Party had received money I would have said that he was completely out of order. If Mr Anderton had said it had received money for these decisions I would have said he was completely out of order. 
The member indicated to me that he said that but I understood that Mr Anderton—and he may be able to correct me here because I just cannot quite remember the exact words—was asking whether National had received donations and to disclose those and whether those donations had influenced its decision. That was the nature of it. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I never mentioned that they had influenced its decision. I asked whether it had been given any money and if it had how much. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member made a comment earlier on. That was the second one; what was the first one? Just refresh my memory on that. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I will read from the notes if you like so that we get it right. It will be in  
Hansard 
 anyway. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is too late then. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If I can find it— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Next week will be all right. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: At least I am not reading the wrong speech. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask members not to make interjections. I asked the member a serious question. I want the member to answer the question. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The relevant section is: “How much money is being put into the victory fund account of the National Party by the liquor industry?”. “Nothing” is an answer “$1” is an answer “$1 million” is an answer—any answer will do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have consulted the Clerk and I will reflect on my decision here. Speakers’ rulings 52/6 and 51/4 point out that a member may not allege that the Government favours the interests of one class. I think that in the way the member has raised this there is very clearly an allegation that the Government has come to a conclusion for a donation. I think the member has crossed the line at that point. There is a very clear allegation in that. If the member had simply asked: “Have there been donations made and if so for what amount and have donations been made that have influenced the decision?” then that is not an allegation. That is a question and it is different from an allegation. So I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am happy to withdraw the comment I made and ask whether money has been given to the National Party by the liquor industry. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I say to the member that I want him to withdraw the comments. I ask him to stand and withdraw the comments then he can continue his speech and rephrase the words how he likes. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I withdraw the comments and end my speech by asking whether the liquor industry has given any money to the National Party’s victory fund account for next year or any money to the National Party during the period of this debate.