Roy Heather: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15264] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Alcohol Reform Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. Like some other members we have grave concerns about much of this legislation. It is not enough merely to be seen to be taking a serious problem seriously. Many of the measures in the bill will not have the desired or intended effect that has been spoken about today but will impinge on the majority of people who drink responsibly. Rather than addressing the causes of this problem this bill addresses only the symptoms. 
The ACT Party will have a split vote on this bill; three of our members will be opposing it and two will be supporting it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee but they want to voice their grave concerns about this legislation. 
As lawmakers we have a duty to step back and ask ourselves questions. Do our current laws serve us well and do we need change? If we need change we should ask what the role of Government should be and what should be left to individuals and communities. Does ever more restrictive and stringent regulation really help or does it take away the self-responsibility that is inherent in our society and result in the statute book replacing common sense and good behaviour? 
This bill is based on Law Commission report 114 which made 153 recommendations to Parliament. The Government has issued its response accepting 113 of the recommendations. Now we are going through the process of passing and implementing law. The Government’s response is comprehensive and it covers as others have said many areas: the licensing framework and enforcement of that framework; the management of alcohol in public places through liquor bans; parental consent and supervision; advertising; and—the issue on which much of the public focus lies—the alcohol purchase age. All of those things are done with the best of intentions but good intentions on their own are not enough. Those are very specific proposals to solve a much broader but poorly articulated problem—that of problem drinking: binge drinking irresponsible drinking by those of all ages and drinking that ends in illness or violence or both. But we have a quandary do we not because people enjoy drinking and the majority do so in moderation. 
We have not heard about the social benefits of drinking. People do enjoy it but we have not heard about those benefits and that is because people want to continue drinking. They do not want to have the prohibition debate despite the fact that in listening to Lianne Dalziel Jim Anderton and parts of Sue Kedgley’s speech we actually heard arguments for prohibition which never ever works. 
There is no denying that there are real harms from alcohol but it is important to weigh the benefits in any cost-benefit analysis. It is clear that there is a cost but the size of the cost is very material to determining the correct policy course. When considering reform it is important to examine the facts. Often forgotten is the fact that when liquor laws were liberalised in the late 1980s alcohol consumption per head of population fell—it dropped. Although consumption has increased recently along with incomes but only slightly it is still significantly lower than it was 30 years ago. New Zealand has the 13th lowest level of alcohol consumption of the 30 OECD countries. We consume about half the amount of alcohol per head of population of countries such as France and Italy. 
We must beware the unintended consequences of regulation. Many of the proposed reforms in this bill will not have the intended effect. It is fair to say that the old laws caused problems. The 6 o’clock pub closing created the 6 o’clock swill. The culture of course was to swill as much alcohol as possible before the bar closed and the sawdust on the floors of bars was not there in order to add to the rustic charm. Thankfully those days are gone and we now have a lively and diverse drinking scene which is not heavily regulated. Because of this change of scene we have some of the top bars and restaurants in the world. 
My critics will be apoplectic by now shouting about Courtenay Place at 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday mornings and the unseemly Viaduct Basin sights. Am I underestimating the harms? I do not believe that the answers lie in rigid legislation that provides the wrong incentives and therefore the wrong behaviours. The truth is that society’s attitude toward alcohol and bad behaviour is what determines how serious a problem alcohol consumption is. 
In many other societies and Italy is a good example public drunkenness is simply not tolerated; people do not put up with it. But what do we do here in New Zealand? We walk down the street and we turn the other way so that we can ignore the problem. 
All of this says to me that no laws relating to alcohol consumption will really have the desired effect. Laws can try to modify behaviour but ultimately it is social attitudes that matter. Laws will not change those attitudes; education campaigns may. When we refuse to tolerate drunken behaviour people will stop behaving that way in public. So what is the answer? There is of course no silver bullet. A change in societal attitudes to drunkenness is a very good start. We must never get to the stage of assuming that only the police can deal with bad behaviour. Parents accepting responsibility for their children is a huge factor. 
Recent academic studies show that parental modelling of drinking is a large determinant of their children’s drinking behaviour. Young problem drinkers are almost always the product of parents who are problem drinkers. The studies also show that provision of alcohol by parents is a determinant of drinking behaviour. Our kids learn from us. 
Age control is a red herring. The 18 versus 20 age debate merely detracts from the real issue. Inappropriate consumption is inappropriate at age 14 age 18 or 20 age 35 age 60 or age 99. That is why I support keeping the alcohol purchase age at 18 and have been very impressed with the Keep It 18 campaign. This will of course be a conscience vote and like most parties the ACT Party will probably have differing views on this matter. I will say it again: to turn this debate into an attack on the young only serves to ignore the real issues with alcohol consumption in New Zealand. 
This week the Attorney-General raised in a report some quite frightening issues and those have been referred to by the previous speaker Sue Kedgley. Firstly a power of arrest for an infringement offence raises an issue of arbitrariness on several counts. If there is a risk to public disorder alternative powers of arrest are already open to police. Secondly the Attorney-General’s report raised concerns about a new push in the bill to allow police to compel someone suspected of an infringement to give the name address and whereabouts of anyone connected in any way with the alleged offence. The bill also has a number of reverse onus provisions. All of these are a blatant attack on our freedoms. 
It is fitting that today—Armistice Day—we also consider freedom and living in a free society. A free society is one where other people cannot decide whether we drink alcohol smoke tobacco engage in prostitution gamble or box. We cannot legislate or decide for other people. It is for individuals to make their own choices. 
I want to finish with a principle that we should base good law on. Good law should be clear enforceable and routinely enforced. If the proposals do not meet those criteria we should go straight back to the drawing board. That is because the outcome is the most important thing. We need real solutions not just to be seen to be taking a serious problem seriously. It is about diagnosing the problem accurately looking at what will work and then once we have the right plan enforcement enforcement enforcement. We must start with enforcement of our current laws and then add a large dollop of education into the mix to show that we are serious. We must not get in the way of people helping themselves because that is when we will see real change.