Prebble Richard: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5423] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The first point I would make to the member is that it would have been helpful if she had produced that bottle its receipt and the like and we could have seen how many bottles are actually being sold. I suspect it is one of those— 
Rod Donald 
: It is 1.2 million according to your friends the distillers. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Is it 1.2 million 750 ml bottles? If that figure turns out to be wrong will the member resign? He is not prepared to put his word on it. I would like to hear that from the Minister but I want to make this point: all she is demonstrating is that the industry just like the young people will move to whatever level. So we can absolutely guarantee that a new bottle of gin will come out and it will be 13.9 percent proof. It will be on the market and all people have to do is drink two of them to get the same effect. It will probably look exactly like— 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member challenged me and therefore I seek leave to table an article from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 about below-strength spirits being targeted in a crackdown. Mr Thomas Chin from the Distilled Spirits Association estimated that more than 1.2 million bottles of light spirits are sold a year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has sought leave to table that article. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: The member cannot do that in the middle of a speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No—at the end of a speech. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That was completely out of order. The member can take a call and I would actually be very interested if he did. He could then take it slower and I would be quite happy to take long enough to hear him. But the point I wanted to make to the member who spoke before me is that if she thinks she is making any difference to the youth market she is not. 
I hope the Minister is taking some interest in the bill because there are some aspects of it that quite frankly I do not understand and so I want to ask him a couple of technical questions. If the Minister reads the explanatory note he will see that it states that the reason for the bill is “the potential for teenagers to move to other low priced higher alcohol products and is consistent with the aim of minimisation of harm caused through the consumption of alcohol.” If we then look at what the explanatory note has to say about Part 2 we see that it states: “Clause 4 amends the Third Schedule of the principal Act to align the duty payable on beverages between 14% and 23% alcohol…”. When we look at the schedule we find that the first “beverage” mentioned is ice cream. I want to know from the Minister—or perhaps from Judy Turner or the Greens—where the evidence is that teenagers are being damaged by ice cream. 
But I go further than that. I went back to the Act we are amending and I cannot see that ice cream was actually in the schedule of the 1996 legislation. I might have missed it and that is why I am asking the Minister a question. What I would like to know from Government members is whether they have added ice cream into the bill. If they have then clearly it must be causing some serious problem. I have seen Bailey’s ice cream at the supermarket and I have had it but is there really any evidence that it is harming young people? How much Bailey’s ice cream would people have to eat before they were affected? [ 
Interruption 
] The member seems to know the answer. I would like to see him take a call because I see that ice cream is the first item in the schedule: “Ice cream and other edible ice…”. 
We are going to change the tax on ice cream and indeed I see that it appears a number of times in the schedules. The Government must think it is a serious problem. It is 2 o’clock in the morning so how serious a problem is Bailey’s ice cream or is it like the rest of the stuff we have heard about—really just an excuse to raise another $18 million? This is a serious question to the Minister: is ice cream a new item or was it in the 1996 Act? Has there been a problem with alcoholic ice creams; if so where is the evidence? The Minister mentioned in his second reading speech that more young people have been admitted to hospital. Were they there with ice cream dribbling from their lips? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Intoxicated on ice cream! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes intoxicated on ice cream. It reminds me of that Salvation Army song: “Crumbs on Their Chins”. Is this a serious problem? Are we making a change or was this item in the earlier Act? Since Judy Turner says she is an expert on young people is she concerned about young people eating ice cream with alcoholic content? She tells us she has had a lot of experience and has seen examples so do young teenagers have ice cream alcohol parties? Is this the sort of thing we are dealing with? If they do not surely the Minister should take some responsibility for the explanatory note. When the Government is putting a bill through under extraordinary urgency I think it has a greater obligation to give us an explanatory note that we can rely on. This explanatory note as members have pointed out is confusing misleading and a disgrace.