Power Simon: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6336] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill and I begin by thanking Martin Gallagher and Ron Mark as the chairperson and acting chairperson respectively of the Law and Order Committee. I thank in particular not only my fellow members of the select committee but also the officials who worked with the committee. Despite the appearance of the bill this eight-page bill is extremely complex legislation and the officials who spent many hours toiling over how its provisions would fit with the principal Act deserve the praise of this Parliament. It was and it remains a very complex and difficult matter that this bill seeks to address. But I am of the view that Parliament must pass workable and clear law—law that will not complicate the enforcement of issues such as those currently being debated. 
Let me state clearly that no one wants to see young people—or to see anyone for that matter—being harmed by alcohol. The question for this Parliament tonight is whether this bill in its current form can fix any problem of that nature. We did as a committee make the decision to progress the bill in a way that would give Parliament the opportunity to vote on the alcohol issue as if the bill was drafted in a way that raised the legal age to 20. However the bill is still very badly flawed and it represents in my view very poor law. 
This law will badly confuse the current law on the purchase of alcohol. It is important when members consider their vote on this matter that they remember this bill does nothing in terms of the supply of alcohol or the consumption of alcohol but relates only to the purchase age and to nothing else. I welcome the opportunity provided by the Government’s announcement today that it is to look at the supply and sale of liquor to those under 18—and I see that Minister O’Connor is in the House. I have already told him this privately but I will now say publicly that I think that announcement will be helpful to this debate. 
The select committee has gone to some lengths in its commentary on the bill to explain the submissions it received. I know that this seems odd but I will say it anyway. If members have not read the commentary on the bill they should do so before they cast their vote tonight. One of the pieces of evidence that has stuck in my mind throughout the nearly 12-month period during which this bill was before the select committee was the submission from the New Zealand Police. The police gave evidence to the committee that for 18 to 20-year-old alleged offenders in nearly 52 percent of the cases where an alcohol-related offence was committed the last drink the alleged offender took had been taken at home. 
So why then will I be voting against this legislation? Well this legislation creates bad law in four or five key areas and I will spend some time going through those now. When the committee was forced to try to make the law work it had to introduce the frankly ludicrous legal concept of an exemption for those accompanied by a former guardian—not a present guardian but a former guardian. That imposes a most bizarre set of circumstances not only on those serving alcohol—or on parents—but also on those attempting to enforce such a provision. The committee recommended a new clause to allow minors to drink alcohol in on-licensed premises when accompanied by a former guardian. That creates a huge amount of difficulty when an individual in such an establishment is put in the position of having to identify the legal status of an individual who is accompanying a minor. 
More to the point the committee was forced into the position of having to create a further exemption relating to spouses or civil union partners—in other words for an 18-year-old who enters on-licensed premises with his or her 20-year-old civil union partner or spouse. How could any 18-year-old who is married to somebody aged 20 or over or who is in a civil union relationship with such a person obtain access to alcohol in on-licensed premises without proof of such a marriage de facto relationship or civil union registration? We can imagine the predicament that that would put the New Zealand Police into when trying to enforce these matters. 
Further the committee was forced to deal with the issue of how to address matters relating to people between the ages of 18 and 20 who are employed in on-licensed premises. We had the ludicrous position where a person in that age group was able to carry a tray with beer and wine on it together with a meal to an individual in on-licensed premises but he or she could not drink alcohol. Once the pub had closed for the night that employee could not drink alcohol. That would create all sorts of difficulties for those seeking to enforce those provisions. 
But the situation became even stranger when the committee was put in the position where initially the bill actually made it unlawful to provide alcohol to somebody under the age of 20 at appropriately supervised gatherings that were private social functions. I cannot conceive of circumstances where Matt Robson would have seriously wanted to legislate against that environment. In an environment where under-20-year-olds were under the supervision of a neighbour or others and when their parents or guardians—not former guardians at that point—were present then this legislation would not allow alcohol to be served or supplied in that situation. So the initial bill actually confused the concepts of supply and purchase and we had to work hard as a committee in order to overcome that issue. 
It is trite to say that at age 18 people in New Zealand acquire the ability to undertake certain tasks such as to vote serve in the military get married purchase tobacco purchase age-restricted publications enter a credit contract and—bizarrely in the circumstances of this legislation—hold a firearms licence. Yet the original intent of this bill was to prevent people under the age of 20 from purchasing a beer. 
 I go back to what I said earlier. I welcome the Government’s initiative in this area. Frankly more work needs to be done in respect of the number of liquor licences that are presently available in the market. That very important issue needs further consideration. But I draw members’ attention back to my first comment which is the main reason I will be opposing the legislation. Parliament must pass workable and clear law that provides the authorities with the ability to enforce it unambiguously. No one wants to see young people being harmed by alcohol or by any other matter but this bill is badly flawed is inconsistent requires peculiar legal definition and will make life more difficult. It will be harder for the police to enforce the law if this legislation is passed than if it is not passed. The harm that some say is caused by the current situation—and I do not deny that at all—will not be remedied by legislation that makes enforcement more difficult for the police and for that reason I oppose this legislation.