Sowry Roger: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Sowry Roger: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5446] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 What an extraordinary speech that was! It was extraordinary because it was only about 2 minutes long and because on such an important measure the Minister on his feet said a couple of things. Firstly he said that this bill was promoted not because of the taxation revenue but because this was a health issue. He said that this legislation will stop binge drinking and that that is why we are putting an extra tax on Madeira port and sherry. Where is the evidence that we have a whole heap of elderly New Zealanders out there binge drinking on port Madeira and sherry? The Minister is simply not credible. 
Secondly even more extraordinary was the Minister’s admission to the House that the Minister of Finance had nothing to do with this bill. So now we have a tax being levied that the Minister of Finance has had nothing to do with. That also was an extraordinary admission by the Minister. It really does feed into the sort of stuff that has been running around the building tonight which is that this bill actually came about because Dr Cullen would not give Mr Anderton the money that he wants to waste through his Ministry of Economic Development—the money for the next lot of Sovereign Yachts and the next sort of experiment that he goes on. So it was agreed that if the Minister for Economic Development were to take through the House a bill that was nothing to do with him and his portfolio areas a bill that put an extra tax primarily on elderly New Zealanders then he would get his money. 
Why did we have to deal with this bill a week earlier than the Budget? The Minister of Finance not only wanted Mr Anderton to say as he has said tonight that the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen had nothing to do with this bill but he wanted to make sure that it was debated a week away from the Budget. This is the 2000 Budget repeated. We are in 2000 for the 2000 Budget when the Labour Party came into the House with the support of the Greens and voted through a huge excise increase. Labour broke its pledge-card promise voted through an increase in the excise duty on tobacco and did so a week out from the Budget so that it would not have nasty headlines around the Budget. This Government spends every second of its day thinking about the political spin. So it has decided once again to try to put the bad news upfront a week out from the Budget— 
Jill Pettis 
: And it’s working. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
:—Jill Pettis says that it is working—to go out there and kick a few elderly people who like to have a glass of sherry or port to do that a week out from the Budget and then to say that the Budget is a non-event and we should not worry about it. 
What is more the Government is dressing up the kicking of people who want to drink a sherry or a port on the basis that this legislation will stop binge drinking and will do something about young people drinking. We know that is not the case. We know that United Future fell for the line that this measure was about stopping youth drinking. We know that from a great speech that was made by the United Future spokesperson on alcohol Judy Turner who said that she would rather people bought one of the ready-to-drink mixtures with 5 percent alcohol content than the drinks affected by this legislation. In fact she said she would not mind if they had two of those drinks because they would have 10 percent alcohol content then. That shows how much understanding we had from that member. She has no understanding of the process at all. She had no understanding what she was voting for; she did not have a clue about what she was doing. United Future members were sucked into supporting this bill and now we find that many of the Labour back-benchers did not realise that the prime target of this bill was elderly New Zealanders. 
The vast majority of the people who are affected by this bill are elderly New Zealanders and the Labour back-benchers were not told that before they came into the House today. This bill is not about young drinkers; it does not actually affect young drinkers. Young drinkers’ drinks of choice are excluded from the hefty taxation increases in this bill. Parents of young girls in particular who do not mind them having a drink but want them to be safe rightly advise their young daughters never to drink a drink that they have not seen mixed in front of them or that they should take a ready-mixed drink to a party and not put it down. Parents tell them not to let anyone get near a drink in case that person drops something in it and to drink from a ready-to-drink bottle. Those are the drinks that young people are out there binge drinking on. 
What has the Labour Government done about any of those ready-mixed drinks? Not a thing. The Labour Government has said to young people that if they go and buy drink it will make it more difficult for them to buy straight vodka but easier to buy vodka that is mixed. That is what the Government has done. Then Government members stand up here in the House and say that it is a bit of a shame that people who drink Madeira sherry and port are caught up in this legislation because it was really targeting young New Zealanders. The Government cannot have it both ways. 
We know that this legislation is all about two things. It is about raising extra money so that the Progressives can get some money to spend in the Budget. That was its first priority. That is why the Minister for Economic Development took the bill through the House. It was extraordinary that we did not even hear the Minister of Finance speak on the bill. He was here when it was introduced but he scuttled off and that was it. We did not hear from him during the course of this debate and we did not hear from the Minister of Customs. What we heard in fact was a silly little poem from the member for Otago. He was up in his office with a few of his mates around him. They sat around and wrote a little poem and came to the House. Then he pleaded with the whips to be allowed to make a speech. They said that back-benchers were not allowed to speak on the bill but he said that he and his mates had written a little poem that was really funny so the whips agreed that he could read his 2-minute funny poem. That was Labour’s whole contribution to the bill. 
If the members on the Opposition side of the House were in Government and were to do what this Government has done we would have had Labour members worrying about their dear old mums who have a glass of sherry who live just on the pension and who now face an extra tax. Do Labour members care one iota about that now? Do they care one iota about the elderly person living alone who just likes to have a glass of sherry every night? Labour members’ answer is that that is binge drinking and that is why they have to go out and get that. 
Interestingly one of the groups that will be most affected by this legislation is the hospice movement. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh for God’s sake! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Jill Pettis cannot give a toss about the hospice movement. I have recently been visiting a person in a hospice. One of the great joys for that lady was a—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it was one glass. Jill Pettis might think that that is just a bit pathetic but for that lady it was something that she really looked forward to. The hospice movement will have to raise more money and pay more tax.