Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

Sir Wilson James Whineray KNZM, OBE

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to acknowledge the death of Sir Wilson Whineray.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move, That this House express its sadness at the passing of All Black great Sir Wilson Whineray in Auckland on 22 October, aged 77. Sir Wilson Whineray was New Zealand’s longest-serving captain of the All Blacks and a leading businessman. It was with much sadness and deep regret that I learnt of his death yesterday afternoon. I knew Sir Wilson and, like many other New Zealanders, respected him immensely.

Sir Wilson played 77 All Blacks matches between 1957 and 1965, including 32 tests. He captained the side 67 times; a remarkable feat given the All Blacks played only two or three test matches a year at that time. He may well have been the greatest All Blacks captain we have ever had. Sir Wilson was named New Zealand Sportsman of the Year in 1965 and was knighted in 1998 for services to sport and business management.

Regarded as one of the great All Blacks legends, Sir Wilson made significant contributions to the community through his work with sport, charities, and business. His business acumen was hugely respected. He made his mark at APN, the New Zealand Wool Marketing Corporation, National Bank, and Auckland International Airport, although most of us remember his time at the helm of Carter Holt Harvey. It is fitting that the only biography of Sir Wilson was titled A Perfect Gentleman. He was the rare breed of man whose modesty and humility gave no hint of the greatness he had achieved. He lived life to the full, and one of his favourite lines was that he did not regret a single day in his life. This is a loss all of New Zealand will feel.

Sir Wilson is survived by his wife, Lady Elisabeth; his son, James; two daughters, Kristen and Susan; and five grandchildren. Our thoughts are with them at this sad time. On behalf of this House, I also extend my deep sympathy and condolences to the friends, former team mates, and colleagues of Sir Wilson. May he rest in peace.

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): Today we remember a great New Zealander Sir Wilson Whineray. He was a Kiwi icon who led from the front in everything he did—whether it was rugby, business, or serving our community. He was a fine man, a true leader, a great friend to many, and dearly loved by his family. I would also like to express my sincere regret at his passing, and extend my sympathy to his wife, Lady Elisabeth, his children, his grandchildren, his friends, and his team-mates.

Sir Wilson touched the lives of many New Zealanders through his sporting achievements and his outstanding leadership qualities. He touched my life in a very personal way. When I was 8 years old and a rugby fanatic, I wrote to Wilson Whineray asking him for his autograph, and I enclosed a self-addressed, stamped envelope in the hope that I would hear back from him. I was so excited when I received the envelope back in the mail with a little note in it from Wilson Whineray, saying that he was pleased to give me his autograph to add to my collection. The fact that he took time to send a note to an 8-year-old is testament to who he was and the way that he lived his life.

Sir Wilson was not just an All Black great but also a captain of business. When he retired from rugby, he carved out a new career for himself, gaining an MBA at Harvard University, and then went on to work for Alex Harvey Industries, which was later to become Carter Holt Harvey. He rose through the ranks to become chairman, and held many other positions of responsibility at the National Bank, Auckland International Airport, and APN News and Media.

Of course, he will always be remembered most by New Zealanders for being one of our greatest All Black captains and a hero on the rugby field. He thoroughly deserved his induction into the International Rugby Board Hall of Fame, as recognition for the way he led the All Blacks in 67 tests as captain. He is also respected for the contribution he continued to make to sport even after his retirement from rugby, including as chair of the Hillary Commission. His knighthood in 1998 for services to sport and business management was fitting recognition for his contribution to New Zealand.

I would like to finish by passing on Labour’s sincere condolences to Sir Wilson’s family and friends. I heard him say he hoped he would leave the world a better place for his being here. He achieved that goal with distinction. He will be missed by us all, but his legacy on and off the field will never be forgotten. May he rest in peace.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): On behalf of the Greens, I stand to support the motion. Sir Wilson Whineray donned the All Black jersey 77 times, and led the All Blacks when the pay rate was about $1 a day for a sportsman. But that was not an issue for him; sport was about more than money in those times. He was a man who loved his family, his country, and his rugby. He did not seem to be a man who courted controversy, but he did find himself in one when he captained the 1960 All Blacks tour of South Africa. That tour raised the issue of racism here in New Zealand, and led to an increasing awareness of racism both here in Aotearoa and overseas. Aotearoa has moved on from those times, and, indeed, Sir Wilson expressed different views over the 1981 tour.

As well as Sir Wilson’s great feats as an All Black, I think it is worth remembering the good work he did as the chair of the Hillary Commission in the 1990s. He came from an era when people wanted to play sport for the love of it, and in his work at the Hillary Commission he set about making certain that young New Zealanders got involved in sport. He realised that for a sports-mad country like Aotearoa to continue to achieve success at the elite level, it was important for all New Zealanders to be involved in sport. Fair play, coaching, administrative support for sports bodies at all levels, and programmes for all ages were areas that were greatly developed during Sir Wilson’s time. To Sir Wilson, one of the most satisfying aspects of his time at the Hillary Commission was the continuing development in children’s sports: “It is the most rewarding and stimulating part of what we do.”, he said.

Sir Wilson should be remembered, therefore, not only as a great All Black but as a man who gave back to the community and encouraged all New Zealanders to get out there and participate. On behalf of the Green Party, we send our sincere condolences to his family and to his friends. Thank you.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): New Zealand First expresses our condolences on this great loss to Sir Wilson Whineray’s family—his wife, Lady Elisabeth, his son, two daughters, and many grandchildren. New Zealand has lost a great man. The words “iconic” and “legend” are often overused. However, in the case of Sir Wilson Whineray, these two words are very apt. Sir Wilson was distinguished both on and off the field. Despite his numerous achievements, he remained a humble man and a strong hero for generations of New Zealanders to aspire to. Sir Wilson Whineray was a truly great New Zealander.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora tātau katoa. Kai te tū ake hei waha kōrero mō te Pāti Māori ki te whakanui i tēnei tangata kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Ko ia tērā kua whai atu i wētahi i te tau kua hipa ake o roto i te motu. E kī ana te kōrero i roto i Te Ao Māori “Kua hinga te tōtara nui o te wao nui ā Tāne”, ā, ko ia tērā. He tōtara. Ēhara i te mea he tōtara ā-nui, ā-tangata nei, kāo, ēngari, he tōtara nā runga i te āhuatanga o tāna ngākaunui ki Aotearoa, otirā, ki wana hoa, ki ngā mahi i mahia mai ai e ia. Ko te wāhi ki a au, he tautoko i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia ki tērā o ngā tōtara, haere e koro ki a rātau e tatari mai nā ki a koe. E moe, e moe koutou.

I puta te pātai i waenganui i a mātau te tokotoru i te ata nei, mā wai te tangata e kōrero, anā, ka toro mai te ringa ki a au kia tū atu i te mea, e ai ki tā te tokorua nei ko au te mea e mōhio ana ki tēnei mea o te whutupōro, ā, tēra kōrero tērā ēngari, ko te āhuatanga o te tangata nei ēhara i te mea ko te whutupōro i tōna kotahi. Kua eke ia ki roto i ngā mahi nui o roto i te whare wānanga, arā, kua kōrerohia te āhuatanga o te Hillary Commission, arā noa atu, arā noa atu, arā noa atu. Waiho ērā kōrero ki reira, kua ea tērā o ngā kōrero.

Hoi anō, ka hoki ōku whakaaro ki te wā i a au e tamariki ana, ki tōku whakatipuranga, e whaiwhai nei i te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te whutupōro. Arā noa noa ngā ingoa i puta mai ki ngā taringa. Anā, ko te āhuatanga ki a Tremain—anei te uri kai roto i te Whare nei—ki a Nathan, ki a McLeod, ki a Meads, ki a Laidlaw, ki a Herewini, ki a Rangi. Arā noa ngā ingoa o tōku whakatipuranga i rongo i ngā ingoa nei. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te wā i noho nei, i whakamahana nei i te tuarā o tōku papa, me te whakarongo ki te reo irirangi. Ki taku mōhio ko te Bob Irvine te tangata i kōrero i ngā kēmu o te tīma nei e haere ana i te mata whenua.

Nō reira, ka hoki ngā mahara, anā kua mau kōhatu anō hoki te ingoa o te tangata nei o Whineray, ki roto i tōku ngākau, i tōku hinengaro nā te aha? Nā te nui o ngā mahi, nā te mana o te tangata i a ia e takatū ana i te mata o te whenua. E waimāria ana ahau i te wā i a au i te whare wānanga, otirā, e tākaro whutupōro ana mō te tīma o Tāmaki, te tūtaki i te tangata nei. E tika ana te kōrero, inā kē tana nui, ā, ka whakaaro ake, auē, mēnā ka tūtaki atu i tērā tangata i te whīra, ka tino raruraru.

Ēngari, koi nā te nui o te tangata. E tika ana te kōrero, ngāwari te tangata, humārie te tangata, ā, kua eke ki te taumata o te hunga kua ngaro, pai kē te kī, e koro, e moe, haere atu rā. Ā, huri noa i tō tātau Whare, ko tā tātau ko te whakanui i te āhuatanga o te tangata nei i a ia e takatū ana i te mata o te whenua, ka mutu, ka rere ngā whakaaro ki tōna hoa rangatira me ngā tamariki, kia kaha, kia māia ki a rātau. Kia kaha, kia māia ki a tātau katoa. Kia ora tātau.

[Greetings to us all. I stand to speak on behalf of the Māori Party and to pay a tribute to this man who will no longer be seen. That is, he who follows those throughout the country who have passed on in the year past. There is a saying in Māoridom “The big tōtara of the great forest of Tāne has fallen”, and that is he, a tōtara. It is not as though he was a great tōtara physically—no! He was a great one because of his commitment to New Zealand, his friends, and the things that he did. For me, personally, I wish to endorse the sentiments expressed about this of all tōtara. Depart, oh ancient one, to those who await you. To you, the dead, rest and sleep there.

The question arose amongst the three of us this morning as to who should make the eulogy to this man, and I was beckoned to stand because, according to the other two, I am the one who knows about this thing called rugby. However, that is another story. But this man was not about rugby alone; he achieved much in leading roles he held in university. Indeed, his involvement with the Hillary Commission has been extolled, and so on and so on. Leave those sentiments there as a tribute to what he has achieved.

My thoughts go back now to the times when I was a child, to when my generation would pursue anything to do with this thing called rugby. There were many, many names that we heard about, like Tremain—his kin is here in this House—Nathan, McLeod, Meads, Laidlaw, Herewini, and Rangi. There were many other names that my generation kept hearing about. I recall the times when I used to sit and warm my dad’s back as we listened to the wireless. As far as I can recall, Bob Irvine was the commentator who called all the games of this team as it toured about the world.

And so, thoughts go back to the name of this man, Whineray, immortalised in my heart and my mind, and why? This man’s many deeds and integrity as he went about the country. I was lucky to meet this person in my time at university and while I was playing for the Auckland team at the same time. What they have said about him is true inasmuch as he was so big that I was prompted to think, by God, if I was ever to meet that man on the paddock, I would be in real trouble.

But that aside, that man’s reputation was enormous. What is said about him is true. He was an easygoing and humble person and he has reached the benchmark set by those who have gone. It is more apt to say farewell and rest, oh ancient one. To everyone in the house, the part for us now is to extol aspects of this man’s life as he bounded about on the world’s stage. Furthermore, my thoughts go out to his wife and children. They need to be strong and courageous. To us all, I say be strong, be brave, and thank you.]

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Hoi nō, he tū poto tēnei. Ki a tātou anō rā e te Whare, e tautoko kaha ana mātou katoa i ngā mihi atu ki te rangatira o te Kapa o Pango kua ngaro atu ki tēnā atu o te ārai. Te rangatira ki te papa tākaro, te rangatira ki te ao hurihuri nei, nō reira, haere te rangatira, haere, haere atu rā. Hoi nō, e tika ana kia poroporoaki rā ki tētahi atu. He rangatira anō ki roto i tōna ao, tōna tīma, tōna iwi, arā, ko te iwi taketake puta noa te ao. Nō reira e te rangatira, e Russell Means, haere, haere. Hoki atu ki tōu ūkaipō kia rere atu tōu wairua ki te ringa o tō matua nui i te Rangi. Nō reira, e taku hoa, e te toa, e te rangatira, haere, haere, oti atu e.

[This is only a short call. To us once again, the House, we totally and strongly endorse the tributes to the former captain of the All Blacks who has passed beyond the veil. He was revered on the field of play and in this evolving world, so continue and journey on, the leader. However, it is appropriate to bid farewell to another who was revered as well in his world, his team, and his indigenous people there throughout the world. Hence to the leader Russell Means, depart, farewell. Return to the place of your origin so that your spirit will fly to the hand of your great father in Heaven. Continue and journey on for good, my friend, warrior, champion, and revered one.]

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): I rise to support the Prime Minister’s motion. In every generation we see a handful of truly outstanding role models. They come from everywhere on the compass and from all walks of life. We admire their actions and their deeds and we hold them up as representatives of everything good about the spirit of our country and the value of our citizens. Sir Wilson James Whineray is one of our legends. He was a good man in the finest traditions of someone truly great.

Although well-known for his outstanding contribution as an All Black captain, he was much bigger than the game of rugby. He was an extraordinary individual. Very few New Zealanders would not have heard of Sir Wilson Whineray, and that is a tribute to all of his endeavours in sport, business, and in the wider community. In 1993 I worked with him in his role as chairman of the Hillary Commission. His single most significant contribution to that organisation was his commitment to reviving secondary school sport and participation at all levels.

He was, of course, a great achiever, but, for all of that, a quiet achiever. Public life never held a lot of interest for this private person, yet I cannot help but reflect on what a superb Governor-General he could have been. Over the years he never hesitated to give anyone a helping hand, and he was always there as a beacon of doing things right and doing the right thing. I had the opportunity to talk to him quite a lot over the years. On a one-to-one basis he always left you with a single and significant piece of sage advice. Former American President John Quincy Adams once said: “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.” Sir Wilson Whineray was a leader of our people, and New Zealand’s stadium of 4 million has greatly benefited from the endeavours of one man. Today our thoughts turn to his gracious wife and wonderful family.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to join with others in paying tribute to the late Sir Wilson Whineray, acknowledging his tremendous contribution to sport, to commerce, and to public life in New Zealand generally over the last generation or so. For many of us who grew up in the 1960s, he was an inspirational figure. He was the All Blacks captain at a time when the All Blacks had an even higher standing in the public consciousness than they do today. After the 1963-64 tour of the British Isles he was noted by the British rugby writers—hardly uncritical commentators on New Zealand sporting prowess—as the greatest gentleman in sport. When he retired after the final test in 1965, I can vividly recall, even though the television images were grainy, seeing him carried aloft by his team-mates from the field of play to the grandstand for the after-match event.

But it was not the end of his career at that point. He went on, as has been noted, to have a considerable career in commerce and a range of public activities. I want to recall an incident from the mid-1990s, in which I was involved, where all of the skills that made him such a great player, such a great businessman, and such a great captain came to bear. We in this city were having one of these great stoushes that from time to time divide us—this time, the battle between the Porirua, Hutt, and Wellington factions over where our new multi-purpose sports stadium should be sited. There were those, like the Wellington City Council, arguing for the site down on the waterfront, which eventually triumphed. Others wanted it to be out at Aotea. To try to bridge the gap between the different sporting codes, the local authorities, and the various interests, an external review panel was commissioned, chaired by the then Mr—now, of course, remembered as Sir—Wilson Whineray. I remember going to a couple of the meetings, where tensions were high and passions were being expressed with considerable vigour. This wise figure sat at the end of the table very quietly, nodding at every point that was made, and, in an almost quietly inaudible way, summing up and reaching a decision that everyone felt comfortable with. The consequence was that the stadium was built in what turned out to be the right place. I could imagine from that the team talk, the words of encouragement on the field, and the words of encouragement around the board table from this wise man whose very demeanour and style of presentation gave you a sense of confidence that he knew what he was doing and that he was probably right.

He said—just in tributes that have been referred to in recent times—that he wanted to leave New Zealand a better place than he found it. His presence here alone ensured that that change occurred. We look to our heroes, and we look to people like Sir Wilson Whineray, who with quiet dignity, determination, and passion achieved not only on the sports field but in the business community. The fact that we are now paying tribute to his memory in this Parliament acknowledges, I think, the regard in which the vast majority of New Zealanders would hold him. Our sympathy is with Sir Wilson’s family. Our best wishes and thoughts go with them at this particularly sad time. But we all celebrate the memory of one of our finest New Zealanders.

Motion agreed to.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1 to Minister

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was originally accepted by the Clerk’s Office with the word “secretive” in front of the word “meeting”. After intervention from the Prime Minister’s office it was changed. I seek leave to ask the original question as accepted by the Clerk’s Office.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not as I understand the situation at all. [Interruption] Order! All questions require validation. The validation provided for that original wording was a statement by the member’s own colleague. The opinion of a colleague hardly meets the requirement for validation.

Oil and Gas Exploration—Deep-sea Oil-drilling and Consent Process

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: At his meeting with the boss of American oil giant Anadarko in November 2011, was the issue of making deep sea oil drilling a permitted activity under the EEZ legislation raised?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No. My memory of the meeting is that it was a courtesy call by the head of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation to express his interest in New Zealand in relation to what it may or may not want to do here. Secondly, it was an opportunity for an update on its activities internationally. He gave me a review of what happened in the gulf. As for the member’s assertion that it was a secretive meeting, I hate to tell him the bad news but it happened in the afternoon in Government offices. By the way, I had to walk along Queen Street to go in there. When you are on TV every night a few people notice it, and there were a whole lot of civil servants working up there, so it was not that secretive.

Dr Russel Norman: Will he rule out making deep-sea oil-drilling a permitted activity under the exclusive economic zone legislation regulations, currently being drafted, meaning that it will not require a resource consent?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and that is because we are in the process of going through the public consultation that the member referred to. At the point at which that consultation is completed and Cabinet has some advice, it will then need to make a decision about what happens next.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that under the exclusive economic zone legislation, permitted activities can proceed as of right with almost no oversight, how will the public, councils, and iwi have a say on specific deep-sea drilling proposals if the Government makes it a permitted activity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I think the member is misleading Parliament. In fact, if something was permitted, there would still be quite considerable—

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite a serious allegation to suggest that I am misleading Parliament. I was simply giving my interpretation of how the law works. The Prime Minister is perfectly able to contradict me if he disagrees.

Mr SPEAKER: The wording the Prime Minister used is very interesting. The issue arose just last week around the use of false information. The Prime Minister did not say the member intentionally misled Parliament. The Prime Minister just said the member was misleading Parliament—in other words, providing information that in the Prime Minister’s view was incorrect.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In my opinion, the member is misleading Parliament with that claim. There would still be an enormous amount of conditions that would apply for a permitted activity.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there may well be conditions, but if it is a permitted activity under the exclusive economic zone legislation—the regulations or the Act—there will be no need for a public consultation about specific deep-sea drilling activities?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It would be too early to conclude that. That is what the public consultation and the process we are going through at the moment is all about.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation had a 25 percent stake in the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico spill, and that, under his proposal, as a permitted activity it will be able to drill at similar levels in New Zealand waters without getting a resource consent?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the first thing that is important is that whatever the rules are that apply in the exclusive economic zone—and this Government is actually filling a gap that previous Governments failed to fill—they should apply to all companies irrespective of their history. Yes, it is true that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation had a 25 percent ownership of the company or one of the companies that had a problem in the gulf. I think it is also worth remembering that in the Gulf of Mexico since 1947, 50,000 wells have been drilled, and to the best of my knowledge that problem in the gulf was the one major one that most people can remember.

Dr Russel Norman: What is the point of having an environmental legislative regime for our exclusive economic zone if the Government is going to enable and allow companies to conduct risky activities there without the scrutiny of the resource consent process, as would be the case if it was a permitted activity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It depends on a number of factors—for a start off, about whether it is an exploration well or whether it is major drilling that is taking place. But there are also, as I said earlier, significant conditions that will still apply even if an activity is permitted. This is a Government that is actually filling the gap that was left as a void, where there were no rules applying, and making sure that they do apply. In the case of Taranaki, as has been the case for a very long period of time, actually drilling an exploration well there has been a permitted activity for a very long period of time, and to the best of my knowledge it is very successful.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that Deepwater Horizon was an exploration well in deep water, which resulted in massive pollution, and how can it make sense to require New Zealanders to apply for a consent to construct a deck in their backyard, but companies involved in risky deep-sea drilling do not require a resource consent from this Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Deep water is only one factor when it comes to whether a drill operation can actually take place. There are many other factors that one would want to consider. If the member is saying that just because it is deep water, drilling under even very good conditions cannot take place, that is about as bright as his idea to print money. I happen to have with me a $100 billion Zimbabwean note, which, for the record, when they printed this bought you about a bumper box from Kentucky Fried Chicken and a couple of bottles of Coke. That idea was not very good and this idea of stopping all drilling around New Zealand is not either.

Moana Mackey: In his meeting with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, did they discuss whether or not the Environmental Protection Authority is planning to contract out all or part of the offshore monitoring and compliance functions, including the possibility of industry self-regulation, as recently revealed on the Energy News website—functions that the Local Government and Environment Committee was assured would be carried out by the authority?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a paper from the International Monetary Fund recommending that small open economies target the exchange rate as well as inflation for their monetary policy. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has a right to call a point of order and to seek leave to table a document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon John Key: I seek leave to table my $100 billion Zimbabwean note, because it is not really worth much anyway, even when they printed it.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Did I hear objection? I did hear objection. There is objection.

New Zealand - Australia Migration—Numbers and Relation to Economic Policy

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “we’re trying to change the economic picture to encourage more New Zealanders to stay”; if so, how many people have migrated to Australia since he took office?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which was: “Australia’s been the best performing economy in the developed world, so it’s natural that some New Zealanders will ship over there, but obviously we are trying to change the economic picture to encourage more New Zealanders to stay.” To the second part of the question I say that 170,000 people, not just New Zealand citizens, have moved to Australia since November 2008. That is more than we would like, but it is a lot fewer than the 310,000 who went to Australia under Labour.

David Shearer: What has his Government done to ensure that a training requirement is introduced as part of the Government procurement processes, as was recommended in the 2009 Job Summit?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has done a number of things in terms of lifting the opportunity for training and that included, I think, spending $43 million in the Christchurch area. It has also established the Canterbury Skills and Employment Hub for a one-stop shop for employers to list vacancies and recruit from Work and Income.

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was quite a specific question around the Job Summit. It would be appreciated if the Prime Minister could address that part of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me, but I thought the member though, in asking his question, included an issue around training. I may be wrong in that recollection. Does the member wish to raise—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think what the Leader of the Opposition asked was whether training requirements were part of Government procurement. It was not a general—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is welcome to repeat his question, because I am not clear on it myself.

David Shearer: What has his Government done to ensure that a training requirement is introduced as part of the Government procurement processes, as was recommended under the 2009 Job Summit?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Specifically we do not require them to do it, but, as I understand it, employers do get actively involved in that training component, and they are actively working with us in a number of areas—the Canterbury Skills and Employment Hub is a good example. The Government also spends a huge amount of money on, basically, making sure that it provides training courses and apprenticeships and support for youngsters.

David Shearer: Is he able to tell the House approximately how many apprenticeships have been created in the last year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that number to hand, but what I do have to hand is the editorial that absolutely slammed David Shearer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was a straight question; it does not deserve that.

Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Prime Minister be seeking to try to change the economic picture to encourage more New Zealanders to stay—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member, but I just cannot hear him because of the interjections going across the floor in front of me. I ask members on both sides to please desist so that I can hear the Hon Peter Dunne. [Interruption] Order! I have just asked members to desist. Order! There is no need for that. It is not helpful. [Interruption] I said interjections on both sides of the House—I am asking members on both sides of the House to desist.

Hon Peter Dunne: May I start again?

Mr SPEAKER: The member may start again.

Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Prime Minister be trying to change the economic picture to encourage more New Zealanders to stay, as proposed in the question by the Leader of the Opposition, by implementing Mr Shearer’s suggestions in Christchurch last week for curbing immigration?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I might say that a good summary of what was thought of Mr Shearer’s speech was in the New Zealand Herald’s editorial, where it used the following words: “dire”, “dismal”, “depressing”, “detrimental”, and “xenophobic”. I bet you the next time I am with Mr Shearer at some sort of Chinese or Asian event—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is sufficient.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister give us his mathematics, which says that the 170,000 in just on 3¾ years, if doubled, is fewer than the 310,000 over 9 years; could he possibly tell us how he worked that out?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is nothing to work out. It is a statement of fact.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister knows full well what he is asked. He compared a 3¾-year figure with a 9-year figure and has been found out.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! National members today could also be a little more disciplined. The member did ask him how he worked it out and the Prime Minister said easily, because it was a statement of fact. That is the answer to the question of how he worked it out.

David Shearer: Is the Prime Minister concerned that 17,000 tradespeople and technicians have left New Zealand for Australia since the earthquake, given that Christchurch is desperate for those skills in the rebuild; if so, what concrete steps is he taking to bring them back?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are a number of things. Firstly, as I have said earlier, we have set up the Canterbury Skills and Employment Hub. We have spent considerable amounts of money, or have that earmarked at least, for training. But most of all we are setting up an encouraging environment for people to actually want to do business in this country. We do not think the Government creates jobs; we think the Government creates the environment for jobs, where people put their own capital to work. Mr Shearer would have those very companies pay a capital gains tax. That is what he wants.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What the Opposition may or may not propose is not actually the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

David Shearer: Why has $7 million of the $42 million for skills training in Canterbury been spent, given reports that because of a lack of skilled Kiwi workers half of the workforce required for the rebuild will need to be brought in from overseas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There was, firstly, a reallocation of resources, I understand, but whether people are brought in or not will depend partly on the time-scale and the skills, but that is not unusual. In fact, successive Governments in this country, the last time I looked, have worked on a principle that where there is a skills shortage, of course we bring people in. Actually, as the New Zealand Herald editorial says, this has made New Zealand a lot better and a more interesting country. If the member wants to line up his policies with New Zealand First when it comes to migration, good luck!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You allowed him to have a rant and rave about a Zimbabwean dollar note, which is nothing to do with the question from the Greens, and then he had a few growls at the leader of the Labour Party, but he cannot just go on embarrassing himself, diverting his answer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am not sure what the member’s point of order is about. The member—[Interruption]—order! Order! The member may have observed that I stopped the Prime Minister on a couple of occasions. I do not recollect Speakers during that member’s most recent time in Government stopping the Prime Minister on many occasions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you did stop the Prime Minister. I think it was four times that you have stopped him in answers today. Normally, the fourth offence would have some sort of warning with it.

Mr SPEAKER: [Interruption] Order! Order! I thank the member for his advice. Question No. 3, Scott—[Interruption] Oh sorry. I beg your pardon. Supplementary question, the Leader of the Opposition.

David Shearer: Is the Prime Minister more, or less, concerned that there are now 54,000 New Zealanders a year leaving than when he stood in Westpac Stadium in 2008 and said that as Prime Minister he would give the 35,000 New Zealanders a year leaving, as it was then, a reason and a purpose for staying in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Obviously, it depends on the reasons why they are going. Some New Zealanders are leaving to go to Australia because of the mining sector. I notice when we had the question from his coalition partner over there who was wanting to stop dead all mining in New Zealand, he did not actually mention that that would mean all miners would have to leave the country. When he goes out there telling people that there is going to be a capital gains tax on every business in New Zealand, he does not tell them what that is going to do for their employment. So, actually, I am—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Housing Affordability—Reports and Government Work Programme

3. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Finance: What steps are being taken to improve housing affordability, as part of the Government’s wider economic programme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government will shortly outline a multi-pronged work programme in response to the Productivity Commission report on housing affordability. This year’s annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey showed that the cost of a median-priced house in New Zealand is 5.2 times median income, and in Auckland it is 6.4 times median income. Any ratio above 5 is considered unaffordable. We share the Productivity Commission’s view that the housing market is not working properly. For example, despite demand for low-cost houses, relatively few are being built, in part because of the very high cost of land, particularly in Auckland. Constrained supply and high prices for housing in turn force high levels of household borrowing, which are detrimental to households and the economy.

Scott Simpson: Why is affordability an important issue for householders and for the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For a number of reasons. First, less affordable housing means that New Zealand has high levels of private sector debt to foreigners. We are ranked along with the heavily indebted European countries when it comes to that measure. Secondly, housing loans comprise 93 percent of household liabilities, meaning that New Zealand’s investments are skewed towards housing. And, thirdly, as rents rise they push up the cost to the Government of income-related rents and accommodation supplements. For instance, income-related rents are forecast to rise by 30 percent over the next 4 years, which will cost the Government around $200 million per year. There are also the benefits from well-priced, quality, long-term housing for those who live in those houses.

Scott Simpson: What recent reports has he seen on trends in housing affordability?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Massey University produces the Home Affordability Report, which shows an improvement in affordability in the last 12 months in all regions except Auckland. I note that Massey University says that the reason prices are increasing faster in Auckland than in other regions is because of an imbalance of new housing supply to meet demand from an increasing population. The latest Quotable Value report shows that house values were up 1.8 percent in the last 3 months, and 5.3 percent over the past year. These reports confirm that even in a slow economy, housing affordability remains a deep-seated, complex, and serious problem. There are no quick fixes, but the Government is determined to follow up on the Productivity Commission report and make progress.

Hon Annette King: Has he seen the comments by the Auckland mayor, Len Brown, who stated that their council currently has enough land to build 18,000 new homes right now, but needs a partnership with central government to provide upfront capital to build affordable homes; if so, does his Government intend to put its money where its mouth is in its work programme and help get these new homes built as soon as possible?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is working closely in partnership with the Auckland Council around getting some progress on the Tāmaki redevelopment, which is the largest opportunity for brownfield redevelopment within Auckland City. It is a novel suggestion that the Government would provide capital for property development on the fringes of Auckland. We are working with the council to answer the question of whether the availability of those sections is sufficient to enable actual sections to be available for people to buy. This is part of the complexity of the issue. The Government is making sure it understands it properly by working closely with the councils.

Scott Simpson: What existing Government policies are helping improve housing affordability for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, our policies have helped to maintain growth in the economy, which means that in a relatively rare instance among developed economies, New Zealand on average has had increases in after-tax wages over the last 4 years. A responsible and balanced fiscal policy has helped to take pressure off interest rates. Compared with 2008, a family with a $200,000 mortgage is now paying $200 less a week in interest, which is a considerable saving across a year. As the Massey University report noted, the increase in average wages and the decrease in average monthly mortgage rates over the past quarter have actually offset the small increase in the national median house price.

New Zealand - Australia Migration—Effect on Unemployment Rate

4. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding Australia that “It has been a bit of a safety valve for jobs for people who can’t find jobs here”; if so, what advice, if any, has he received on the effects of emigration on the level of unemployment in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do stand by that statement. It has become, I think, commonplace to understand that Australia and New Zealand have pretty much one labour market. In fact, there is empirical evidence that shows that if wages rise in Western Australia, New Zealanders are more likely to respond to that than Australians living in Sydney or Melbourne. In response to the second part of the question, I have seen a number of reports on emigration and on unemployment, although none specifically on the issue the member raises. Treasury advises that emigration trends, among many other factors, are taken into account in forecast updates, and those forecast updates, of course, include forecasts of the rate of unemployment.

Hon David Parker: Does he accept that if it was not for the level of migration to Australia, the number of people unemployed in New Zealand would be higher?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Not necessarily.

Hon David Parker: Is the reason he has not requested any advice on the effect of emigration to Australia on suppressing New Zealand’s unemployment that it would make his Government’s record on jobs look even worse?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In the circumstances, the Government’s record on jobs is very positive; 160,000 more New Zealanders have jobs now than 4 years ago, despite one of the longer economic recessions in a generation. That is a tribute to the many workplaces where people reduced their hours to keep their jobs, where staff and management have worked together to ensure that those businesses can survive through tough times. The Government makes a contribution, but the credit for job growth in New Zealand goes to the management and the workers in our businesses.

Hon David Parker: Did he promise at the election that under his Government an additional 170,000 full-time jobs would be created during this 3-year term of office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that the number of 170,000 may come from the initial Budget forecast for 2009, perhaps. I cannot remember the year exactly. What we are pleased about is that, despite the fact that the economy turned out to be much different than was expected through 2008, we have nevertheless had job growth. That is partly to do with the Government continuing to invest in large-scale infrastructure projects and maintaining public spending and public services, and partly to do with the resilience and adaptability of our workplaces.

Hon David Parker: Given that the number of people unemployed is now the highest it has been under his Government—162,000, according to his favoured household labour force survey—what does he estimate the number of unemployed would be were it not for the 170,000 people who have left for Australia under his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not done that calculation and do not intend to, because it is hypothetical. The Government is focusing on the one decision that creates jobs, and that is the decision of a business to hire somebody. We are doing everything we can to make it easier for New Zealand businesses to make the decision to hire someone. The Opposition is doing everything it can to stop businesses doing anything.

Child Protection—Policies and Risk Prediction

5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on ensuring those working with children recognise and report suspected child abuse, as part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): We are introducing a range of initiatives to better support professionals who work with children, and help ensure they put the child’s needs first. We will introduce legislation that will require agencies working with children to have child protection policies in place—specifically, ensuring that their staff knows how to recognise and report suspected child abuse.

Melissa Lee: What support will there be to train those working with children to recognise the signs of child abuse?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The situation as it is currently is quite astounding. Many professionals working with children are lucky if during their many years of training they come across even one lecture on identifying the signs of abuse. Our action plan makes it clear that we will have all front-line public sector staff who work with children get training to recognise and detect the signs of child abuse. This continues on this Government’s initiative, which began in May 2010. We have now trained over 2,500 frontline professionals, thanks to child protection workshops, predominantly run by Child Matters.

Melissa Lee: What changes are required to ensure these initiatives are put in place?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Our expectation is that where a professional suspects there is a case of abuse, this will be reported, and we will be making this easier for them. But this is a new requirement, and it will be supported by a change in legislation and by a code of practice that makes it clear that everyone working with children has a responsibility to report suspected abuse or neglect.

Jacinda Ardern: What evidence does she have that the predictive risk tool contained in her white paper will do more good than harm, when it is untested and has been panned by experts in the field?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it is fair to say that there have been two trains of thought on it. Some, as the member says, have been against it, and some have been for it. That is why we have said it is a prototype. It needs far more testing. It needs a group of experts around it to make sure it is safe. It is not something we are rolling out tomorrow; it is something we will do over time. But if we have facts that say there is a group of children who are most at risk of being abused or neglected, before they are abused or neglected, I would, quite frankly, be negligent not to do something with them.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she agree with Dr Patrick Kelly, a member of her own expert advisory group on abuse and neglect, who said he was “blindsided” by her predictive risk model, that it is essentially an experiment, and “They have no idea whether that intervention will work or not.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it is what we do with the information that is most important. I heard someone sort of yell out you can put them in one place and that is fine. It is going to be up to what sort of support we put round it and what sorts of initiatives go with it. I hear what Dr Patrick Kelly has said. He is an expert in this field and someone whom I have a huge amount of respect for. I think it is the initiatives and the support we put behind them that will make the biggest difference.

Jacinda Ardern: Will she dump her risk prediction tool if she finds that abused children are not picked up by it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think that is about 20 steps ahead of where we are at now. What we have done is we have put out the paper. We have then got a lot of work to do around it. I mean, the member should know that the professional who has put this predictive tool together has not done it by luck or by good means; they have actually done a whole lot of research behind it. We now need to get the right experts and the right academics to make sure that we make the best of it, and then we will see where that ends up. But I am not going to predict what could happen in 3 or 4 years’ time with something that has yet to be fully developed.

Schools, Canterbury—Consultation on Proposed Closures and Mergers

6. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister of Education: Will she extend the consultation timeframe for Christchurch schools which are proposed to be merged or closed, to enable them to fully engage with their communities; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): That is certainly possible. Over the next 3 weeks I will be spending the bulk of my time in Christchurch visiting schools and listening to parents and their school communities, and if they present to me a case, including about the extension of the time line, I will certainly consider it.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: In light of that response, will she take into account the fact that schools are being expected to consult with their communities during term 4, when they have exams, school reports, end-of-year prize-givings, and other matters to attend to, and will that be something she will take into account in allowing, perhaps, until the end of term 1, which is what a number of the schools have asked her to consider?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I will take into account all the issues that a school chooses to raise with me.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does she stand by the statement in respect of building effective school networks that the ministry must give sufficient opportunity to the community to express its views; if that is the case, then why has she so far declined communities the extension that they have said they need?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I will definitely take those issues into account. We provided 2 weeks’ notice of the proposals and a further 10 weeks for consultation in an overall 6-month period that is part of the 2½ years. So we will take those into account, and we will ensure that schools have the opportunity to raise all the issues that they wish to raise.

Simon O’Connor: Has the Minister received any reports on the current consultation time frame around the Greater Christchurch education renewal plan?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, I have personally received feedback on a range of things, including that some schools do not wish for the time frames to be extended, as they want certainty as soon as possible and would like to move forward.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is it her intention that the relevant cluster can submit over the specific proposals to close or merge individual schools within the cluster; if so, do they have to submit on those proposals by 7 December as well?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not understand the Minister’s answer. In saying no—seriously, I am not playing games—I did not understand whether she was answering the first part or the second part.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma is, of course, that a Minister need answer only one part of a supplementary question, and where a member really does need the information it pays to just ask only one part. [Interruption] Order! That has been a longstanding ruling in this House. I have hauled that Minister up for not answering questions, but she did answer a part of that question very clearly today.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Which part?

Mr SPEAKER: That is not for the Speaker to discern—[Interruption] Order! It is not difficult. It is not difficult for intelligent people to ask a straight supplementary question if they really do want the answer to it.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that Ministers have to address only one part of the question, but it should not be too hard for the House to expect that the answer elucidates which part of the question is being answered. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Some responsibility falls on questioners as well, not just on Ministers. If questioners are serious about wanting information, they should ask a simple, clear question. Then there can be no confusion. I cannot go back to the Minister when she did answer a part of that question, and say: “Minister, look, I would like you to answer the other part.” I cannot do that. The Minister answered part of that question, and, as far as the Speaker is concerned, that is where it ends. It is up to members, in asking questions, to think about it—to think more carefully in asking a question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have, I think, over time set a set a rules around straight questions that get straight answers, that do not avoid the question, and that do not involve politics. It seems to me that in allowing this approach from this Minister on a straight question on a serious issue, you are diverging from what I thought was a very good set of rulings.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member knows I have tried when members ask simple, straight questions. For some of his colleagues I have given a great deal of assistance to them to extract answers, but I cannot say to Ministers that where a member actually asks two parts to a question, they must answer both of them. I cannot do that, because there have to be disciplines on both sides of the House. If members are serious about a piece of information, they must seek only that information. With a straight question, I assure the member, I will try to get the answer.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it too much to ask that the House should know to which part of a question a simple answer is being given? Otherwise it is simply not intelligible, and that is not too much to ask.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think we are spending a lot of time—a lot of time—and actually wasting that time, when this is a long-held convention. If people want to know what question the answer is for, they should just ask one question, not several.

Mr SPEAKER: The member put it very well. We do not need to waste more time on this issue. I realise the member Lianne Dalziel is seeking to ask a further supplementary question. Does the member wish to raise a further point of order?

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 177/6, which you will know well, and which says the Speaker is the Speaker, not a quizmaster.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Which part of my question did the Minister answer “No.” to?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The last part. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I must be able to hear the member.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: If one of the clusters presents her, after 7 December, with a proposal that involves not closing or merging one of the schools that she had already concluded consulting on the closure or merger of, will she reopen the formal consultation for those schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The cluster proposals are not required by 7 December, so that question is not relevant.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is word for word the question that my colleague asked the person answering on behalf of the Minister last week. I have repeated the question for the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I believe, on this occasion, that the question is a perfectly fair question. The Minister has indicated that the cluster consultation is not required to be completed by a certain time, but individual schools’ consultation is intended to be completed by that time. The question asked, where a cluster proposal emerging from consultation after the point of time where consultation is completed for individual schools, whether a proposal emerging from that could reopen an issue relating to an individual school. I think that was a perfectly fair and straight question, and the Minister’s answer did not answer that, because the Minister in her answer said cluster consultation is not required to be completed by that same date. That was not the question. The question was, if after the closure for individual schools a proposal emerged from a cluster that affected an individual school, whether the Minister would be prepared to reopen the issue surrounding that individual school.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The proposals relating to 215 schools in Christchurch are on two different processes with two different time lines. Thirty-seven schools have specific proposals that have been put to them, and the time line on those is 7 December. Clusters have the opportunity beyond that, because they involve more than the schools that have those specific proposals. Those cluster plans are not due before—they will be able to take into account decisions made in respect of the proposals for the individual schools.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order—I can anticipate what it is. That was not the question. [Interruption] Order! The question asked: if, during the ongoing consultation that carries on beyond the specified date for clusters, a proposal emerged that affected an individual school or a decision that had already been made, would the decision possibly be reopened as a result of the consultation that took place further on in time in respect of the cluster? It is a reasonable question.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am happy to take into account particular issues determined by the particular set of circumstances that relate to the particular school and the particular cluster.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you will now rescind the Speaker’s ruling to which Mr Dunne referred.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think we are best to continue to move.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table in the House a letter addressed to the Minister from Aranui Primary School, signed by past pupils and past staff of Aranui Primary School who were at their centenary over the weekend, asking for an extension until the end of term 1, 2013, and my covering letter.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Schools, Canterbury—Consultation on Proposed Closures and Mergers

7. NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to ensure meaningful consultation with school communities in Greater Christchurch?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): We are taking a number of steps. The first step involved two rounds of consultation in the 18 months since the initial earthquakes, out of which a set of proposals have been developed. The next set of steps have included: on 13 September schools received 2 weeks’ introduction of the proposals; on 28 September schools were given 10 weeks to provide feedback; independent facilitators have been offered to each of the schools to assist boards of trustees in managing the consultation process and developing their feedback; schools can hold a consultation support day, which is effectively a teachers only day; online communities are being developed, which will allow 24/7 discussions; and a dedicated task force has been set up, including the appointment of an independent executive adviser.

Nicky Wagner: What steps is the Minister personally taking to ensure that parents’ concerns are heard?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Over the next 3 weeks I am going to be spending the bulk of my time in Christchurch, visiting school communities and listening directly to them and to the parents of those school communities.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the executive summary of the 500 submissions that were made that were referred to by the Minister, where it said that questions relating to the compulsory school sector dominated responses, with the largest number of responses saying small schools were preferred for building community, reducing negative social and educational—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Government Communications Security Bureau—Surveillance Activities

8. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Since he assumed ministerial responsibility for it, has the Government Communications Security Bureau undertaken surveillance of any person who is a citizen or resident of New Zealand, other than Mr Kim Dotcom?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It is on the public record that the interception of communications in the Megaupload case included Kim Dotcom and other individuals. Mr Dotcom, his family, and one of his associates were found to have been unlawfully intercepted due to their residency status. I also refer the member to my public statement on 3 October, in which I noted the Government Communications Security Bureau could not assure me that the legal position of three other cases was totally clear. These cases are not connected to the Dotcom case. This does not mean that these cases involve unlawful interception. However, the Government Communications Security Bureau has referred these cases to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for further consideration.

Charles Chauvel: In respect of the matters that have been referred to the Inspector-General by the Government Communications Security Bureau, does the Prime Minister know when it is likely that he will have a response to those matters, and does he intend to share that response with the House?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Charles Chauvel: Did the Government Communications Security Bureau tell him at the meeting that he held with the agency on Wednesday, 22 August that on the Friday beforehand—17 August—the Acting Prime Minister had signed a ministerial certificate to prevent disclosure of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s role in the surveillance in the Dotcom case?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Charles Chauvel: Has he requested a file review of the same nature as that which was undertaken following his 29 February briefing from the Government Communications Security Bureau in respect of the 22 August meeting; if not, will he do so, and will the results of that file review, if it occurs, be shared with the House?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have asked the Government Communications Security Bureau to review all paperwork in relation to any matters, including the Dotcom file and my office. That included all audio, all video, for the very reasons we pointed out last week when Labour was chasing hares and hounds, and various other things. All the paperwork that we have is only that day of 29 February.

Aged Care, Residential—Comprehensive Clinical Assessments

9. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: What progress has been made on the introduction of a comprehensive clinical assessment tool for older people in rest homes?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): Training of nurses has started, with 178 expected to be trained by the end of this year. Last week the Government announced we are accelerating the time frame for the roll-out of comprehensive clinical assessments to every aged-care resident. As a result, older New Zealanders in rest homes will have tailor-made health plans to ensure they are getting a consistently high standard of customised care in their rest homes. By June 2014 all residential care facilities will have started to participate in the roll-out and it will be mandatory from July 2015.

Dr Cam Calder: What prompted the Government’s decision to fast track this roll-out?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The Auditor-General’s September 2012 report entitled Effectiveness of arrangements to check the standard of services provided by rest homes emphasised the importance of comprehensive clinical assessment in monitoring the quality of care for older people. In essence, this cannot wait. The sooner comprehensive clinical assessment is introduced, the sooner we will see improvements in aged residential care services through improved needs-assessment and performance benchmarking.

Dr Cam Calder: What is the purpose of comprehensive clinical assessments for older New Zealanders receiving aged care?

Hon JO GOODHEW: This is a personalised health and well-being plan that covers about 22 different areas of a person’s health. Information from across all rest homes will be anonymised and accumulated to provide a measure of rest home care and quality. This Government wants demonstrable and independent measures of quality, so we have also introduced spot audits, we are auditing the auditors, and we are publishing audit results online to support older New Zealanders and their families. All this is part of improving the quality and accountability of aged care for older New Zealanders.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Kyoto Protocol—Government Policy

10. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by his comment of 17 October 2012 that, “We need to make sure that New Zealand continues to do its fair share, alongside other countries, to combat the effects of climate change…”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Acting Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes, when the comment is taken in context and reported in full. What the Minister said was: “We need to make sure that New Zealand continues to do its fair share, alongside other countries, to combat the effects of climate change while ensuring that the ETS doesn’t have an unreasonable impact on businesses and households in this time of economic recovery,”.

Dr Kennedy Graham: While ensuring within the broader context that our scheme does not adversely impact on those sectors, will he still confirm that a binding obligation under a Kyoto II scheme with the European Union is doing our fair share better than a voluntary pledge, primarily with non-Kyoto APEC countries?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes. I think it is very important to understand that when we look around the world New Zealand is the only country outside the EU to have a fully implemented emissions trading scheme. Indeed, if you look at the major emitters in the world—the five biggest economies, in terms of China, the EU, the USA, India, and Russia—it is only the EU that has an emissions trading scheme. So I think, actually, we are doing our fair share.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to get clarification from the Acting Minister to make sure that he has answered the question. With respect, I was not talking about the current commitment period. My question was: “Will he confirm that a binding obligation under a Kyoto II scheme …”—post December 2012.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat his question, because the question was quite specific, I agree.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Will he confirm that a binding obligation under a Kyoto II scheme post December 2012 with the European Union is doing our fair share better than a voluntary pledge, primarily with non-Kyoto APEC countries?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Although I do not claim to understand the details of what we are doing with the second commitment period, my understanding is that decisions have yet to be made on that particular matter.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Why is the Government still keeping its target for the post-Kyoto period 2013 to 2020 from the New Zealand public, given that it is only 10 weeks away?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are not keeping anything secret. That seems to be the favourite word of the Greens at the moment, but the fact of the matter is we have not made a decision. Under the first commitment period, in fact, we are more than meeting our obligations.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not use the word “secret”; I said “keeping it from the public”.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister’s answer was not unreasonable.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the Minister embarrassed that New Zealand has failed to produce comparable emission reduction targets at this year’s climate change meetings when compared with the European Union at 20 percent unconditional, Liechtenstein at 20 percent unconditional, Norway at 30 percent unconditional, and Switzerland at 20 percent unconditional, earning us, by admission in the Government’s own briefing paper, a constant refrain from others asking for targets and earning daily fossil awards?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. Under the first commitment period, as I said, we are more than meeting our obligations. In fact, I am proud of what we are doing. I think we are doing our fair share, and we provide global leadership on things such as the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, where we are providing real solutions to the issues of climate change.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade briefing paper for the August climate change meeting in Bangkok, which specifies what I quoted.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Or the relevant page, perhaps. The second is the UN document dated 23 August 2012 for the same meeting, showing the current targets entered by Kyoto Protocol developed-country parties, with New Zealand languishing near the bottom.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [Interruption] I beg your pardon, there is objection. I beg your pardon, there was objection. There was objection to that second one.

Methamphetamine Action Plan—Initiatives and Results

11. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister of Customs: What is the Government doing to combat the smuggling of precursors used to manufacture methamphetamine?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): In 2009 the Government launched a multi-faceted Methamphetamine Action Plan. Three of the key elements of that plan are that, firstly, we invested in enhanced tracking and surveillance equipment to assist the Customs Service to identify high-level organisers behind the drug importing syndicates; secondly, 2 years ago we established an integrated targeted and operations centre, which allows the Customs Service to assess threats and target border risks more effectively; and, thirdly, we have developed a closer relationship with China’s customs service to better target the supply end. I signed a memorandum of cooperation with my Chinese counterpart in late 2010, and just last week both countries agreed to work even more closely in the areas of intelligence, targeting, and operations to combat drug trafficking.

Mike Sabin: What is the flow-on effect from all these measures?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I have to say the results have been nothing short of spectacular. From a peak of 1,200 kilograms coming across our border in 2009, this year—after 9 months—the figure runs to just 300. So, even annualising that, it is round about one-third of the level of interceptions we were getting just 3 years ago. We believe that the measures the Government has taken have resulted in the reduced supply of those precursors. The Customs Service tells me there is evidence to suggest we have managed to contain the supply of methamphetamine, and recent surveys indicate fewer people are now using it. By reducing the amount of P precursors coming across the border, we prevent millions of dollars of harm to this nation.

Government Financial Position—Current Account Deficit

12. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Is reducing the current account deficit a priority for the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. This is one part of the Government’s wider programme to reduce New Zealand’s longer-standing external imbalances, which have built up over 3 or 4 years. The Government has taken a number of steps to encourage New Zealanders to live within their means and save more, because, ultimately, it is the behaviour of New Zealanders that determines the extent of our current account deficit. We are making progress. Household savings are significantly positive for the first time in 20 years, and New Zealanders are paying down debt. But there is some long way yet to go, with New Zealand households being among the most indebted in the developed world.

Andrew Williams: How can he say it is a priority, when the current account deficit is forecast to double from about $8 billion to $16 billion over the next 4 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member may be aware, you cannot target the current account deficit in the same way as you can, for instance, target the deficit in the Government’s accounts. We can decide to spend less and raise more tax, but we cannot independently make New Zealand households and businesses behave differently from the way they have behaved for the last 30 years. The current account deficit at the moment is around 4.9 percent, much lower than the 3-year average of over 8 percent in the last term of the last Labour Government. So the critics of the current account deficit had a much worse deficit when they had had 9 years to get on top of it.

Andrew Williams: What impact would a 20 percent decline in national income from milksolids, as forecast in the annual Farm Monitoring Report released today, have on the current account deficit during the same 4-year period?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That would not help. It would be better for New Zealand if its national income was rising rather than falling, which is why it is important that we look after the productive capacity of our dairy industry. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot reduce our current account deficit on the one hand, and then run with Opposition parties’ policies, which are, essentially, to try to shut down the dairy industry. That would make the current account deficit a lot worse.

Andrew Williams: Given that the “big four” Australian banks made a combined profit of $3 billion in the 2011 financial year, has the Government considered ways to improve banking competition in New Zealand and reduce the amount of profit being repatriated overseas?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The current competitive rules for the banking sector are about as open we think they can be. Bear in mind that the small, open economies that are really in trouble are those that have had banking problems and banking collapses—Ireland being the most obvious example, but there are others. It is our view that having reasonably strong banks at this time is actually good for the economy. It enables businesses and households to continue to borrow money. The Government’s focus in respect of banking at the moment is to introduce the open bank resolution process, which will reduce the likelihood that taxpayers would have to bail out any bank that got in trouble.

Andrew Williams: Given the cost to New Zealand of international freight being in the order of $5 billion a year, what specific recommendations is the Government considering in respect of the recent Productivity Commission report into international freight as a way of improving the balance of payments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a very good question, and the Government is considering the report of the Productivity Commission. Its recommendations covered a range of areas, including competition rules among shipping lines, and the impact of local government ownership on the efficiency of ports. The Government will pick up whatever recommendations it believes can make a difference to competitiveness. I am pleased the member is focusing on those issues, because it is exactly those less glamorous and more complex issues that are the key to improving our competitiveness. There is no other free lunch with the current account.

Questions to Members

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—Purpose

1. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill:: Why did the member draft the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill?

METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill: I drafted this bill because casinos are widely known to profit from money-laundering and theft driven by gambling addiction. Under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 private individuals are not entitled to retain profits or property derived from significant criminal activity, whether or not that person is involved in the criminal activity, and neither should casinos. This bill requires casinos to forfeit any profits they obtain from gambling that results from a significant criminal activity.

Denise Roche: Was there any other reason?

METIRIA TUREI: The issue of casinos retaining profits from criminal activity arose during the debate on the Skycity convention centre deal negotiated by the National Government. That deal would significantly increase the risk of criminal activity to feed both problem gambling and money-laundering, and therefore increase profits to the casino. That deal is currently subject to an investigation by the Auditor-General.

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—Purpose

2. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill: What is the purpose of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill?

METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill): The purpose of the bill is to apply the civil forfeiture regime to casinos. The bill amends the definition of “unlawfully benefiting from significant criminal activity” to include casinos that knowingly, having regard to best international practice in detecting problem gambling in a criminal activity, derive a benefit from significant criminal activity.

Denise Roche: What is the effect of the amendment?

METIRIA TUREI: Casinos that have failed to demonstrate that they have used the best international practice to detect or to deter problem gambling and criminal activity will be required to forfeit any profit they retain from problem gambling or money laundering. In the case of serious problem gambling, the money is often obtained unlawfully from family, friends, community organisations, and businesses. This bill will encourage casinos to implement the best possible practices to protect against problem gambling and money-laundering, and, therefore, to better protect small businesses, community organisations, and individuals from gambling-driven crime.

Urgent Debates Declined

State-owned Assets, Sales—Potential Legal Challenges

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 Cabinet’s decision today that an Order in Council is to be made to revoke Māori court action. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence, there must be either a new situation of importance or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant setting aside the business of the House. A proposal to discuss a continuing matter such as this is not one contemplated by Standing Order 386 as a particular case of recent occurrence. Furthermore, an application cannot be accepted when to do so would inevitably involve a breach of the rule against referring to a matter pending adjudication in any court. The application is therefore declined.

Bills

Alcohol Reform Bill

Procedure

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you put the House into Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill can I seek from you a clear statement about which votes you have decided are to be personal votes and which are not; also an indication as to where some parties are having conscience votes and others are not, and you have decided that they will be party votes and not personal votes, whether or not a bell will ring, because I know that some members are going to be listening to the debate in Committee before committing themselves to a particular position; and the third leg of the treble, if you like, is an indication that although in some cases there will be a split party vote, individual members are still able, notwithstanding the fact that the party has voted on a split basis, to vote as individuals under the category “any other votes”?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for the point of order, because we do need some clarification around these points. All members will have received from the Speaker a list of those amendments that will be deemed personal votes. There are five of them. I will just run through them now.

The sinking lid on off-licences—and that is the amendment on the Te Ururoa Flavell Supplementary Order Paper 81 to clause 35B—is one; a ban on off-licences within 1 kilometre of schools is on Supplementary Order Paper 107; reduced trading hours is on Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81; reduced trading hours is on Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 110; and there is the amendment requiring regulations to ban the sale of ready-to-drink beverages when they contain more than 5 percent of alcohol. Those are the five.

I will expect that those chairing each session in the Chamber will make very clear, as we approach those, what the procedures will be in relation to the ringing of the bell and the various procedures that will take place in relation to the votes at the time. I think we want to have a very clear understanding of what the outcomes will be, and that will be made clear from the Chair, because some of these are some time ahead, and there may even be some developments, but I expect members will have a very clear understanding at the time. I hope that answers the member’s question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Not quite, Mr Speaker. There were two further matters, and the first is that on votes that you have indicated you are not going to allow a personal vote on, but which some parties in the Chamber have a conscience vote on, whether or not a bell will be rung for those. And then the next question is, for those votes, although I understand that members have given proxies to other members for the party votes as you have indicated, whether there was provision for members who want to wait and listen to the debate to then vote in the category of “any other votes”?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There can be only a party or personal vote. The bell is rung only for a personal vote. Party or collective voting has not been removed from the ultimate right of a member to vote on any question he or she sees fit. Where a party vote is held, all members will be able to vote, but it will be a member’s responsibility to be present and have a party vote issued. So it is up to the individuals.

In Committee

Debate resumed from 30 August.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We are in Committee on the Alcohol Reform Bill. Before we commence the debate on Part 1, I need to correct the vote on the minimum age for sale and purchase. The vote for 18 years is 68, not 69. The vote for 20 years remains 53. The record will be amended accordingly.

Part 1 Preliminary matters

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I am pleased to take a call on Part 1, “Preliminary matters”. I guess this is a very important part of the bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, because it sets up the substance of what the legislation is designed to achieve. I just want to reflect on the purpose of the legislation for a start, and then talk about the object clause, which is clause 4. The purpose is to ensure that the legislation itself is “for the benefit of the community as a whole,”. I think that that is a really important statement to have in the legislation, but, unfortunately, there are many communities throughout New Zealand who will feel that this law does not go far enough in order to address the many concerns that they have raised.

In my time in Parliament I have never seen so many communities take to the streets to protest against the issuing of licences as has been the case in the last couple of years. We have seen people in South Auckland, we have seen people in Porirua, we have seen people in Christchurch, and we have seen people in different parts of the country all take a very strong stand when they see another licensed premise open up for business or propose to be open for business. I think that the Liquor Licensing Authority itself, when one looks at the decisions that it has been making over the years, is actually starting to see and respond to what is quite a serious concern coming from the community. It certainly is driven by the community, which is why we are pleased to see the expression “for the benefit of the community as a whole” as one of the principal statements, right up there in the purpose clause.

The purpose clause goes on to say that the purpose is “to put in place a new system of control over the sale and supply of alcohol,”. I guess we have moved on in terms of the language; the previous law was around the sale and supply of liquor. Then it talks about the characteristics that are established in subclause (2). This describes the characteristics of the new system as being “reasonable”, and states that “its administration helps to achieve the object of this Act.” In a way I could say that, actually, the characteristics of the new system are not going to be deemed reasonable just by definition or by use of the language in the legislation; it will be how it is actually implemented on the ground. That was a fundamental flaw in the Sale of Liquor Act. It had, in fact, a very strong purpose statement, but that purpose was not reflected in any way, shape, or form in any of the elements of the legislation. So when you are looking for harm-reduction measures in the legislation as it exists today, you will be hard-pressed to find them, and that has been one of the challenges that the Liquor Licensing Authority has had to face.

The other element is “to reform more generally the law relating to the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol so that its effect and administration help to achieve the object of this Act.” Again, I think that it is very important to reflect that the legislation is only part of the story. It cannot ever be the whole story. I think my husband uses a very good expression, which I use from time to time, and that is that “Red lights don’t stop trains.” As a former train driver and now a lawyer, he certainly has seen the practical implication of that particular expression. What it means is that you can have all of the lights showing red, but that is not going to stop the train from crashing through a barrier or stopping in time to prevent disaster from occurring, unless those brakes are applied by somebody in time. That is what this bill is actually all about as well. We have got a framework piece of legislation for the legislative framework, but it does require the community to take responsibility for the behaviour that we have seen associated with the consumption of alcohol, and the damage that it has done to communities.

I think that the community is facing up to that responsibility, and that is why we have seen them take to the streets in droves. That is why we have seen so many people make submissions to the Law Commission report. Three thousand New Zealanders took the time to make submissions on something that really mattered. This is certainly a major change. It is a major change in direction and philosophy, and I believe that the community is wanting Parliament to do a lot more than this legislation allows.

I move on to the object clause. The object of this bill is that “the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly; and the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.” Then it goes on to describe what the harm minimisation is about. I think this is when we start to see the dollars and cents that actually lie with the approach that we might be adopting if we went further than we are doing. The bill states: “any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol;”. That is every car smash on the street—every car smash leading to death or leading to injury. Think of all of the costs that are put on our ACC system, and all of the costs that are put on our health system, and then look at the crime.

I just want to remind the Committee that the previous National Government, before the last election, held a ministerial meeting on the Drivers of Crime. It held that back in March 2009. It was actually one of the important initiatives that Simon Power and the Hon Dr Pita Sharples put together to try to get some group of people together to think about what were the drivers of crime. Alcohol came up time and time again, not so much as a cause, but as a driver. It is one of those fuels—kind of like petrol—that is set alight, and all of the domestic violence, all of the abuse of children, and all of these things, were tied back, in many respects, to the damage caused by alcohol. Then you come up with foetal alcohol syndrome and things like that. So you can see the harm that is done.

The Labour caucus took a very hard decision. We decided that, actually, the ministerial meeting on the Drivers of Crime was so important that we would offer to work collaboratively with the Government on those drivers of crime, particularly focusing on children aged nought to 12, in order to get a cross-party agreement on how that might be addressed. We decided not to look for elections, with the rules changing every time there is a change of Government, but to actually get a collaborative response around children aged nought to 12. What a difference that would have made. We would have been 3 years down the track on that by now, if the Government had responded in a slightly better way than what we received. Simon Power wrote back to me on 16 November and said: “Following decisions made by Cabinet and the National caucus, I would like to propose a policy matter upon which initial cooperation could commence: that being the sale and supply of alcohol. I consider that this is an appropriate starting point, in light of your previous role in bringing the sale and supply of liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill before the House, and the need to ensure that the legislative framework is coherent and enduring. This in no way precludes further cooperation on other policy issues relating to the drivers of crime, if working together on the alcohol issue proves to be mutually agreeable.”

Well, I have to say that it has not been mutually agreeable, because there has not been an engagement over what this legislation should contain. That engagement actually stopped after that letter was received. When the Law Commission reported back, the one advantage that I obtained was that I was enabled to have an embargoed copy of the report so that I could read it over the weekend before it was publicly announced. But apart from that, the Government did not consult with us about the fact that it was going to vote out the bill that I had introduced, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill—vote it out, get rid of it—and then introduce its own bill, which does almost nothing more than what we already had in the legislation. To anyone who is going to get up in this Chamber and say that local communities are looking for their local alcohol plans—well, those plans are 2 years overdue because the Government voted out the bill that would have delivered them 2 years ago, in December 2010. In 2010 the Government made the decision not to proceed with the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill.

As we go through the different parts of this bill, we are going to establish that in fact there is almost nothing additional in this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, compared with what was in that bill, and there was no reason why the Government could not have made slight amendments to that bill, and it would have been passed by now. It would have been passed before the last election, and every single community in New Zealand would have been able to go to their local council and ask for their local alcohol plan provisions to be given effect to. We know that there are councils throughout New Zealand that want to get on with the job, but they have been delayed by this Government’s decision to change the name of the legislation and put it in its own name, having, for some reason absolutely beyond my comprehension, decided not to proceed with the legislation that had already gone to the Justice and Electoral Committee, had already had submissions on it, and had already received significant support from one end of the country to the other. It did seem a complete waste of everyone’s time to require them to go back through that process again. In fact, because of the proximity of that legislation going through the select committee and the Law Commission actually looking at the whole issue, there were not as many submissions on that bill, because people were in general agreement with it.

The huge advantage of that piece of legislation was that it would have enabled us to deal with the blood-alcohol content issue, which, of course, is not being dealt with in the context of this bill, but which will be dealt with by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, when we get to a new part being moved by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway. I think it is a real shame that the Government has chosen to take this approach, when I had a very promising letter dated 16 November 2009 with Simon Power being really very interested in working collaboratively with us, and then I find that, actually, collaboration does not mean anything when it comes to alcohol.

I do not believe that this House has really taken on board the object of this bill until we get to the later parts of the legislation. We keep coming back to the object of the bill. Is it going to minimise the harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol? Are we going to see a reduction in crime? Are we going to see a reduction in “damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol; and any harm to society generally or the community, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury” of that kind previously described?

That to me is the essence of the debate that we have to have in this House. It is what the people of New Zealand are asking us to have: an honest, open debate. We have to show courage in this House, and we have to be prepared to make hard decisions about what would make a difference in terms of the availability, in terms of the very low price, and in terms of the issues that are not being dealt with in this bill. The public are asking why they are not being dealt with, when this is the object of the bill. If we truly come back to the object in Part 1 of this bill, every single time that we deal with a different part of this bill, we will find that it is not going to live up to the expectation that the people of New Zealand are asking us to represent. I am surprised that the only issue that members have wanted to exercise some independence on is the question of age, when we know that age is the least important of the five separate issues that we have been challenged to seriously look at by those who have expertise in this field.

So I believe that as we go through this debate, we will have the opportunity to debate the important matters, but only because people have had the courage to put up Supplementary Order Papers in their own names and to take on board the attacks that will come from the industry, particularly from the grocery and retail sector and also the large breweries. Even the Hospitality Association does not think this bill goes far enough, and that, to me, says it all. There are many people out there who are relying on Parliament to get this right. We did not get it right in 1989. We certainly did not get it right in 1999. Let 2012 be different.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): The Sale of Liquor Act 1989 attempted to introduce a European cafe-style drinking culture in New Zealand. I would have to say that all the evidence shows that for some this has not worked, although I would also acknowledge that although alcohol misuse contributes to crime—particularly domestic violence, disorder, and public health problems, and roughly a third of all recorded crime involves offenders who have been drinking—most New Zealanders who drink alcohol do not abuse alcohol. So this bill attempts to strike a balance between dealing with the abuse of alcohol and sending some very strong signals and, at the same time, not penalising those many New Zealanders in the vast majority who do not abuse alcohol.

The object of the bill is to minimise the harm caused by excessive drinking. Although, as I have said, many New Zealanders do not abuse alcohol, there are sometimes times in their lives, particularly when they are young and they are learning to behave with alcohol, when they might, in fact, indulge in excessive drinking. We, obviously, do not want to see that, and we would, obviously, like to have it stopped. But, actually, it has always been with us. It was with us before we had alcohol laws, it is with us now, and it will always be with us, but that does not mean to say that we cannot take some actions to help prevent that from occurring as much as it does.

We should also acknowledge that alcohol has social and commercial benefits. New Zealand’s alcohol industry employs over 70,000 people and contributes to our GDP. So the Government is proposing a balanced response to deal with the considerable harm that is caused by the abuse of alcohol, without unfairly affecting responsible drinkers.

The Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 132 inserts two definitions relating to age to give effect to the House’s resolution to retain 18 years as the purchase age. I was one of those people who voted against the age of 18 as the purchase age, primarily because I think it is abused most often by people aged about 16 and people aged 18 who buy alcohol for their younger friends. That was defeated and I accept, obviously, the will of the House.

The technical Government Supplementary Order Paper 137 deletes the definitions of beer, grape wine, fruit and vegetable wine, and mead proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 132. The wording in Supplementary Order Paper 132 has given rise to doubts of the applicability of a New Zealand food standard. The proposed amendment is accordingly withdrawn to make it clear that alcoholic products sold in supermarkets and grocery shops must meet the relevant New Zealand food standard.

I will deal with just one issue that the member who has resumed her seat, Lianne Dalziel, has raised, and that is the issue around the hospitality industry, on which she has said that the bill does not go far enough. The hospitality industry has said it does not go far enough because they support minimum pricing. That is actually really around making sure that there are maximum profits for the alcohol industry, frankly. I note that there is a very recent report that I have just been handed, and I am happy to table it if anyone wants me to, that says that minimum pricing—which has been loudly supported by that member—which has apparently been brought in in Scotland, has actually now been put on hold. And, in fact, I think one of the things we need to deal with is that this bill actually cannot deal with the hypotheticals; it has to deal with the realities. It is not the only bill we will ever have on alcohol reform, but it is a start. It is the first time, I think in living memory, that we have introduced a bill to get through Parliament that actually puts more restrictions on the sale of alcohol, not fewer.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make some preliminary comments, especially about the objects of this Alcohol Reform Bill. And I would have to begin by disagreeing with the Hon Lianne Dalziel on age. I and New Zealand First believe that age is in fact a very important issue, and of course we have actually done with that issue. I think age could have made a big difference to the outcome for alcohol reform in this country, and it is a disappointment that we have not increased it from 18 to 20 years of age. But I do agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel that there are some equally important issues that we must deal with in the bill.

Overall, New Zealand First supports a more restrictive approach because we think that is what the majority of people in this country want and we think that is what is required to address the real issues. In doing so, the use of alcohol is unproblematic as far as the great majority of people in our community are concerned. So we must take care not to unduly interfere with their right to use alcohol responsibly and sensibly. And we must also take care not to damage businesses that are responsible in the way they do their business. I refer especially to the many wineries in this country that assist our export interests and also support a flourishing local industry. I would not like to see, and New Zealand First would not like to see, any measures that interfere with their doing business economically and competitively.

We must, however, target the alcohol abusers of all ages, and harm reduction is of course the primary objective in the bill. We must especially combat the culture of abuse, which has grown and grown and grown in this country, especially since the time when the purchasing age was reduced to 18 years. We must attack the problem of youth binge drinking especially. And in that respect we do not think the bill goes far enough, and we will be looking therefore to support some of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward that we think would be useful in that respect.

New Zealand First will, however, support only practical measures that are simple and easy to administer and that are understandable and fair. We will also support meaningful changes that actually make a difference to the problem of alcohol abuse, and we will not be supporting purely philosophical approaches or those that we think are fundamentally grandstanding.

New Zealand First is glad to see the provisions for territorial authority local alcohol policies. We think they can make a very significant difference to alcohol abuse and the reorganisation of alcohol in this country. We support localisation of as many issues as are appropriate, and therefore we do support the part of the bill that relates to local alcohol policies, as I have said. We would even support a broadening of those, and we would be looking at the Supplementary Order Papers that look to do that.

We will also support making local alcohol policies compulsory. We do not understand why it should simply be permissive and not a requirement that each and every territorial local authority in this country should be required to come up with a local alcohol policy. We are sure that every community in New Zealand would like to see that happen, and so a compulsory regime, we believe, is appropriate.

We do think that local circumstances are very important when it comes to many issues relating to alcohol administration. You see, in some places like Mount Maunganui, Wānaka, Queenstown, and so on, where holiday issues are very large—where people congregate in one area on particular days to abuse alcohol, and for that purpose most particularly—those communities need to have local alcohol policies that specifically deal with those sorts of circumstances. We think that local authorities must take responsibility for alcohol issues in their district. It is not just a Government issue. Local authorities must get fully involved and must consult their community so that they know what their community’s expectations are. For that reason New Zealand First would support, for example, Supplementary Order Paper 116, and we see no reason why councils should not start work immediately on draft alcohol policies. We do not think there is anything in the bill that would make that difficult. We know that regulations still have to come, but that should not get in the way of the work that needs to be made.

In closing, we would also say that local authorities will need to spend quite a time, and financial resources as well, on these issues. That is a concern to New Zealand First. We think it is a shame that excise and taxation issues are outside the scope of the bill because we would like to see a proposal that would divert some of the excise taxes to local councils so that they would have the resources to develop comprehensive local alcohol policies and have the funds with which to do it.

With those comments New Zealand First looks forward to the debate. As I said, we will be looking not only for a more restrictive approach but also for one that is sensible, practical, and will make a difference.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I would like to begin by picking up on a comment made by the Minister of Justice in her first remarks, where she mentioned the benefits associated with the alcohol industry, and named specifically the jobs associated with that industry. I just want to bring the attention of the Committee to the fact that the benefits are not mentioned in the object clause of this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill. What is instead mentioned is the requirement to minimise the harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol, and that is, indeed, where my comments are focused.

I want to come next to draw the Committee’s attention in these preliminary remarks to the fact that probably roughly 1,000 New Zealanders each year lose their lives due to the consumption of alcohol—1,000 per year. That is quite a few, and it is certainly one of the harms that the enumerated provision here listing the types of harms covers. In addition to those 1,000 deaths, something like 70 percent of the presentations to emergency departments in our hospitals each weekend are from people who have been consuming alcohol. So this is a very major driver of injury in particular, and indeed of illness and death in this country, and I will come back to some more detail on this in later parts of the debate.

In addition, we have this very major problem with binge drinking. Others have already referred to that, and I just want to enumerate some statistics about it that I have sourced from the New Zealand Drug Foundation. It states that 275,000 adult New Zealanders set out to get drunk on their last drinking occasion, and 450,000 adults were binge drinking on their last drinking occasion. Seven hundred thousand New Zealanders have been categorised as binge-drinkers—that is, consuming seven or more standard drinks per session—and 1.2 million adult drinkers are OK with binge drinking or accepting of binge drinking, and regularly do so. What that says is that the harm associated with alcohol consumption in this country is of a very major league indeed. I am going to come back to the match of the Government’s response to the scale of that harm, because there is a complete mismatch.

In addition to those health-related statistics and statistics about the nature of binge drinking, there is also some information available from the New Zealand Police about the association of alcohol consumption with offending. For example, the police attribute to the consumption of alcohol one in four property offences, one in five sexual offences, one in four traffic offences, one in five traffic crashes, one in two drug and antisocial offences, one in three family violence offences, and one in three violence offences—and, as an illustration of alcohol as a magnifier, one in three violence offences, but one in two serious violence offences. Alcohol is absolutely wrapped up in the offending and in the drivers of crime that the Hon Lianne Dalziel has referred to already in her contribution today. The police estimate that overall a third of all police-recorded offences are committed by an offender who has consumed alcohol prior to the offence, and 18 percent of the police budget is wrapped up in responding to alcohol-fuelled offending. So the harm that this Alcohol Reform Bill ought to be setting out to respond to is very considerable indeed.

I have in this House on several occasions over the last couple of years referred to the Ottawa Charter. The Ottawa Charter is an international agreement, which New Zealand is party to, that sets out a formula for responding to health issues in our societies, and recognises that those health issues of disease, injury, and premature death are associated with socio-environmental factors. They are not purely problems related to the individuals who experience those issues. What the Ottawa Charter says is that if we want to address the burdens of disease and injury in our societies then we need to do a few things: we need to promote healthy public policy, we need to create supportive environments, we need to strengthen community responses, we need to develop personal skills, and we need to reorientate health services. I often speak about these five actions collapsing into two basic things: the empowerment of communities and the individuals within them, and the creation of supportive environments—political environments, social environments, and physical environments—around those communities. That is the challenge that we ought to be responding to around alcohol. That is the challenge that this bill ought to rise to and does not.

I have referred several times to the opportunity presented by the Law Commission’s report. It presents the Government of the day and this House with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get alcohol policy right, to strengthen our community responses to alcohol, to empower communities to deal with those issues, and to create supportive environments around those communities that facilitate those responses. That is what this bill ought to be doing and does not. When we come to the more detailed debate over the parts of this bill, we will talk about those things. Although the Government sets out in all of the right directions, the progress that the measures it proposes make in those directions is pitifully small. That is why other parties in the House—the Māori Party, the Labour Party, and the Green Party—have all been advancing measures that would implement the recommendations of the Law Commission and that would give this House the opportunity to take up that once-in-a-generation opportunity to seriously minimise the harm that is created in our communities by alcohol. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): It is very good to see this measure, the Alcohol Reform Bill, back before the House. Right around the country, New Zealanders will be saying that they are delighted that we are debating this measure today, and they look forward to seeing it being adopted as the law of this land. Can I begin by acknowledging the work of the former chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee the Hon Chester Borrows, who did an outstanding job on this bill, along with all the members in the previous Parliament who worked incredibly hard, and I acknowledge that that includes members from all sides of the House. They heard an enormous number of submissions. They considered many more written submissions. They engaged with New Zealanders, and they took their points of view on board.

I also want to acknowledge our present Minister of Justice for her work since she has become the Minister, for her determination to strengthen the bill, and, in particular, for her determination to tackle the issue of parental supply of alcohol to minors. And when I talk about parental supply I am not talking just about parents of their own children; in particular, I am talking about those who supply alcohol to other people’s children. We have, sadly, experienced many tragedies in this land as a result of the very irresponsible supply of alcohol to minors, and I think the Minister should be commended for her courage in facing up to that issue and for providing a mechanism by which parents will at long last be able to exercise far greater control. I, as a father, would want to know, if somebody else was supplying alcohol to my children, that I had the right to say “Perhaps a little bit, but only under certain conditions, and certainly under strict supervision with responsible provision of food and other matters provided for.” This is a vitally important measure.

There are over 130 positive measures in this bill. It is the first significant tightening of liquor legislation in my lifetime. The bill adopts and enacts the vast majority of the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform. Many people listening could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, from what they have heard, but it is worth repeating: the bill adopts the vast majority of the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform. Yes, there are some who would like to see it go even further, and I respect their views, but I firmly reject any suggestion that the measures in this bill will not be effective or are not significant. They are and they will be.

Part 1 of this bill, which covers preliminary matters, hints through its definitions at many of these very significant aspects, including the provision of local alcohol plans. That is something that is warmly welcomed in my city of Hamilton and—I was listening carefully to the Hon Lianne Dalziel before—I am sure it is equally so, if not more so, in Christchurch, where they have the additional problem now, as a result of the devastation caused by the earthquakes, of alcohol spreading and spreading throughout the suburbs. The need to have these local alcohol plans was highlighted in a television news feature that I saw the other night, and I am sure that the citizens of Christchurch and the wider Canterbury area will particularly welcome that measure.

The focus in the bill on the reduction of alcohol-related harm is real and very significant. A tighter definition of retail outlets that may sell alcohol is warmly welcomed in my area and, I am sure, around the country, as are tighter rules about where alcohol may be sold within those licensed premises. Restrictions on the marketing of alcohol, especially to young people, are vitally important. And so it goes on. There is much in this bill that is to be welcomed individually, but collectively it is of great significance, and it is inconceivable that these measures will not make a difference. Therefore, it is disappointing to hear some scaremongering from opponents, particularly on other sides of this House. Those particular claims, in many respects, lack credibility, when successive Governments have in fact presided over regular liberalising of our alcohol laws. This is the first Government to face up to the issues and to tighten the laws.

Like the Minister of Justice and Mr O’Rourke, who spoke earlier, I too was naturally very disappointed that my Supplementary Order Paper seeking to raise the minimum purchase age for alcohol was narrowly defeated at the end of August. I make the point that a clear majority of MPs actually voted for change when the first vote was taken. I think, in fact, it was 71 votes to 50. So the final vote in favour of the status quo, I have to say, seems a bit perverse. But there it is. We must move on from that. I just want to say that I call on youth leaders—

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): The select committee that heard submissions on the Alcohol Reform Bill, the Justice and Electoral Committee, I think heard virtually a record number from members of the public, and took time to try to listen carefully to those concerns. They were—if you set the industry submissions aside for one moment, and they were numerically limited—almost overwhelmingly, as far as the public were concerned, in favour of going for a much stricter regime applying to the sale, availability, pricing, and advertising of alcohol.

It is true what a number of members, including the member who has just resumed his seat, Tim Macindoe, have said in at least this respect: overall the bill does tighten up on those matters somewhat. But as I and a number of colleagues who sat on the select committee observed during the second reading debate on this bill, and as I think Kevin Hague and Lianne Dalziel observed, particularly when they made their contributions on this preliminary part of the Committee stage debate, that really is not the point. The point is that we could have gone so much further on so many key issues, and we failed to do so.

The member who has just resumed his seat, Mr O’Rourke, and the Minister of Justice, both mentioned the vote that was held in the House in late August around the purchase age. One of the problems that the debate has had has been the way in which it has proceeded, first of all, in dealing with the issue of age, which was the subject of a conscience vote in the House, and then in dealing with every other question including availability, pricing, advertising, supply, and what have you.

All the evidence that we heard at the select committee was that if we want, as a Parliament, to fulfil the objects of the Act, which my colleague Lianne Dalziel went into in some detail in her contribution, well, yes, age is an issue, but in the hierarchy that the experts described to us in the select committee, it is not by any means the most influential or impactive criterion. The other issues—pricing, availability, advertising, and supply—are much more influential, as it happens, if one wants to look at the evidence, on the problem of binge drinking that we have in New Zealand, than the question of the purchase age.

For people listening to the debate, and for members who might be new to that aspect of it, that is the point. The point is not that I am quibbling, or other colleagues with a similar view on this are quibbling, that this legislation will actually result in broadly a better regime; it will, and that is down to the careful work, I think, done by the select committee. I would join with the member who has resumed his seat in praising those members of the Justice and Electoral Committee who took the time to hear the submissions and to make the recommendations that were made and that appear in the report back that we are considering. I also thank the officials for the help that they gave us to try to negotiate our way around some of those issues and to try to make the best possible recommendations that we could in order to bring good legislation back to the House. It is better than what we have got, but the gap between what we could have and what we are going to end up with if members opposite simply take the Government whip, as has been indicated they will, is profound.

What I would like to say in my initial contribution in the debate is this: the evidence demands that we take much more seriously some of the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table, and my plea, if I can make one to National members, is that they do think very carefully about these Supplementary Order Papers. They have been put together, I think by and large, with a lot of care and a lot of thought, and with a desire to actually achieve the objects and purposes of the Act. That is why I want to mention one or two of them now. I am not going to go into any detail about them, but I think if we are serious about minimising the harm that comes from our binge-drinking culture, then we do need to think about some of these ideas.

In respect of the idea, for example, of lowering the permitted blood-alcohol content, there will be a discussion about the scope of it, and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has Supplementary Order Paper 40. There is no doubt that if we were to seriously consider that, we would certainly begin to deal with the sorts of harm-related issues that Kevin Hague mentioned in his contribution—the 1,000 alcohol-related deaths.

If we were, for example, when we are dealing with local planning issues, to give boards of trustees automatic standing to make submissions about whether or not licensing decisions should be made, given the evidence that we heard at the select committee about the harm that flows from locating licensed premises near or on the way to schools, again we would do a lot to achieve, in a much better manner than with the bill as it currently stands, the objects and purposes of the Act.

There has been mention already in this initial debate about local alcohol policies, and they have been praised, even by the Government member who spoke earlier. Well, the problem with them is that they are optional, so a local government entity does not have to have a local alcohol policy. When it does decide to have one it is going to take many, many, many months in order to be able to bring that local alcohol policy into effect—16 months, I think, is the figure that is given—and when they are chosen to be brought into effect by a particular territorial local authority, they are very restricted as to the matters that they can deal with. They are very, very restricted, on the face of the Act, to the types of matters they can deal with.

If we were serious about the object and purpose here, we would allow them to be much wider than they are. There are two Supplementary Order Papers before us, one in my name, Supplementary Order Paper 109, which would provide for them to be required by a territorial local authority, and one in the name of my colleague Phil Twyford, Supplementary Order Paper 116, which would circumvent the time that it will take to bring those local alcohol policies into place, as far as the local authorities are concerned. They are both very good measures as far as trying to achieve the objects and purpose of the legislation are concerned.

In the same vein, my colleague Lianne Dalziel, as is well known and as the Minister mentioned in her contribution, has a Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 113, that would bring in, or at least empower the Minister to bring in, if she so chose, a minimum pricing regime. It is entirely at the Minister’s discretion as to how that is designed. It need not be all doom and gloom in raising prices across the board. It could be a judicious measure if it were designed well. When the Minister was on her feet she told us that she had a report purporting to indicate that the Scots, who, as we know, have put in place a minimum pricing regime, have suspended that regime.

Well, we can all produce evidence about minimum pricing regimes. Only 2 weeks ago in Australia there was a report very strongly advocating that the only way in which Australia would be able to deal with its binge-drinking culture in a meaningful fashion would be, amongst other things, to bring in a minimum pricing regime for alcohol. The evidence is by no means overwhelming in the way that the Minister would have us believe.

There are some other very good Supplementary Order Papers that would certainly permit the objects and purposes of the Act to be better achieved. Andrew Little has proposed one that would restrict opening hours. Iain Lees-Galloway has another one that would restrict the advertising and sponsorship regime, one of the biggest, obvious failures that the bill would make if it is enacted in its present form. There is one in the name of David Clark that would restrict advertising that is specifically targeted at young people. My colleague Phil Goff has a very, very good one that would make restrictions on the availability of ready-to-drinks.

Again, we know from the Justice and Electoral Committee evidence that ready-to-drinks are sweet, they are sugary, and they are ready-made—ready prepared. If members mean what they say and what they have said in the Chamber already about trying to promote responsible drinking amongst young people, this is something that obviously, according to the evidence, ought to be dealt with, again, in respect of achieving the objects and purposes of the legislation. That is a Supplementary Order Paper that the Committee must consider seriously and independently, and any member who does not have a good look at that and think about their vote on it cannot be taken seriously about a desire to promote responsible drinking amongst young people.

David Clark has a Supplementary Order Paper that would remove the excise tax on low-alcohol products, therefore promoting them, again, via a sensible price mechanism, making them more attractive, so that rather than looking at hard liquor options, people are encouraged to look at softer ones. I mentioned, I think, the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Phil Twyford on fast tracking the local alcohol policy options, but there are other good ones as well. I think Kevin Hague has a number that are well worth having a close look at.

As I said earlier on, this is not about whether or not this is not an adequate bill; it is. It does make some progress. As I have said, the various players deserve credit for that, but the point is it could be so much better.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. By way of some introductory remarks, I want to state from the outset that the Māori Party believes that we must really focus on the long-term outlook, the intergenerational shift that will ensure that we reduce alcohol-related harm right across the whānau. We advocated for significant investment in the sector, targeted at alcohol treatment services, and were pleased that the Government moved in this way with a $10 million announcement in the Budget. We also support the proposal for a cross-agency advertising and sponsorship review, as recommended by the Law Commission. We are particularly supportive of the Law Commission’s advice that alcohol advertising and sponsorship could be addressed by limiting product information to a plain pack format, which is basically what Tariana Turia has done in respect of tobacco prevention.

We can say from the start, as well, that we are, however, disappointed that local alcohol plans remain voluntary. The liberalisation of alcohol sales—opening up supermarket sales, extending opening hours, reducing the minimum purchase age to 18, and the increased number and density of outlets—have all compounded the serious problem that other members in the Chamber have talked about, not only in this debate but also in the first debate in respect of the purchase age. A comparison made by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to the regime of environmental management is particularly helpful, I think. It was their contention that the rights protected under article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi include the capacity to protect and preserve the well-being of our greatest taonga, our people, and accordingly it was their view that iwi have the right to be decision makers on the supply and regulation of alcohol within their respective ancestral lands. The proposal to enable iwi input into local decision-making will be proposed as one of the key amendments under my name to the clauses on local alcohol policy.

The Māori Party describes alcohol as a social hazard and argues for measures against hazardous alcohol intake across all layers of influence. It would be no secret—or maybe it is—that Māori have one of the few societies where the history prior to the arrival of the settler group was free of alcohol. Indeed, a term that our people use for alcohol is “waipiro”. “Waipiro” literally means “stinking water”. From that time to now, there has obviously been a clear impact on Māori communities across the board, and from the Māori Party’s perspective we take this particular issue, along with tobacco and, indeed, gambling, under the banner, if you like, of social hazards that we definitely need to have a look at. In that regard, as previous members have mentioned, under my name we have tabled a number of amendments, which the Committee will consider over the length and breadth of this debate. These include making the proximity to a school a criterion for determining liquor licences; adding Māori representation to the local committees; limiting the visibility of advertising for the product in grocery stores and grocery shops so that it is not visible in the store but alcohol is able to be sold; eliminating advertising and sponsorship of alcohol except inside on-licenced premises; and a sinking-lid policy on off-licence retailers within territorial authorities, in terms of talking about the replacement of existing stores being the only exception, and only if there is not another liquor store within 5 kilometres. There are other amendments that I will not discuss right now, but will come back to during the debate.

I did want to say that the bigger picture on alcohol harm is that it is not just what we drink, it is how and whom we drink with. It takes a community. One of the recommendations that came up from He Tētē Kura: Māori Addiction Treatment 1980-2008 tells us that there are three specific aspects to how we can work together to reduce and prevent alcohol-related harm. I will just mention those to close off. No. 1 is to build, strengthen, and maintain links between whānau, hapū, and iwi communities and the sector around the country. Secondly, we need to explicitly foster a collective whānau approach in the Māori addiction treatment sector and workforce. Thirdly, we need to work more as a unified and collective sector to achieve whānau ora for Māori with addiction-related issues and problems. We would hope that all of these things do come together as we complete this debate over the next day or so. Certainly, we in the Māori Party believe that the Supplementary Order Papers that we are advancing have some merit to them, as do a number—

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): This has been described by various speakers as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with one of the biggest social problems that we confront in 21st century New Zealand. I am not a wowser; I drink, but I am equally conscious as a New Zealander of the cost of alcohol abuse and misuse to our whole society—the economic cost, the social cost, and the individual human cost—and that is the reason why the last Labour Government set up the Law Commission to do a full inquiry into alcohol abuse in this country. It seemed a sensible thing to do, to take it out of the political arena, to give it to a group of experts who consulted widely across New Zealand society—over 3,000 submissions were received by the Law Commission—and to take what they themselves described as an evidence-based approach. What other approach makes sense than to look at the evidence—to look at it objectively, openly, honestly, and transparently—and then act on the evidence? That is why I believe that the Alcohol Reform Bill is a disappointment.

There are some things that it does, and I applaud the careful steps that it takes in that regard, but most of the things that it does actually date back to the time when Lianne Dalziel was Associate Minister of Justice and talked about the need for local alcohol policies and for giving local communities the ability to control the supply of alcohol in those areas. I heard a very frustrated mayor on the radio the other day in Auckland, saying that we needed these policies 2 years ago. We did need them 2 years ago, and we could have had them 2 years ago, but the Government sat on this bill, then acted very cautiously and rejected the main recommendations of the Law Commission. The main recommendations of the Law Commission included the raising of the age of consumption to 20. I voted for that because I believe that we have a huge problem with teenage binge drinking. The Committee, in its wisdom, decided not to do that. Well, if we are not going to do that, then the Committee has to consider what in some of the Supplementary Order Papers will have an impact on binge drinking.

I want to express my disappointment again that the Minister of Justice met with the liquor industry interests—the vested interests that make hundreds of millions of dollars out of this area. Yes, of course they produce jobs, but that should not prevent us from saying that we have an obligation in this House to pass legislation that will moderate the impact of abuse. One of the things that Simon Power, the previous Minister of Justice, was adamant that the Government should do was to limit the alcohol content of the ready-to-drinks, the alcopops, to 5 percent, which is pretty much the same as beer. I saw the comments that Simon Power made, and I agree with those. These drinks appeal, particularly, to our young people. They are the preferred drink of 63 percent of female, school-age drinkers, and have had the biggest single impact on raising the level of alcohol consumption in this country. Spirits soared because of the introduction of ready-to-drinks. Ready-to-drinks were designed to taste so sweet that you could not taste the alcohol, to appeal to young people. They were to be marketed like soft drinks and to be drunk like soft drinks. Selling half a million containers of alcopops a day has resulted in an enormous increase in alcohol consumption.

It is easy to deal with, Minister, and that is by restricting the level of alcohol to 5 percent for companies that have moved the alcohol level of ready-to-drinks up quite significantly. Many are now selling at 8 percent, some as high as 10 percent. What I want is for this Committee to look, even at this late stage, at an evidence-based approach, and for Government members of Parliament to have the right to vote according to the evidence and not to be whipped into line and agree to everything they have been told by the Minister to do to protect the liquor industry. I urge National members of Parliament to vote according to the evidence and to their own views. I have done a bit of research and I have seen what National members of Parliament have said, including the Minister’s own predecessor, about ready-to-drinks and the need to restrict the alcohol content. So I urge the Government to allow the freedom to its own members to vote according to what they believe is right. The MPs whom I have talked to—and I do not name them, because it was in confidence—from the other side of the House have expressed concern about that and have expressed concern that the liquor industry might be paramount over health and policing people on the front line.

I want to bring it back to what the cost of alcohol is and why we need to act. I took time out to go down to an accident and emergency department, in this case at Auckland City Hospital, to spend the early hours of Sunday morning there, to witness what the staff of those hospitals have to deal with daily. I do not know, Minister, whether you have had that experience, but I would certainly recommend it to you. Ministers from the Government and the Prime Minister were invited to do so. I was appalled at the sheer number of people coming in injured because of alcohol, ill to the point of endangering their health because of alcohol, and often abusive of the staff in the hospital. You have only to spend time with the doctors who are working there through the small hours of the morning, absolutely frustrated that they are spending their time working on people who have abused alcohol, rather than doing the work they want to do to improve the overall health of the community.

Imagine the bonus to New Zealand if we were able to cut down the abuse of alcohol and cut down the $5 billion in costs that the Alcohol Advisory Council says that the abuse of alcohol is causing each year—$5 billion. Instead of slashing social services, instead of cutting back the sorts of services that New Zealand wants, if we could bring down alcohol abuse, we could do something about it. But this bill is a wasted opportunity, because it does not tackle basic things that the Law Commission said it should tackle—for example, price and advertising. Why do we allow alcohol to be promoted? Why do we allow ready-to-drinks to be sold with higher and higher levels of alcohol in what the industry is producing, rather than dealing with it? Let us have the courage in this House to do what is right and not surrender to pressure from the industry. This House is obliged to act for the benefit of New Zealanders, not for the benefit of those people who make money out of promoting alcohol to younger and younger people all the time. We need to do something about that.

Can I say that there is another Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 40, in the name of my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, on the level of alcohol that can be consumed before you are driving unlawfully. I have got the Cabinet paper in my hand that tells us what the Government was advised on this. It says that lowering the adult limit is arguably the most cost-effective way we have got of improving road safety. That is the advice given to Cabinet, and I want to ask the Minister why the Government has ignored that advice and said that we need more research. We have got all the research we need. At 0.05 grams your driving starts to become impaired. At 0.08 you are three times more likely to have an accident. I say the Committee should exercise its independent judgment. Look at the evidence. If we are worried about the hundreds of people who are dying and being maimed on the road each year because of too much alcohol in their blood, then let us act in this House, because we can make a difference.

It would be remiss of the House to simply go down the path of caution and say “Great, this bill doesn’t liberalise alcohol.” No, it does not, but nor does it address the critical problems that are causing billions of dollars to be spent in health and in policing in this country. I want to say to those who said “It’s a minor problem. Let’s not hurt the majority, because it’s a minor problem.” that there are 444,000 people who in one of the recent surveys that were done said they felt drunk when they were driving—nearly half a million New Zealanders. One in three violent offences is alcohol related. One in three domestic violence offences is alcohol related. The Minister in the chair is the Minister of Justice. These things must be deeply troubling to her. She was the Minister of Police.

We have to do something more than say “Let’s not offend the liquor industry. Let’s not offend those who are making money out of promoting a good that is legally saleable but actually isn’t an ordinary commodity.”

Hon Maurice Williamson: No one’s saying that. Silly thing to say.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is not a silly thing to say; it is absolutely true, and Mr Williamson ought to consider what the cost is. You know, we heard it from Kevin Hague not so long ago—275,000 New Zealanders set out, when they went drinking on their last occasion, to get drunk. That is a serious problem.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am pleased to be speaking to Part 1 in the Committee stage, on preliminary matters. This is the biggest reform since Prohibition. I congratulate the Government on bringing this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, to the House today. It is in response to the Law Commission report, and there have been over 130 positive changes as a result. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the previous Justice and Electoral Committee, which heard over 1,500 submissions on this very topic, and the chair, Chester Borrows. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, on her work, and the officials. There has been a huge amount of work that has gone on behind the scenes.

It is a balanced approach, and, let us face it, you are never going to please everyone. But I am particularly pleased about some aspects of this bill, which, if time permits, I will talk to. Local alcohol plans—absolutely, the community wants those. It wants to be able to make those decisions on where alcohol outlets should be. Alcohol displays in supermarkets and grocery stores—that one particularly incenses me. My local supermarket changed the layout and made shoppers go down the alcohol aisle. You could not go left, you could not go right. You had no option but to go through the alcohol, and that infuriated me. I am also pleased to see parental tools are available. I have a 16-year-old daughter. I would be outraged if she went to another home and she was offered alcohol without my knowing or having my express wish. I am particularly pleased about that.

But I really want to just take some time and actually focus on the cross-sectoral approach that the Government is taking to alcohol. You cannot do it with just one piece of legislation; I think we all have to agree on that. But in health there are some very exciting initiatives with regard to alcohol harm. We know there are about 700,000 heavy drinkers out there in New Zealand. Most of them probably do it through a lack of education or they might be in denial. But there are two tools. One is the Whanganui alcohol screening pilot that is under way. It is very exciting. That is showing some good results, where people are screened on alcohol—on how much they are drinking, when and where, what types—and, if they are registered as high risk, interventions are offered to them. That is rolling out very nicely.

But there is another exciting tool, which I am particularly happy with and I am very excited about, and that is called eCHAT. It has happened in two general practitioners’ practices in Auckland. It is going to be rolled out to 30 more, including Tāmaki College next year—no; it is actually currently happening—where everyone in the waiting area is given an iPad or a tablet and they are given nine fields of questions to answer. It is very quick. It covers alcohol, it covers recreational drugs, it covers violence, it covers depression, it covers exercise, and it covers a couple of other areas. It has been well researched. It has been looked at and the questions have been fine-tuned. It basically, again, links into the patient record. Again, if the person registers as high risk in any particular category, they go on and answer more questions, and the general practitioner can offer them some screening and some intervention tools. I think that is particularly exciting, particularly because people often do not realise the harm they are doing. Some of it is through lack of education, and maybe it is just pointing out: “Look, you need to look at what you’re drinking and how much you’re drinking.” I am really pleased by that.

The emergency department of Wellington Regional Hospital has been screening people who appear at accident and emergency with an alcohol-related event. They are contacted a few days later by their community alcohol and drug service. Most of those people do not want to know about it, and that is fine, but there will be people who want to know, and realise, maybe in that reflective stage of their drinking, that, yes, they have got a bit of a problem and it is time to address it. Those are measures I am particularly pleased about.

In the Minister’s other portfolio, ACC, they are doing huge work in reduction of alcohol harm. I was on to ACC the other night—I had to phone about a constituent—and I got this recorded message while I was waiting to be answered: “Don’t forget to serve non-alcoholic drinks and serve food at your party.” I was staggered, and it made me realise how much ACC is doing to reduce harm from alcohol, particularly in the workplace. There is also transport. The Safer Journeys initiative has actually really targeted youth and alcohol drinking and harm. In corrections, it is fabulous. Alcohol and drug treatment beds have opened up for prisoners, and all prisoners have access to those. It has been life changing. I went to Pāremoremo prison and I spoke to staff at the unit, and it has been absolutely life changing for prisoners who have taken up that option of having alcohol and drug treatment. Basically, alcohol had fuelled their lives and their lives had been brought into crisis. Thank you.

Hon Members: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Iain Lees-Galloway has been trying for a while. I will give him the call.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I would like to pick up from where Dr Jackie Blue left off. Her point was that we cannot address the harm caused by alcohol just through legislation; we have to do it through other measures as well. Nobody in this Committee would disagree with Dr Blue on that, I think.

There has to be a range of responses to the harm caused by alcohol. But one of the responses is through legislation, and this is an opportunity that is going begging. It is not what is in the Alcohol Reform Bill. Tim Macindoe spoke about the fact that a large number of the Law Commission’s recommendations are in the bill. They are and they are good, and I will certainly be voting in support of the bill. It is a step in the right direction. But by no measure can it be called a reform bill.

It is not a reform of our alcohol laws in New Zealand; it is a very, very timid turn away from liberalisation. We have had decades of continued liberalisation. Yes, this is a step away from that, but a very timid and a very small step away from that continued liberalisation. And it is a real disappointment to all the people who have been lobbying, who have been working so hard in this field, who made submissions to the Law Commission, who made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee, who have lobbied individual MPs, and who have presented us with the evidence—it is a huge disappointment to those people—that this Government has brought an alcohol bill that is nothing more than a timid slowing down of the decades of liberalisation that we have seen.

Why do we need real reform of our alcohol laws? Well, The Economist produced a table, a drug harm index, and it showed the relative harm of different substances that people take recreationally: alcohol, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, tobacco, cannabis, GHB, butane, all the way down to magic mushrooms. Right at the top of that list for harm caused not only to the individual who consumes the substance but to the wider community is alcohol. And it is not ever so slightly at the top of the list; it is way out in front—way, way out in front—of all those other substances. That does not mean it is not possible for alcohol to be consumed sensibly and safely. Thousands and millions of New Zealanders do that, and we should not curtail their ability to do it.

The Minister said this is about striking a balance. Yes, we have to strike a balance. Some countries dabbled with prohibition almost a century ago—

Hon Maurice Williamson: How did that go?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and that was an abject failure. It was, Mr Williamson, an absolute failure, and we would not want to go there. We have to get the balance right, but the balance in this legislation is tipped too far towards the alcohol industry and those who are too nervous to really take on genuine alcohol reform. A better balance needs to be struck, and that is still possible. It is still possible. I know that National Party members will be under the whip and at this stage are not planning to vote for the measures that are going to be proposed that will truly strengthen this bill, but I urge those members to continue, even at this late stage, their discussion with their leadership, and I urge all other parties in the Chamber to support those amendments that will genuinely strengthen this bill and make it a true reform bill.

I heard, as I was travelling to the House today, Kevin Hague talking about the Ottawa Charter and how that establishes the environment for good public health. That is what a lot of these amendments are focused on today. It is not about trying to clean up the mess after people develop an addiction to alcohol or overuse or abuse alcohol, but actually trying to create the right settings and the right environment in which the right attitude towards alcohol is developed. And we can do some of that through legislation—not all of it, but we can do some of it through legislation. We have the evidence that tells us what are the right things to do: restricting the availability, restricting the advertising, increasing the price, and lowering the legal alcohol limit for driving. All of those things are meaningful and have an evidence base behind them, and will actually do something about the issues we have with alcohol in this country. We have the opportunity to do much, much more than we are doing in this legislation at the moment.

I would like to just touch on something. I will come back to it at the appropriate time, but because Jackie Blue raised it in her previous submission I would like to raise it now. That is the aspect of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 132 that deals with alcohol areas in supermarkets. I am not convinced that it is quite all that it is cracked up to be, and I think we need a more thorough examination of it. My concern is that there is a loophole in the way it has been worded that will allow the alcohol section in supermarkets to be right next to the entrance so it is something that everybody has to walk past. They may not have to walk through it, but they may have to walk past it. If that is an incorrect interpretation, then I would be very pleased for the Minister to clarify that so that we know what we are voting for. I certainly will not be voting for that aspect of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper until we have that clarification. If that is the case, I will gladly support it, but if it is not the case, then I think we need to take a closer look at it.

I certainly will be speaking in support of and voting for those amendments proposed by my colleagues in the Labour Party and by the Green Party, and some of the amendments proposed by the Māori Party that get the balance right. The Minister is absolutely correct: this is about striking a balance. But the balance is in the wrong place right now, and we have some work in the coming hours and days to get the balance right.

Hon Members: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Did you call?

Hon David Parker: I did, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call the Hon David Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to take a call on the preliminary part of this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill. As other speakers have said, there does not really seem to be much dispute that in New Zealand we currently have a worse problem with the abuse of alcohol than we did before liberalisation of alcohol sales laws in the 1980s, and that therefore there is a need to redress that balance and introduce some more restrictions around the sale of alcohol in an effort to reduce the harm that is done in society from the abuse of alcohol. Most people in this Chamber drink alcohol from time to time, and most people in this Chamber do not abuse alcohol, but it is true that too many people in New Zealand do abuse alcohol, to the detriment of themselves and their families, and at considerable cost to the taxpayer.

One thing I would want to raise with the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, at the moment is that the proposal in the legislation to change the default closing time to 4 a.m. for licensed premises still seems to me to be overly permissive. I think that the cost caused to our tax system as well as the harm done to our population by those late closing hours is in need of further remedy. I think that Mr Flavell’s amendment in that regard is probably quite a good step. He says that the closing hour should be 3 a.m. and that between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. there should be a one-way policy, so that if you go into a licensed premise and you leave it, you cannot hop into another one after 1 in the morning. I am struck by a statement that was made to me probably about 3 or 4 years ago by the then head of police in Queenstown, who said that the cost of policing is effectively driven to quite a significant extent by the closing hour of licensed premises. Rosters need to be maintained and cars need to be kept on the road until the licensed premises close, and if those licensed premises close earlier, then they do not have to keep those rosters going as long.

I think that is pretty clear. It is not that long ago that we had 10 o’clock closing, then 11 p.m. closing on Fridays and Saturdays—I think that is where it was extended to first. Since then, we have effectively had open slather with very, very late licensing hours, including in premises that border on residential areas, which causes a nuisance to those around them. So one of the things I would like to see passed as we go through this debate is the Flavell amendment in that regard. There are other aspects of his amendments I disagree with. I do not think it is practical to limit off-licences to only one within every 5 kilometres of each other. That would effectively mean that in a place like Wellington there might be one or two off-licence premises in the whole of Wellington central, which would just be, I think, wrong. In respect of small towns, it would effectively mean there would be one monopoly provider. So I do not agree with that, but I do agree that we need to truncate the hours of these licensed premises.

I am personally disappointed that in respect of the debate we had on the age, we did not move on the age for off-licence premises. I think that has been a mistake this Parliament may rue. There is no doubt that the scientists tell us that the younger a person is when they start drinking, the more likely it is that they develop an alcohol problem long term. In addition to their greater likelihood of developing an alcohol problem, we also know that whatever damage is done through drinking, it is more long term for a younger person because of the stage of development of their brain. Again, there is good scientific evidence to show that the damage that is done to a young person’s brain before that brain completely matures is greater than the damage to the brain of an older person who has had the same level of alcohol consumption. So I think that for both of those reasons it would have been appropriate to increase the age for off-licences. There is, indeed, an argument that we should have done it for on-licences as well, but the argument in respect of on-licences is not quite as strong in that there are, at least in theory, meant to be controls relating to serving intoxicated people that make it less likely that there will be harm to those people on licensed premises.

I think that whatever happens with this legislation, I would like to see the Government putting more focus on enforcement of the law. I live in the very heart of Dunedin, in the central area, and I can tell you that at 3 or 4 a.m. most—

Hon Maurice Williamson: I thought you were from Remuera.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have got a foot in more than one camp, Mr Williamson, but none of them is in Remuera. I do know that the state of people when they come out of those premises at 3 or 4 in the morning is such that it is impossible that they were not being served when they were absolutely totalled when they were in these licensed premises. I would like to see more Government resources be put into closing down some of those irresponsible licensed premises. I think the courts are ready to take a hard line and to close down some of these places and make them lose their licences for a month or 6 months, on a graduated scale. Some of those businesses would go to the wall, and they deserve to do so if they act irresponsibly and breach the laws that this Parliament passes and that society wants us to uphold.

I would also speak in support of a couple of other amendments. I agree with Jackie Blue in respect of the amendment relating to the non-sale supply to young people. This is an issue on which I have had a lot of discussions with Lianne Dalziel through the years, and we both thought it was important for it to be in the original bills that were discharged some 3 or 4 years ago. It is a nonsense that it is illegal to sell liquor to a person who is a minor, while under current law there are very few restrictions on the non-sale supply to a young person, even if that supply is without parental consent, even if it is for hideous amounts of strong spirits, and even if they are in a car. There are so many gaps in the existing law relating to non-sale supply to minors that it is no wonder that the police cannot effectively enforce the current law, such as it is. So I am pleased that the non-sale supply to minors is going to be significantly tightened so that it can be legal only if there is parental consent and there is then a responsible level in terms of the provision of alcohol. It will take some of the pressure off parents around some of these pre-ball and post-ball parties, where parents are put under pressure because they are told by Johnny that everyone else is doing it and therefore they have to do the same thing. So I think that is a good step in the right direction, but I would note that it could have been done 3 years earlier if the earlier bill had not been discharged.

I also agree with local liquor plans. I think that local authorities should be able to control how many off-licences or on-licences they have in areas. I think local people have a right in a democratic society to exercise some control of that. I would also speak in favour of the measure in respect of the liquor-laden soft drinks, the ready-to-drink soft drinks, that have become so pervasive. Some of the richest people in New Zealand have made their fortunes on the back of the misery caused by ready-to-drinks, and we ought not to shrink from concluding that those ready-to-drinks really are marketed in a way that is meant to disguise the taste of alcohol—they are soft drinks, essentially. Phil Goff’s amendment to limit the concentration of alcohol in those drinks, and the size and number of standard drinks that can be in a ready-to-drink, is, I think, worthy of the support of this Parliament. The misery that flows, particularly for the younger people who are most attracted to these ready-to-drinks, is something that can be remedied by this Parliament if we vote in support of that amendment.

As others have said, this bill does not go as far as it needs to in order to remedy some of the harm. I intend to support the bill notwithstanding those failures because it does go further than the existing law, and I think that for me probably the most significant thing in this bill is improving local control over the number of outlets and the non-sale supply of alcohol to minors.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to speak in favour of the Alcohol Reform Bill broadly, and of Part 1. Part 1 contains the objects, as we all know. I do feel, overall, that the Government is wasting a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put through more pervasive legislation that would address the issues at the heart of the problem that our society has. However, overall I want to signal from the beginning that I will support the legislation, because it takes some steps in the right direction.

I had the privilege in my previous role as head of a university college to be on the vice-chancellor’s alcohol advisory task force at Otago. That experience confirmed for me a number of things that I already understood about alcohol culture, primarily through access to alcohol experts in the field. Primary health experts in New Zealand are pretty much of one mind on this stuff. It is not like the “100% pure” matter, where Mr Key can say: “You find one expert who says we’re no longer 100 percent pure and I’ll find you another one who says we are.” Perhaps that is not a good example, as I do not think that is a fair case, either.

In this area, in primary health, people are of one mind. The research is really clear that alcohol-related harm can best be curbed through the use of mechanisms like pricing, marketing, distribution, and supply. There is no wavering on this. It is not that there is debate around what the best measures are for curbing alcohol-related harm—there is really clear evidence. So I would challenge those members opposite who have not yet sat down with experts in this area to do so, because they are more than willing to share their learnings. The primary health experts in this country are very generous with what they have learnt as a result of their studies and they are keen to see change for the betterment of New Zealand society. This is one area where our universities do take a strong role in being critic and conscience.

Dunedin North, the electorate that I represent, is an electorate that wrestles with alcohol issues in respect of the student population, in particular. I would argue that those alcohol-related issues are no better nor any worse than previous generations. Much media centres on the general concept that the world is going to hell in a handbasket in that respect. I do not buy into that. I think that different generations have treated alcohol in a similar way. This is an intergenerational issue that we are dealing with here. There is some evidence that fewer people are drinking heavily, and those who are, are now drinking more heavily, but, overall, the picture is very similar to what it was a generation ago.

We now know though a little more about alcohol-related harm than we did a generation ago, and that is why it is imperative that we act now in a way that was not clear to us a generation ago. Who knows, if in my day society’s leaders had acted to curb alcohol-related harm when I was a student, whether we would not have solved the problem of world peace by now. Anything is possible. It is certainly the case that generations up until now have had their development impaired in one form or another through the use of alcohol.

We now know, through the use of magnetic resource imaging scanners, that adolescence stretches from 13 to 23, and that frontal lobe development, which happens towards the end of that period, is at its peak between the ages of 18 and 21 when students are undertaking studies—undergraduate studies in particular at university—and that is when they are developing their critical faculties, the powers of rational thought, and laying out an argument.

Those processes are being hardwired into the frontal lobe at that point in their development. But that frontal lobe, we also know, is responsible for addictions. It is the centre in the human body for addictions. So at the same time as those students are studying by day to improve their rational thought processes, many of them are out drinking and creating a lifetime of addiction for themselves.

This is not knowledge that was as immediately clear to us a generation ago, but it is now much, much more evident through advances in science. So it is imperative upon us, as those who have inherited this science, that we speak out about it and make the case for change.

We also know that education does not make a great impact in respect of addictions and in respect certainly of student behaviour. Students drink because it is a risky practice; that is why they drink heavily. They choose to drink heavily because it is a risky practice. Telling students that drinking is a risky practice simply reinforces the reasons why they want to do it. In fact, it increases the incentive and encourages the behaviour. There are studies across the States that demonstrate the way in which education programmes have led to absolutely no change in trends of behaviour in respect of teenage risk-taking.

I am disappointed personally at the way in which the Government has succeeded in framing the alcohol issue as an age issue overall. Personally that is one of the greatest disappointments to me in respect of this legislation. Opposition parties I guess must question themselves—particularly those who feel in conscience educated about this issue and want to speak out about it—about how they have not done better at countering that particular framing. When people think this is an age issue they forget to ask the wider questions about how we make that societal change, and lump the burden of responsibility back on that younger age group, or at least the interest in the debate back on that younger age group and who is in and who is out of the drinking. We know, as I have said earlier, that pricing, marketing, distribution, and supply are well above age in terms of influence and in terms of people’s drinking patterns. I will put forward two Supplementary Order Papers in my name later in the debate in respect of price and marketing.

I do compliment the Government on some of the changes it is making in respect of distribution. I know that local councils are grateful that some changes are being made in that area. It is certainly the case that in Dunedin there are examples of local liquor suppliers setting up business in the middle of town and the council having no redress. Although the public were against those outlets setting up, wholesale outlets, where there are already plenty around, the council was without powers to change it. That will change, as I understand it, if the Government’s legislation succeeds, so I want to compliment the Government on that change.

Some of the changes that are being made are positive. However, overall I feel that this is a real missed opportunity. I am also disappointed that National members are choosing not to exercise their consciences on this issue. I think that conscience, like all human faculties, is a use it or lose it thing, and it is no different in this respect. I think Government members should choose to exercise their conscience on this issue.

So overall there is an amount of tinkering here. The changes that could be made are not going to be made, but some of those that are worthy of our support will mean that I personally will offer my support to the overall legislation, albeit with some disappointment that some of the bigger levers are being put to one side in favour of what I see as expediency.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think I will start where my colleague David Clark has left off and say that this Alcohol Reform Bill does not put before the Committee, in a way that I would have hoped, a number of choices for the Committee. I do regret the fact that National has decided to hide behind its whips on this particular issue, but I think that when it does come to the election campaign, people will be asked how they voted on the issues that come up here, and the fact that it was a whipped vote on what has often been a conscience area will not be a protection for those members.

Having said that, and regretted the fact that we have not really got an opportunity to debate and make decisions as a Parliament on this occasion, as we have on every other occasion where we have debated this legislation, I have to say that there are a lot of areas that I disagree with. The last two of my colleagues who have just spoken, David Clark and David Parker, have considered the issues over time, looked at some of the evidence, and come to different conclusions.

I would agree that academics, for example, should play a positive role in informing the debate on liquor legislation, and that they should be the critics and the conscience. But the problem I have, especially with the leading academics in this particular area, the most quoted academics in this particular area, is that they are zealots. I do not think the evidence matters to them and—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Some of them are practitioners.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Some of them are practitioners, but the people whom I am talking about, especially a couple of individuals from the member’s own city, have in fact been shown to twist the evidence in reaching their conclusions. And if anyone has any doubt about that, can I recommend—[Interruption] No, take a call and debate it. Can I recommend that they look at the work of Ruth Laugesen, when she did some work that looked into that area. The name, of course, is not one that is unknown in the public health area, and she is certainly a journalist with a good reputation for analysis.

When people looked at allegations of fact and opinion, what was found was that the evidence that is being presented to the public is not always backed up by the research. I will say also that that was my experience as a member of the select committee when dealing with the Rugby World Cup and the shifts that the people I have described as zealots in the area of alcohol law reform wanted to make as part of that exercise, and that actually their arguments did not stack up.

I want to disagree with my colleague about trends in alcohol use. I do not think there are many people left in the Chamber who can remember seeing—though in my case not being part of—evidence of the six o’clock swill. That was outrageous. The type of drinking that we saw at that time far exceeds—far exceeds—the behaviour that occurs now. It occurred with just about everyone who was in hotels at the time—and there were many more hotels at the time—and people were much more likely to drive after that occurred. I will get back to that.

The other trend was just the practice as to the type—[Interruption] They might have been slower cars, but we did have cars, and they were not like Fred Flintstone’s, either. People used to drink off premises, using flagons. That was the standard measure. I can remember people who thought it was progress when we shifted from flagons to crates as being the standard measure. So for people to argue that there has been a massive decline in the approach to drinking is, in my opinion, incorrect.

I disagree with the comments that David Parker made, and also with the proposals in the bill with regard to closing hours. I have worked on occasions as a shift worker—different sorts of shifts. There was one shift where we worked week-on, week-off, and we finished up at 8 o’clock on a Friday morning, and we used to go to the pub. But there was another job where I worked a 4-to-midnight shift; therefore, our work day and our work week finished at midnight. The idea that we could not go off to the pub then—we worked different hours, we slept different hours. I think one of the good things that has happened is that that has been recognised in the ability of shift workers to socialise.

I do agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and his amendment with regard to drink-driving. I think there has been a major cultural change in that area in New Zealand in my lifetime. I think it is no secret that many people of my generation, especially but not only those who lived in rural areas, used to regularly drive way over the limit. We had mickey mouse testing systems and a lack of policing—and, in fact, in some cases police actively ignoring the law because they themselves used to be involved in the drink-driving. But I think times have changed, and that is a good thing. We are now ready, I think, for a change from a blood-alcohol level of 80 milligrams, back to 50.

I want to make a comment to the amendment that is proposed by my friend the Hon Phil Goff to do with ready-to-drinks, and to say that I disagree with him. I will give an example for myself from last Thursday night. I went to an event at the Civic Theatre and I wanted to have a rum and Coke. I could have had the same alcohol concentration poured out of a bottle and mixed with Coke, or I could have bought it in a little bottle as a ready-to-drink. Why is it that you should be allowed it if it comes in a glass or in a bit of plastic, but not be allowed it if it is the same mixture in a bottle? My view is that there is a degree of overreaction to a format that is more popular with younger people. People go on about drinks being sweet. Well, I happen to like dessert wines, and I do not mind rum and Coke myself, either. They are sweet drinks, and, because they are not fashionable with some generations and more fashionable with others, that might need to be considered when we are looking at this.

There is one other issue for me that I still want to hear evidence on and listen to. I know we have at least two sets of amendments around minimum pricing. I have to say that I am not yet convinced, but I want to listen to the evidence and listen to the debate on these issues as part of this Committee. I would say that I am reluctant, on behalf of my poorer constituents, to have them disproportionately affected by this sort of change, as is being proposed. It was proposed by the Law Commission and it is being proposed by some members.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in her name to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 118

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 30 (Ardern J, Chauvel, Clark, Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Curran, Dalziel, Dyson, Faafoi, Fenton, Goff, Hipkins, Horomia, Huo, Jones, King A, Lees-Galloway, Little, Mackey, Mahuta, Moroney, Parker, Prasad, Robertson G, Shearer, Street, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1; Other 1 (Mallard).

Noes 2

New Zealand Labour 2 (Robertson R, Sio).

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Ages for sale and purchase of alcohol on licensed premises

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to Part 2. There is no debate on Part 2, in accordance with the determination of the Business Committee; however, there is an amendment. The Minister’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 proposes to delete Part 2. This is a direct negative of the question. We move to the vote on Part 2. The question is that Part 2 be agreed to.

Part 2 not agreed to.

New Part 2A Review of ages for sale and purchase of alcohol

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to new Part 2A. We have a number of amendments that propose new parts and related new provisions. The first of these is an amendment in the name of Hone Harawira set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121. This proposes a new Part 2A, relating to the review of ages for the sale and purchase of alcohol.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I will rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the honourable Hone Harawira. I note the additional elements.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This would be helpful for me. The other elements of a new Part 2A and Part 7, relating to advertising and sponsorship, will be dealt with separately. So this is purely on the amendment moved by the honourable Hone Harawira on Supplementary Order Paper 121?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Correct. We will move to the others shortly.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: That is fine. I will speak on that. I am hoping that the honourable Hone Harawira himself will take a call on his Supplementary Order Paper, but I felt that it was important that we get the debate going on this matter. I felt that I was an appropriate person to speak to it, because I voted for the split age, in terms of the age issue, which we, in fact, dealt with the last time we debated the bill. I want to speak in favour of the amendment, even though I voted for the split age and then ultimately voted to retain the age at 18. The reason that I want to support this amendment is that it will answer, I believe, one of the concerns that the public have around the age question. What it asks the Parliament to do is to amend the Alcohol Reform Bill by inserting provisions for the Ministry of Justice to review the ages for the sale and purchase of alcohol on licensed premises within 5 years of the commencement of the bill. I think that what the member has been trying to do is to ask the Parliament to have a mechanism where there is an automatic review taking place. There might be a willingness expressed by all parties to review the operation of legislation after a particular period of time, but I believe that to have it written into the legislation would actually be a help, and it would help people understand that the Parliament will not let another 12 years go by before the law is reviewed again. That is because a lot of the public have actually accepted the argument that the purchase age is such a top issue, although I do not believe that any of the evidence presented by the Law Commission and by those who have been advocating for the five-plus-one option has put age at the top of the range of measures that need to be taken. The reason that they have not put it at the top is that it is effective to a certain extent, but it is not the most effective measure that could be taken, and it certainly does not rate in the top three of those measures, but it certainly does warrant the Committee’s ongoing attention.

I think that the public have bought into this issue of the age being so important, because it is the only issue in the legislation that has been the subject of a conscience vote on the part of the Government. The Government has whipped the entire caucus on every other element of the legislation. Something that I had hoped we would get to ourselves is that we were hoping to be able to get rid of the conscience vote. I was the one who actually raised it in the first instance when I was Associate Minister of Justice back in 2008. It occurred to me that the only year when it is absolutely impossible to get any alcohol reform is election year, and it is because of the conscience vote. The huge amount of pressure that came on people to vote in a particular way—certainly, the community’s voice could not match the pressure, really, of big business that was able to, I believe, put a lot of pressure on people in terms of how they voted on particular issues. The purchase age has never been a particular issue for the industry, so that is the one issue that is just not an issue and I think that is why the Government was prepared to give that away. It was not prepared, I think, to let brand new MPs confront the reality of their constituents, who were looking for a lot more from this Parliament than what they are getting from this bill.

I like the idea of reviewing legislation on a relatively fixed date. The reason that I say that is that when I was first elected to Parliament, or some years afterwards in 1993, we had the human rights amendment. I can see Kevin Hague nodding his head sagely, because he knows exactly what I am going to say. Charles Chauvel is also nodding his head sagely because he knows exactly what I am going to say. The law required the Government to go through all of its laws, and to actually work out which laws were in conflict with the changes that were made to the Human Rights Act and to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at that time. So there was an obligation on the Government to do that, and guess what? It did not do it. We actually got to the expiry date, and it had not been done. The expiry date of that particular provision, which exempted the Crown from the new provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, had to be extended, I believe, twice, until we finally got through the statutory references legislation.

I believe that the member Hone Harawira feels very passionately about this issue of purchase age, and I know that not every member has the opportunity to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper, but I actually think that we owe it to everyone who supports this amendment to actually debate it. To have a proposal for a review in 5 years, I think, is a very sensible one indeed. So I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. I had hoped that the member himself would be able to take a call, and I thought my contributing to the debate in such a reasonable way might have given the member Hone Harawira the idea that perhaps he should take a call on this bill. If that message can get through to his office, I am sure that will assist the debate. It is something that I think is important; sometimes it is important to stand for something. Even though I did not vote for the measure that he was concerned about, I am perfectly happy to support a measure that says that we review the operation of a decision that is made by this Parliament within a reasonable time frame. We simply cannot allow 12 years to go by, and then have somebody else ask why we never had a look at it again. I think if we write it into the law, we will actually get the opportunity—well, more than the opportunity; we have an obligation—to review it and to see whether the concerns that were raised at the time have, in fact, been addressed.

In fact, there are probably other parts of the legislation, which we are going to be passing over the next couple of days, or next three days, or however long it takes—I think that what we might find is that there are other parts of this legislation that might also benefit from such an amendment. I might look at whether we need some additional amendments as we go through the Committee stage, as this is an opportunity to do just that.

So I do congratulate the member on bringing the matter to the attention of the Committee. It is an opportunity for us to talk about whether we have got an opportunity in the future to reflect on decisions that we have made, based on the evidence, because the evidence will be available. I would like to take the opportunity to completely disagree with everything that Trevor Mallard said about my very respected colleagues in Christchurch, who have done nothing but devote—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Sally Casswell used to be very impartial. I used to deal with Sally Casswell. She was terribly impartial!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am very proud of Sally Casswell and Doug Sellman, and all of the public health people. They are not self-interested. All they care about is the public health of New Zealand. We actually should have people who care about the public health of New Zealand, because if there is one thing that has actually diminished under this Government, it is health promotion. We might talk about operations and various other things, but health promotion has gone down the drain under this Government. It is not playing the leadership position that we ought to be playing in the world. New Zealand led the world on tobacco law reform. We should be leading the world on alcohol law reform as well, and that is what I challenge the Committee to do with this amendment.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I also rise to speak in favour of this new Part 2A in the Alcohol Reform Bill proposed by Hone Harawira in Supplementary Order Paper 121, requiring a review of ages for the sale and purchase of alcohol being written into the legislation and specifying a 5-year period at the end of which the provisions around the age of sale and purchase should be reviewed. I think this is a very sensible measure, not just because I lost on both of the votes that we took on the age. I voted in the first instance for a split age and in the second instance for the age to be raised to 20. The reasons I did that were purely and simply health grounds, and purely and simply because the work of the Law Commission was based on evidence that came before it. It is on that same basis that I would like the age for the sale and purchase of alcohol to be reviewed as of law and as of a specified time, this being 5 years after the commencement of this Act.

It seems to me that with this particularly sensitive piece of what is social legislation, many parts of which have traditionally been subjected to a conscience vote, it is imperative that this House revisit its decisions on this legislation at regular intervals. Hone Harawira has said 5 years. I will support that because we will arrive, after a couple of days of debate, at a piece of legislation that will set down the law surrounding the availability, the promotion, and the sale and purchase of alcohol. I do not believe that our social circumstances will remain the same in 5 years’ time as they are now. In other words, we have waited 12 years for this opportunity to come to this House, and it has been a long time coming, and I am disappointed in many of the provisions in the legislation as it appears now. There is much that I will support because it is an improvement on what we have got, but that is not the highest accolade I could wish for in a piece of legislation of this sort. In 5 years’ time, we will be able to assess the extent to which the alcohol industry, the hospitality industry, and everybody associated with them have been able to find ways around the laws that we are about to pass.

Although I am disappointed about some of the provisions that are in the legislation, particularly around advertising and promotion and so on—and there are amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to address some of these, which I do support—the fact remains that in 5 years’ time we will be in a better place to know whether or not the hospitality industry and all of those industrial giants that benefit from as light-handed a regulatory approach to this issue as possible have been able to find ways of subverting it. In other words, are there new products on the market? Clearly, there are new products on the market now targeted at young people that were not present the last time liquor laws were promulgated by this Parliament. There are new approaches to advertising, there are new risks and dangers attaching to new products, and we need to have the chance to revisit the age of sale and purchase on the basis of contemporary evidence. It is for that reason that I would support Hone Harawira’s new Part 2A, which would seek to embed a 5-year review period into this legislation.

One of the things that I think is a real concern is the area of health promotion, and I do agree with my colleague who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, that health promotion has taken a tumble under this Government. Even though a health promotion agency has recently been established, we have yet to see whether or not it is going to be strong enough to stand up to vested interests of industry. That has yet to be seen. In 5 years’ time, if we have evidence that new products are on the market that are not covered by the legislation, if there are new ways of promoting or advertising or enticing young people into consuming alcohol, and consuming it in a way that is not safe, then this Parliament ought to be given the imperative of a 5-year review period to bring back to the floor of this Chamber the whole question of the age of purchase and sale of alcohol so that it can be debated again and the contemporary evidence, including any evidence that health promotion efforts that have been undertaken have been successful, can be assessed.

I am concerned that we often talk—and there has been talk already in the debate this afternoon—that this is a “once in a generation” opportunity to get our alcohol laws right. I remain disappointed with many aspects of this legislation. I think that Hone Harawira’s amendment is a good halfway house—perhaps that is not the most appropriate expression, either, in the context of this debate. However, this does seem to be a good compromise measure that would compel this House to review the age of sale and purchase again, on the basis of contemporary current evidence and on the basis of whether or not we know that any health promotion and health education messages are, in fact, working for our young people. This is an issue of concern. This is an issue that many out in the general public feel this House has got wrong. I think it is incumbent upon this Committee to put in place a point at which there must be a review. Hone Harawira’s amendment seeks to do this, and for that reason I support it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 121 that Hone Harawira has put up to amend the Alcohol Reform Bill. I have been waiting for Mr Harawira to speak in favour of his Supplementary Order Paper. He has certainly had a lot of help from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the Hon Maryan Street, but unfortunately he has, to date, remained silent. The fact is that any member of this House can bring in a member’s bill to change the age for the purchase of alcohol. It does not need a review to do it; it can be done any time. The fact is that this Parliament has recently decided to vote to retain the age of purchase at 18, which I believe was a mistake. I think that as the evidence becomes more obvious to people, particularly, as we know now, around the development of young people’s brains—the frontal lobe—Parliament made a mistake. I do not think we need to have a review committee to tell us that. But the fact is that Parliament has made a decision and I respect it. The amendment proposed by Mr Harawira is something on which I think, if he expects other members to vote for it, he should be able to speak to it himself.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First also supports this particular proposal in Supplementary Order Paper 121 for a review in 5 years. We see the proposal as being a positive one. It is a reasonable one, and it is a forward-looking proposal. It is effectively a sunset clause in respect of the purchase age provisions of the Alcohol Reform Bill. We think it would help to unify the community if it knew that there was going to be a review in 5 years to see how the proposed legislation will get on. I think people would accept the decision that has been made about the purchase age more readily if they knew that a review would be coming up in 5 years. I have to say that in my first speech I did refer to one particular period where the purchase age of 20 years had subsisted for a period of, I think, something like 60 years before more recent amendments had been made. It does show, therefore, how time can go on and on without a review of these sorts of provisions. So I think it is a very healthy proposal and it should be supported.

Most particularly, though, it does not attempt to avoid or defeat the decision that has already been made concerning the purchase age. I think that is very important. All it does is ask for a review. It is not an attempt to undo something that has already been voted upon. The review is an independent consideration of all of the other provisions in the bill and all of the Supplementary Order Papers with other proposals that have been put forward, so it should therefore be welcomed by the proponents of 18 years, the proponents of 20 years, and, indeed, the proponents of a split age. All of them, no matter which way they feel is appropriate, should be willing to reassess what has happened after 5 years, to see whether they would change their minds, based on the results. It applies to on-licence and off-licence premises, so those who proposed the split age would get another chance to have a look to see what had resulted and whether any further change was indicated. I think it is particularly positive that a committee would be established and that a report would be provided. So it is not just a simple sunset clause; it is one that requires much more action than that. What I would expect is that the report would provide objective and scientifically based information that a Parliament in 5 years’ time could look at to see whether any further change was then required.

I disagree thoroughly with the Minister of Justice, who says that anyone can do any of this at any time. What we know actually happens is that these things drift, and they drift and they drift, and no genuine review takes place. Any future proposal would, presumably, not have the benefit of the deliberations and the fact-finding functions of a committee of this kind. I think that is a very positive part of the proposal. We do need a Government to take this seriously in the future. Five years covers two parliamentary terms, so that would mean that it may well not be this Government. It may well be a totally different Government altogether, which may well wish to have the benefit of a committee’s deliberations and a committee’s fact-finding function to put before it some really important facts and assessments, which could then be used to see whether the law requires further review. So I think that the 5-year period is a particularly appropriate period. I think that the review is likely to bring forward some very interesting information. I think that the public does actually want to see the results of those sorts of investigations.

We have had investigations by some parties—the Law Commission and others—but what we have not had is a Parliament-directed review that targets the purchase age provision specifically. That, I think, despite what some people think, really is an important part of the current legislation, and I would certainly like to see that reviewed in the full course of time. As I have said, I think 5 years is an appropriate period. That review will be useful only if the Government puts forward sufficient resources to ensure that the review is meaningful. Those resources would enable the committee to carry out investigations and, as I have said, bring forward objective and scientifically based information, which would require, I think, surveys and the collection of data and so forth, so that Parliament in the future would get a genuine opportunity to look at objective information acquired through parliamentary procedure itself and not be reliant on outside parties. It could then make a full and comprehensive review as to whether or not the current decision for 18 years was appropriate and should be continued.

I think it is possibly one of the best Supplementary Order Papers that we have before us to consider as part of this particular bill. The purchase age should certainly be reviewed. It is not a decision to do one thing or another. It is a decision to make it possible for a future Parliament to make a better decision than has been available to us, because we have not had the sort of information that I would expect to come forward as a result of this review. New Zealand First supports this proposal enthusiastically, and recommends it to the rest of the members of the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): When Parliament debated the purchase age for alcohol, I voted for change. I voted for the split age. When that failed, I then changed my vote to support a purchase age of 18, but I really wanted to see us change to a split age. I thought there was a lot of merit in the split age proposal. However, members may recall that I said during that debate that we were placing far too much emphasis and far too much focus on age as the sole source of redemption for Parliament when it comes to trying to address alcohol harm. The Government has done a very good job of singling out that issue and framing the debate around alcohol reform as a debate about age. I congratulate the Government on the framing, the messaging, and the marketing that it has done around that, because it has been a superb effort on its part to distract the debate and the public from the weakness and the timidity of other parts of this so-called Alcohol Reform Bill.

Although I voted for change when we had the opportunity to vote on the age, I will not be supporting Hone Harawira’s Supplementary Order Paper 121, which seeks a 5-year review of the purchase age of alcohol, because I think we have had that debate and it is done. It may be a good principle to review all legislation every 5 years. That may be a good principle. I know that other members have discussed that as being something that we ought to do. If that is a good principle, then we should apply it to all legislation. It may be that we need to review this legislation specifically after 5 years. Indeed, I think that once we have a stronger and more visionary Government than we have at the moment, alcohol law will be reviewed by a future Government. It may be appropriate to apply that 5-year review to all of the changes that are being made or are being proposed and may fail during this debate.

But to single out this single issue of age I think continues that framing of this debate around alcohol harm as being one about age. I think it would be unfortunate for us to continue along in that vein, because this is not solely about age, which is the whole point of the debate we are having this afternoon. This is not just about age. It is about advertising, it is about drink-driving, it is about the supply of alcohol, it is about parental responsibility, and it is about the price of alcohol—it is about all sorts of factors. Age is not the only one, and it should not be top of the list. It certainly is an issue that we could have addressed, and we could have done something, but we chose not to, and if we chose not to and we are not going to review any other parts of the legislation, then I do not see why we should review this particular part of the legislation.

I was concerned at Denis O’Rourke’s comment that this is one of the best Supplementary Order Papers, one of the best amendments, we will consider today. It is not. It is absolutely not one of the best amendments we will consider today. There are many more meaningful, purposeful, evidence-based amendments that we will consider—[Interruption]—I may have a couple in there, but there are others as well that are not in my name that I will be looking forward to supporting and debating. Age is not the most important issue, but that is the message the public is getting—that age is the most important issue—and we need to move on from that. We need to move on from that, and that is why we cannot support this amendment and we cannot put up with comments like that about this being the most important Supplementary Order Paper. We need to actually focus on the other things that members are proposing in this legislation that will actually do something about our alcohol harm problem that we have in New Zealand.

So although I think we are going to need to review this legislation, and although I think a 5-year statutory review of the Alcohol Reform Bill might be a good way forward, I cannot support singling out the issue of age any further.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Can I say to my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, who has just resumed his seat, that I agree that Supplementary Order Paper 121 is not the only important Supplementary Order Paper to the Alcohol Reform Bill. In fact, there are some very good ones, which I intend to support. But it is a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by Hone Harawira, and deals with, I think, his passionate concern around the age at which alcohol can be bought and consumed. In that spirit, I am going to support this amendment.

I am one of those who have never changed their mind in terms of what the drinking age should be. I was the Minister of Health who voted to retain the drinking age at 20, based on what I believe was good health background and evidence. In every vote since, I have not been persuaded that we ought to change the age.

This particular provision deals with our looking once again at the age and the Ministry of Justice reviewing it in 5 years’ time. I think that is a very good suggestion indeed, because the last review we had of alcohol, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel pointed out, took 12 years. It went to the Law Commission. It was a major piece of work and took a considerable amount of time. The only concern I have is that the Law Commission was not given the opportunity to write this bill, because I am sure that if it had written this bill, we actually might have had a more comprehensive one than this and many more of its recommendations would have been agreed to. But it took 12 years for that review, and I do not believe we should wait another 12 years, or longer, before we look at particular issues. Lianne Dalziel has already signalled that there may be other issues that ought to be up for review in a shorter time frame. What this amendment does is say that we will relook at ages for purchase and sale on licensed premises within 5 years of the commencement of this Act. It is not the big bells and whistles of the Law Commission; it is done by the Ministry of Justice.

Why I support it is because you do need to base your policy on ongoing evidence and research, and things do change. I am very persuaded by Dr Peter Gluckman, the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, who is constantly telling the Government that it ought to provide policy based on research and evidence. I think that in the next 5 years there will be considerable research gathered. For example, the World Health Assembly now issues a global status report on the harm of alcohol, and its first major report came out last year. It arose out of a global strategy from the World Health Organization, because nations wanted to look at strategies and approaches to reduce the harm of alcohol. In fact, my understanding is that New Zealand was one of the hundred nations that supported a global strategy on alcohol, and one of their recommendations was to raise the age for sale of alcohol. So I would like us to be always looking at what the latest evidence is, and what the research shows in terms of changing patterns, the impact on health, and the different issues that arise out of the consumption of alcohol.

I also think the public would like us to relook at the age issue in 5 years’ time. They would support, as we saw in a poll last week, the age being 20 years. I know that many here voted for that. I know that others voted for the split age. I know that others voted for 18. I accept people’s votes; I just wish other people would remember how they voted. But the public—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Brain fade.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Brain fade. Well, what does it come from? This is what we need greater research on. Does brain fade come from too much consumption of alcohol?

The public have made it clear that they would like the age to be 20. I think that with the ministry undertaking this review of it in 5 years’ time, we can base decisions on the latest research and evidence, and not just licking—

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I was one of the members in the House who, throughout, supported retaining the purchase age at 18. I believe that I reached that position on the basis of the evidence that I heard in the Justice and Electoral Committee in the previous Parliament. As I said in my earlier contribution, the experts who came independently to the committee, who were not from the industry, identified a number of factors where if we tightened regulation we could make a difference to our binge drinking culture. It is true that age was one of those, but it was never the most significant or the most important. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel said, the issues of availability, of advertising, and of pricing were seen as much more significant influences.

I just want to make a brief call in this part of the debate to say this: we should base our decisions on the evidence. We should not fear reviews. I think that Supplementary Order Paper 121 is an appropriate Supplementary Order Paper, because we should always be looking at the evidence and whether or not, as the member who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Annette King, said, best practice, international research, and the experts tell us that there are new factors that we should be considering. We should always be keeping an open mind on this issue.

What I just want to say is this: since I first became a member of this House I have served, on and off, on the Justice and Electoral Committee, and that has been a rewarding experience, but we have a tendency in this place to assume that certain matters ought to go to that committee as a matter of course. I, in supporting this Supplementary Order Paper—and I hope it will pass—would make this plea to the House: if it does pass, let us think about some Standing Orders or some sessional orders around how this review should work. Why should it go to the Justice and Electoral Committee? This is a health issue, just as all of our regulation of potentially hazardous substances like alcohol ought to be, just as drug law reform ought to be, just as prostitution law reform ought to be, and just as abortion and the issues surrounding that issue ought to be. These things should not be considered always in a justice framework. That is, with respect, an old-fashioned way of thinking about these issues.

If we are thinking about these matters going forward, we should be considering them in a health paradigm. It is health that matters when it comes to these issues. We should be sending it off to the Health Committee, not to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and not to one of the law reform - related committees just because historically that is where these sorts of things went. The best place for these sorts of things to be considered by our Parliament is the Health Committee. I would just want to end my contribution on this new part with a plea that when we deal with these sorts of issues in future we send them to the right committee.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do intend to seek a call in this debate, but can I first of all seek your guidance about a matter that has been raised in the debate on this Supplementary Order Paper 121 today, which is around the suggestion of a wider review, indeed, of the Alcohol Reform Bill once it is enacted. In the lead-up to this Committee of the whole House debate on the Alcohol Reform Bill, there has been a procedure followed through the Business Committee whereby a deadline was set for the submission of Supplementary Order Papers. It seems to me that in the debate that we have heard over the last half an hour or so, there have actually been some interesting points made about a wider review of the bill as enacted, and I wonder whether it would be in order for the Committee to receive further Supplementary Order Papers on that matter.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The short answer to that is no. If you wanted to broaden the scope, then you would have to do it by way of an instruction when the House was sitting as opposed to being in the Committee, and there has been no instruction. So in answer to your question, the only way that you could broaden the scope of the bill is by way of instruction, when the House is sitting as opposed to in Committee, if you wanted to broaden the scope of the bill, because anything that is within the scope of a bill can be changed only by amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper process. It is not to say that you cannot debate on the points that have been made about broadening the scope later on—that is fine—but at this stage the answer to your question is no, it cannot be included.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding was that the agreement of the Business Committee around amendments to the bill in the Committee stage was that Supplementary Order Papers that sought to extend the scope of the legislation were to be tabled by a particular time, but I did not understand that there was any further extension.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. That is substantive amendments by a certain date.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): First of all, I would like to thank Mr Nathan Guy for supporting this Supplementary Order Paper 121. Thank you, Nathan. It is most appreciated. I have heard many of the arguments both for and against my Supplementary Order Paper for a review of the ages for sale and purchase of alcohol on licensed premises within 5 years of the commencement of the Alcohol Reform Bill. I thank all of the members for their consideration. But I simply ask: what could be wrong with a review? It is not an overturning of the age, for those who support the 18-18 scenario. It is simply a review of the situation. I am not going to relitigate all of the debate that has been had in the past couple of hours—excellent kōrero. Suffice to point out that when I spoke to a number of MPs after the vote was taken on this issue some weeks ago, some of them told me that they actually voted for the 18-18 scenario not out of a deeply held conviction that it was the right thing to do but because they thought that in an environment where 18 to 20-year-olds have so much voting power it might be a bit risky to vote against something that 18 to 20-year-olds patently wanted so much.

Michael Woodhouse: That’s cynical.

HONE HARAWIRA: Cynical? That is also true. One of the MPs—so that you know—was a member of the National Party. I will not tell you who. It was not Minister Collins. But this issue is not one where we should be wavering, nor is it one where we should be necessarily accommodating to people just because of age. I am comfortable with the votes of those who genuinely think the age should be 18-18, but I know that the vote on the night was not what many members wanted, so I simply want to provide the opportunity to revisit this matter at the earliest opportunity.

I took note of one comment, though, from Mr Lees-Galloway, who felt that he could not bring himself to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper, because he thought that any review should cover a wider range of issues. Well, all I can say to that is that if he wanted to put forward some of the other issues, then I would have been happy to support them. But I sincerely hope that he can still see the value in supporting something because it is right, rather than opposing it just because it does not cover all of the things that he necessarily wanted it to say.

But coming back again to my first point, this Supplementary Order Paper is not to change the law. This Supplementary Order Paper is not an attempt to overturn what this House has already determined. This is simply providing an opportunity for all members to reconsider in 5 years’ time the vote that was taken on the issue of age some weeks ago. Ka nui tērā māku. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[That is enough from me. Thank you to us all.]

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to draw your attention to what I think is a gap in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings when it comes to split party votes. I would like to refer you to Speakers’ ruling 66/6 from Speakers O’Rorke and Lang, who were distinguished Speakers of the House, and 66/7 from Mr Ian Revell, who, I think it is fair to say, was a less distinguished Chairperson of the Committee. What they indicate when taken together is that there does not appear to be provision for members who are personally voting as part of a split vote but who hold the proxies for a split vote to call for a party vote on a particular issue. I think it was highlighted in one of the earlier votes when, notwithstanding the fact that I was voting for something and that was a declared vote, I asked for and got from the Chairperson a ruling that there could, in fact, be a party vote. What I am looking for is a ruling from you that where a member is holding the proxies for a split vote, they can in fact call for a party vote, notwithstanding the fact that they do themselves agree with the ruling that you have made as to the result.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am a little perplexed by the member’s point of order, in this regard: you call for a party vote, but then if a member is holding proxies on both sides of the argument, why could they not call for a party vote? The member means party vote, not personal vote?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): No. I will give you a bit more of a hand, if you like. I think if you look carefully at Speaker’s ruling 66/7 and what that indicates—and I will say that it is one of the less distinguished rulings in the Speakers’ rulings—what it indicates is that if a member themselves is voting in a way that agrees with the ruling of the Speaker or the Chairman, they are not allowed to call for a party vote. My view is that in fact in these circumstances, where there is a split vote, it would be helpful if you indicated that in those circumstances, they can. I think you might have just about done it already, but it would be good if you did it in a more formal way.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National): I have two quick points. Firstly, Speaker’s ruling 66/7 relates to personal votes, and as the Speaker has clarified earlier today, there are only two types of votes: one is a personal vote, and one is a party vote. It has been this party’s experience on a number of occasions in the 50th Parliament where I on behalf of other parties vote in a way different from that which I would myself vote, because I hold the proxies. This is quite a simple equation. It is articulated in McGee, pages 206 and 207. Any member is entitled to call for a party vote, and the whips can then vote according to the proxies that they hold. That is called a split vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Look, I think I am on top of it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve read further into it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, I have. When you look at it in some depth, there are two contrary points of view here. I think that is the point that the member is alluding to. I have indicated quite clearly at the end of question time that we want to get the best possible outcomes for this. So in terms of calling for a party vote for the purpose of this piece of legislation, the Alcohol Reform Bill, I am prepared to let any member, whatever proxies they are calling, call for the vote. I think the inconsistencies between these are for another time, and maybe for the Standing Orders Committee. A considered opinion needs to be given, but in terms of getting the right outcomes here, I think I understand the point that the member has made, and I will permit that to happen.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just briefly, by way of summary, I thank you for your conclusion and suggest that both you and the senior Government whip could look to the midpoint of 66/7, which makes it clear that that is not about personal votes, it is about party votes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): And also time-wasting.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not at all—this is not time-wasting. This is making sure that we do not have things ruled out later and cause a lot of wasted time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Sorry to interrupt the member also, but my interpretation of this was that it was to deal with a separate issue, which may well have been time-wasting at the time. That is not in the purview of what we are doing here.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of Hone Harawira to insert new Part 2A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 27 (Ardern J, Chauvel, Clark, Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Curran, Dalziel, Dyson, Faafoi, Goff, Horomia, Huo, Jones, King A, Little, Mahuta, Moroney, Parker, Prasad, Robertson G, Robertson R, Sio, Street, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1.

Noes 70

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 5 (Fenton, Hipkins, Lees-Galloway, Mackey, Shearer); Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Other 1 (Mallard).

New Part 2A not agreed to.

New Parts 2A and 7, new clauses 58A and 220A, and amendment to clause 220

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Members, the next debate is on new Part 2A and new Part 7. We come now to a group of proposals that will be taken as one debate, relating to advertising and sponsorship. These comprise Te Ururoa Flavell’s amendments proposing new Part 2A and new clause 58A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81; Iain Lees-Galloway’s amendments proposing new Part 2A, new clause 220, and new Part 7, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91; and Dr David Clark’s amendment proposing a new clause 220A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): During the select committee process of the Alcohol Reform Bill there was a significant voice from the submitters that Parliament needed to have a look at how we regulate the advertising and sponsorship of alcohol. In fact, 79 percent of those who submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee advocated for a complete ban on sponsorship. There was considerable discussion around the Health Sponsorship Council proposal, which is what was done with tobacco, where tobacco sponsorship was removed and the Government stepped in and, in a sense, I suppose, weaned those organisations that received sponsorship from the tobacco industry off that sponsorship. Today, of course, Smokefree is still around, but it does not do as much as it used to, and those sports and arts and other groups that relied on tobacco sponsorship have moved on from that. That was the thrust of many of the submissions to the select committee.

There is no doubt that, in trying to find an appropriate position on advertising and sponsorship, this is a balancing act. It is true that many organisations rely heavily on sponsorship, and it is also true that much of the advertising of alcohol that does exist is, I suppose, done in a good-natured way. It is certainly not, on the face of it, designed to encourage binge drinking or the irresponsible use of alcohol. So it is a delicate issue for Parliament, there is no doubt. It is also true that this is one of the issues that the alcohol industry least wants Parliament to move on. Although there are plenty of other measures that are, or could be, addressed in this bill that the alcohol industry has stated that it is reasonably relaxed with, this is one that it is not relaxed about at all, and I can understand that such a level of opposition from an industry as large as the alcohol lobby does make Governments nervous. However, that is not a reason for us not to act.

The Alcohol Reform Bill is certainly very light on the issue of advertising; in fact, it really does not tackle it at all. So what we have seen is a range of proposed amendments from members. I would like particularly to address my own, which I believe does strike a reasonable balance between those who are at the front line, who deal with alcohol-related harm and who want to see alcohol-related harm reduced, and their desire to see a reduction, or even an elimination, of alcohol advertising and those who rely on alcohol sponsorship and those who support the continuation of the advertising of alcohol. All the measures in my Supplementary Order Paper 91 are lifted directly from the Law Commission report, so these have not been dreamt up. These have come from a very strong evidence base. These have come from the months of consultation and the screeds of evidence that has been gathered around alcohol-related harm, and they come from a position where these are the points that have been pulled out as the things that need to be done to actually address advertising’s role in the harm related to alcohol. So what my Supplementary Order Paper would do is, initially, a few things that are targeted and that are easy to achieve in the short term. It would then set up the mechanism by which the Government and Parliament can take a longer-term approach to what is the appropriate way to tackle alcohol advertising and sponsorship, and to see whether we might eventually reach the point where we have the Health Sponsorship Council model, or whether we might reach some other point. But it would be done in a logical and considered manner over a number of years, because what we are trying to achieve here is something that is lasting, something that will last the change of Governments, and something that will not need to be revisited again in the future. My concern is that if we move too far too quickly, then there will be a temptation to reverse that quickly or, indeed, measures that go too far too quickly will not succeed in this House at this time, but also if we do absolutely nothing, then we are not taking the opportunities that we have to address issues related to alcohol advertising.

So what I propose is a number of small measures, mostly directed at children. One measure is to have a zone round schools in which alcohol advertising cannot exist. I think particularly of some of the areas that I visited in Auckland where very, very close to schools we see huge alcohol advertising—particularly advertising of extremely cheap alcohol—all in full view of children, day after day after day, as they are travelling to and from school. What that does is it normalises the idea that alcohol is an important and everyday part of life. In fact, the advertising of alcohol at very cheap prices reinforces the idea that you should get as much of it as possible and that when it is cheap you should buy as much alcohol as you possibly can. That is an environment in which I do not think we need our children to be growing up in. It is an environment that encourages an unhealthy attitude to, and relationship with, alcohol, and it can easily be nipped in the bud with that simple measure.

The second measure is simply to shift the television advertising watershed to 9 p.m. It is not a big shift but a recognition that many young children are awake to a much later hour and are watching television to a much later hour. The measure will remove—as is already the intention from having a watershed in the first place—that advertising from television at a time when young children are likely to be able to see it.

The third measure is to remove alcohol advertising at cinemas where the film being shown is not an R18 film. Again, there is no need for young people to be bombarded with alcohol advertising. There is no need for parents to have to put up with taking their kids to a film—you know, a genuine kids’ film like Finding Nemo, or any of the number of kids’ films that are on during the holidays—and to have themselves and their children bombarded with advertising for alcohol or alcohol outlets at those films.

The fourth measure is to ensure that price and the discounting of alcohol cannot be included in any advertisements. I know from the commentary from people who take an interest in the Alcohol Reform Bill that it is the one aspect of this Supplementary Order Paper that people are particularly interested in, because they know that the advertising of discounted alcohol and cheap alcohol encourages the purchasing of large volumes of alcohol, and that is something that we want to discourage as well. This is all about trying to create the right environment and send the right signals to people in terms of how they develop their alcohol purchasing attitudes and what their relationship is with alcohol.

Finally, what my Supplementary Order Paper would do is to set up an alcohol advertising reform committee, as envisaged by the Law Commission, which would operate over a period of 5 years to look at the bigger picture—whether or not we want to continue with alcohol advertising in New Zealand, whether or not we want to continue with the sponsorship of things like sports groups or teams like the All Blacks. Do we want that close relationship between alcohol and our greatest sporting heroes to be something that children grow up with in New Zealand? What we create through alcohol advertising and sponsorship is a belief that alcohol is closely related to success and social normality. That is something that we want to uncouple. We want children to grow up in New Zealand believing that it is possible to be successful socially, it is possible to engage in sport, and it is possible to go to school without alcohol being all-pervasive around them. That is what my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to achieve. I know that there are other members who want to move faster, who want to see this happen now, but I believe my Supplementary Order Paper strikes the right balance.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Indeed, picking up from my good friend Iain Lees-Galloway, we do wish to move faster, so the Green Party will be voting in favour, in fact, of Mr Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper 91 but also those from David Clark and Te Ururoa Flavell, because we believe that each and every one of those is better than what stands in the Alcohol Reform Bill currently. Probably our preference of the three would be Mr Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81, because it is the one that is closest, in fact, to the recommendation of the Law Commission.

Right now I have living nearby my place on the West Coast a young French guy in his 20s. He comes to our place to watch the rugby, and one of the things that has astonished him about New Zealand is that when he looks at the rugby on our screens he sees alcohol sponsorship of our teams and he sees alcohol advertising on TV. In fact, in France, the country he is from, in 1991 all television advertising of alcohol was prohibited and all alcohol sponsorship of sporting and cultural events was prohibited. That is one of the reasons why he has been absolutely astonished by what he has seen.

You know, at that same time, 1991, New Zealand actually embarked on a similar kind of measure. It was in 1990 that New Zealand took a step in relation to tobacco advertising and sponsorship, using exactly the same rationale that had been used in France in respect of alcohol, to prohibit advertising and sponsorship by the tobacco industry. We did so for various reasons. We wanted to reduce consumption of tobacco products and all of the harm associated with those. We wanted to reduce the normalisation of tobacco consumption. And, indeed, these have been the effects of that extremely successful policy that we implemented at that time: we have reduced the harm, we have reduced the normalisation, and that has in turn created the environment for us to continue to go further in our ongoing campaign to minimise the harm associated with tobacco consumption. Tobacco companies have been prevented from making the implied claims about positive attributes of their products and of those who consume them. I am sure that all members are familiar with the old-style tobacco advertising, which basically associates consumption of tobacco products with being a happy, relaxed, successful, and sexy member of society. These are precisely the claims that are made by the alcohol industry about its products and about the consumers of its products.

Interestingly, in 1990 we instituted this restriction on advertising and sponsorship for tobacco, but in 1992 we effectively removed all of the controls on advertising and sponsorship of alcohol. This weird dichotomy in the way that New Zealand Parliaments have approached these two products that are both legally consumed, yet each associated with an extraordinary degree of harm, continues to perplex everyday New Zealanders but also members of this House looking for consistency in the approach that we take to such products. Right now every 9 minutes on prime-time television viewers are exposed to alcohol advertising—every 9 minutes. Ninety percent of children and young people aged between 5 and 17 are exposed to television advertising on at least a weekly basis—90 percent. That is the ubiquity of the advertising and sponsorship from the alcohol industry.

I mentioned in an earlier contribution in this Committee stage a health promotion theory that says that if we want to actually improve people’s health then the things that we need to do are to empower communities to take control of their life circumstances, but also to create supportive environments around those communities. With the advertising and sponsorship from the alcohol industry that is currently permitted, that environment is one in which our communities are pretty much surrounded by, and bathed in, the blue light from the television tube advertising these products. That is the environment that we create. We create an environment that we know, in fact, will lead to harm, and will normalise the excessive consumption of alcohol products.

It is that normalisation of alcohol consumption that we need to tackle, and any of these Supplementary Order Papers would do that better than the current bill. But it is also important to point out that increased consumption is associated with this advertising and sponsorship. The industry would not do it if it did not lead to more people consuming more alcohol. The industry spends literally hundreds of millions of dollars each year on advertising and sponsorship, which means that the net profit associated with that spend is even greater, which means that the sales of the products are even greater still.

The Law Commission said that it should all go, and that is what we support. Eighty-six percent of the submissions to the commission supported that goal of a total prohibition, and in the 2010 Health Sponsorship Council survey of public opinion 77 percent of respondents were either in favour of a total ban or were agnostic towards it—neutral about it. That is a pretty outstanding majority for that total prohibition. So the reasons for not doing it simply do not apply. I recognise the transition point that Iain Lees-Galloway makes, but I say let us do the same thing that we did around tobacco. Let us create a fund to fund that transition for those community organisations that rely on that sponsorship. Let us do what the Law Commission said, and instead of the first stage of the commission’s three-stage programme, let us implement all three of those stages. That is, I think, probably all I have time for in this call, but if the opportunity arises I will take a further call to make some further points.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to speak to this part, new Part 2A and new Part 7, in particular because I have Supplementary Order Paper 115 in my name to the Alcohol Reform Bill around the issue of advertising. The issue of advertising is one of the top things that can make a difference in this area, as I said in one of my previous contributions in this debate. Price and marketing are the two big levers that can be pulled in the alcohol sphere to effect behavioural change. That is the finding of the Law Commission’s report, to which 3,000 New Zealanders submitted, and those New Zealanders who submitted their concerns will be very disappointed to learn that the National Government is not allowing its own members to exercise their consciences on this issue. It is a terrible disappointment, I think, and a sadness in this Parliament that MPs are not treating this issue as a conscience issue in the traditional fashion, because here we do have the opportunity—an opportunity that does not present itself very often—to make a real change in the culture we have in New Zealand.

Before I go directly on to advertising, I just want to make a brief comparison with the culture in Germany, where I had the good fortune to live as an exchange student many years ago and latterly during some post-graduate study. In Germany the drinking age is a split age, but of a different kind from that which we debated in this Parliament. Beer and wine is able to be purchased at age 16 and spirits at age 18. What happens in practice is that in Germany the young people get access to those drinks roughly 2 years before the official age that is designated by their Parliament. They have a much more permissive culture around alcohol and, indeed, I would argue, a healthier culture around alcohol, because it is something that is consumed with family under supervision and in a way that indicates that those who do experiment with it are younger and, therefore, curiously, more immature, whereas in New Zealand our age of entitlement is often tied up with adulthood in respect of alcohol. That produces a slightly different cultural norm and expectation. People experiment with alcohol when they reach adulthood, and, therefore, it is an adult drink as opposed to Germany where, in my observation, it is considered a drink that is more associated with—

Jonathan Young: A juvenile drink.

Dr DAVID CLARK: —juvenile behaviour. The member opposite makes the point; he is right. So there are different cultures, and we have the opportunity to change our culture for the better.

The debate has focused largely on age up until now, which in my view is a shame, because that is not where the real opportunities lie. I was told by one researcher that the age debate in alcohol was like emptying a bucket with a teaspoon: it does make a difference, but it takes a very long time, and the impact is less noticeable than pulling on levers like advertising and price. So my Supplementary Order Paper, which is in respect of advertising, aims to reduce the amount of advertising available on New Zealand television to promote liquor products, and that is intended to stop the growth of the alcohol market in New Zealand. I am sure that those who already drink will notice limited change in their own behaviour, but those who are new to alcohol will not find the array of colourful advertising that they might otherwise find on television and on radio.

For the benefit of those at home who do not have access to these Supplementary Order Papers and might be watching this, I will read the first subclause of new clause 220A, which states: “(1) No person or entity may broadcast, or arrange for any other person or entity to broadcast, any alcohol product advertisement on television or radio in New Zealand.” The Supplementary Order Paper is modelled on what was done in the tobacco field, where this has become law in a similar way and there are unintended consequences ruled out. Likewise, in the Supplementary Order Paper, in the way in which it is modelled, it makes sure that overseas broadcasts, for example, that are taken through a pay network that has advertising as part of the package are allowed to proceed where it is difficult to weed out that advertising. So it is not intended to make an overly burdensome compliance on local content; it is intended to make sure that no additional advertising is being created.

Likewise, the unintended consequence is alluded to in the final subclause on the Supplementary Order Paper, which states: “(3) Nothing in this subsection (1) applies to—(a) the exhibition, in any museum or art gallery, of any work or artefact:” where an aspect of alcohol advertising is permitted. So the Supplementary Order Paper is designed to make sure that we do not have any silly situations where the law might be called into question or ridicule. It is designed to make sure that we are not creating advertising that is glorifying alcohol in the New Zealand context and making it out to be a particularly healthy lifestyle choice. The majority of New Zealanders, we know, will drink alcohol in a fair way for most of their lives, but what we also know is that the evidence suggests that there are ways in which we can curb alcohol-related harm. There is a lot of science around these things, and the experts in the field are very clear about what we can change and what we should change. The Government’s legislation, as it has proposed it, does not really pull the levers that it can pull in respect of price and marketing. So my Supplementary Order Paper aims to get at the marketing issue. I will also be supporting other amendments in a similar vein being put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell and Iain Lees-Galloway, because they get to the heart of a similar issue and are designed to restrict advertising that will lead to harmful consequences for our people.

As I conclude, I want to say that it is indeed a disappointment that this legislation is not tackling these issues directly, head-on. It is left to Supplementary Order Papers to be debated. It is a shame that the National Party members, we are told, are going to be whipped into exercising their consciences in a particular way, which makes it hard to imagine how those are, indeed, working consciences. This whipping of the vote means that these issues, which are important to New Zealand society, are not getting the opportunity to be properly debated. We are debating them as energetically as we can on this side of the Chamber, but there is not much debate coming from the other side, where those members are succumbing to the pressure put on them to toe the line, to not rock the boat, and to make sure that they do not upset the apple cart or have an opinion of their own.

I really think that that is a terrible shame, because these are issues—Mr Woodhouse is calling out. I know that he will know that in Dunedin this is a very real issue, which the senior members of our community are concerned about, which the council is concerned about—he is nodding; he knows this to be true—and which the university is concerned about. I know he too is concerned about this issue. I think it is a real shame that he is not free to exercise his own vote and his own conscience on this issue, because it is an issue that affects our community. We know from the evidence that there are harms to our community when we do not have effective legislation and that we do have a problem in New Zealand that needs to be addressed.

I want to conclude with that remark. It is a shame that the Government is passing up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make good on the recommendations the Law Commission put forward from the 300 submissions it received, many from experts in the field. I suggest that the Government is tinkering with the law, rather than making the substantive changes that are really needed. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātou katoa. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this particular part, new Part 2A, which is set out on my Supplementary Order Paper 81. Very briefly, I will just cut to the explanatory note. For those who are listening, I point out that my Supplementary Order Paper amends this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, by adding new Part 2A, which bans alcohol advertising and sponsorship with the exemption of on-licence establishments such as bars and restaurants. The ban is intended to come into force in 2 years, and to achieve denormalisation of the drinking culture by removing the glamour promoted by advertising and the sponsorship of events.

When I was a young fella—and I talked earlier today about Wilson Whineray and rugby. Not that I indulged too much after a game, but back in the day there were only about five labels of beer and alcohol that I can recall—maybe seven—and generally people stuck to those. Now you can go to bottle stores and you have got everything ranging from Blonde to Pure. I do not know what the opposite beer might look like—Unpure? But you have all those labels. You have Waikato Draught beer—Waikato, the champion team in a number of codes. You have got to think back and say: “Well, Waikato beer—what’s the link? Is it just because it originated in Waikato, or is there something playing on the name and the identity?”. Certainly somebody had a real good idea way back in the day to take Waikato as a label of beer. But now you have got all sorts, from our own home-made brew in Aotearoa through to those that have been imported from overseas.

One of the things that really whacked me around about 3 years ago—not beer; it was not beer—and really got to me was when I went to the Māori Affairs Committee when it questioned a gentleman from overseas. There was a movie made about him; I think it was called The Informer or something like that. It had Russell Crowe in it, from memory. Anyway, the Māori Affairs Committee brought this person across—

Hon Simon Bridges: The Real Deal.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: It might have been that one. The select committee brought this gentleman across and what he did was he told the select committee that just in cigarette smoking people market right down to the race, the age, and the gender of people. He talked about marketing to Hispanic women, he talked about marketing to black men, and to young black men—all that was down to the marketing.

It really made me understand the power of advertising and the power of image, and of brand, and how it is used to manipulate in some senses the minds of people. It must be right because obviously there is a big market there called cigarettes and alcohol. That is basically why the Hon Tariana Turia has moved towards plain packaging, which is, I suppose, an endorsement of the idea of advertising, of marketing, as a powerful instrument in terms of drawing people towards a particular product. That is why we have put this Supplementary Order Paper up—to draw attention to it, but also to make it a lot more difficult for those companies to draw people towards the product.

Mr Kevin Hague earlier talked about some statistics that I suppose put it all in context. I heard him talk about the fact that every 9 minutes during prime-time television there is a scene depicting something to do with alcohol. I heard him talk about the fact that 90 percent of New Zealand children aged between 5 and 17 are exposed to alcohol advertising on TV each week. That is a pretty big group of people. And I suppose the evidence that we certainly got from people like the New Zealand Drug Foundation and so on shows that alcohol advertising, one, encourages people to start to drink at a younger age; two, encourages people who already drink to drink more; and, three, makes it harder for problem drinkers to abstain.

Against all that background, the general view that they provided as information to us as the Māori Party was that the regulation of alcohol advertising, marketing, and promotion is considered the second most effective way to reduce problem drinking and alcohol-related harm. If that is the case, that is the motivation behind this particular amendment—this particular Supplementary Order Paper.

Some might suggest alcohol marketing has no effect on who drinks and how many people are drinking. Some might suggest that it just helps people who do drink to know what is available and to encourage them to pick one product over another. That is one argument, but the rebuttal of that would be that if advertising and marketing had no impact on people’s drinking, then the alcohol industry would not be wasting about $400,000 a day or $150 million a year on it. There is the background on that and the rebuttal to that discussion.

The evidence clearly shows that exposure to alcohol advertising, particularly at a younger age, makes people more likely to start drinking earlier and become heavy drinkers, and marketing methods—as you know, no doubt, as you watch TV—have become more sophisticated and subtle than the ads that we see on TV or in magazines. Through sponsorship of youth events like music festivals, the utilisation of social media, and the creation of products such as ready-to-drinks, alcohol companies are clearly and deliberately targeting young people.

For those who suggest that we already have a code of liquor advertising and the Advertising Standards Authority to ensure that alcohol advertising conforms to standards, the downside is that it is really voluntary self-regulation. It is not a model that is working well in any country that we understand. In fact, in New Zealand the people responsible for upholding the standards are the Advertising Standards Authority—a private sector body representing the advertising and media industries. Against that background you would have to say they are not exactly independent.

Just to conclude, the Advertising Standards Authority relies on public complaint. So if there is no complaint, then, technically, no standard has been breached. But it is simply not working. Promotion of excessive alcohol consumption continues despite its being illegal since 1999. I appreciate the comments of many other speakers this evening in support of my Supplementary Order Paper. The Māori Party will obviously be supporting my Supplementary Order Paper, as well as Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s, and also—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: David Clark.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: David, that is right—sorry, e hoa. I am happy to support those Supplementary Order Papers as well. We hope that one of them gets through, at least, but we do not want to hold our breath too much against the current climate of how this thing is going. But we do hope that the combined views of members in Parliament—the Labour Party and, certainly, I think, the Greens, who are supporting this as well—indicate that advertising and marketing play an integral role in maintaining the whole drinking culture in Aotearoa. We are looking to change that and we would hope that the Minister of Justice looks favourably upon these Supplementary Order Papers, which are presented to the Committee in the spirit of cooperation and of trying to make a real difference to lives of New Zealanders. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I rise just to address the Supplementary Order Papers that have been brought forward by members so far. I think it is important at the outset to speak to a number of ancillary points that have been raised in the course of this debate. The first one, which was raised by the member David Clark, talked about conscience votes. What Mr Clark did not have the opportunity to draw on was the discussions that occurred within the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last term of Government. It is important to note that in the whole course of those discussions, it was accepted by people from across the parties represented there that there would probably be party votes on everything except age. That was very clearly where the select committee members went to, with the knowledge of their wider parties. There was no suggestion that there were going to be conscience votes on anything other than the age question, and that was the recommendation of the Law Commission’s report. This is the same Law Commission report that every spokesman from the Opposition draws out and holds up as the absolute gospel in respect of alcohol debate in this country, and yet they have moved away from a sentinel part of that report: that parties nail their colours to the mast and vote as parties in respect of these matters.

Another point that the Hon Lianne Dalziel raises consistently is what happened to her bill, the bill she introduced when she was part of the last Labour Government prior to the 2008 election. It is important to note this point. Her bill was introduced to the House on 8 August 2008. The House rose on 23 September 2008 for an election. There were only 11 sitting days between 8 August and 23 September. What happened after that was the bill went on to the select committee, and what happened after that was that the incoming National Government, under the then Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, replaced the bill that we hear about from the Hon Lianne Dalziel with his own bill. That is not unusual. In fact, it certainly happened under the Labour Government, which replaced bills that the then National Government introduced prior to the 1999 election and rewrote them itself. I cite the victims legislation that the Hon Phil Goff, as was his right, replaced the Hon Tony Ryall’s bill with in respect of victims of crime. I lay out for those people who are interested—those people at home who are interested, and those members who are newer to the House—that this is the way it is done, and it is done by Governments of both colour, like it or not.

Another point that is interesting that was made by David Clark was around culture. Whether we want to accept it or not, we have got a horrible culture of binge drinking in this country. It sticks to us like it does to the Aussies, like it does to the North Americans, and like it does to the Poms. But to try to overlay, then, another European culture’s approach to alcohol, such as the Germans’, for instance, and expect that that would be picked up would be exactly the same mistake that this Parliament made in the 1990s, when it decided that we were all going to start drinking like the French, like a friend of Mr Hague over there mentioned. I have some personal experience of this, too. I have shared our house for the last year with my daughter-in-law, who is a Slovakian, who, for some reason, when she is making a coffee in the morning would put a slug of alcohol in it, much to my astonishment. That was the way they did it. At the same time, at 10 o’clock in the morning, she might ask whether anyone else wants a beer. Well, it was not even lunchtime. It was abhorrent to be drinking beer before lunchtime if you have just cut up a cord of wood, as I am sure Mr Chair would attest to. In any event, that is part of the culture. Having said that, I would offer her a glass of wine at night and she would sit on it for 3 hours. It happens to be the culture of the way some countries drink. So to try to overlay those cultures into our culture is something that is totally different, and we cannot do that in this country.

We must remember in considering these Supplementary Order Papers that the biggest encourager in respect of drinking alcohol is personal role modelling that we do within our own homes and within our own environments, and we should not try to walk away from that responsibility.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 91, introduced by Mr Lees-Galloway, which talks about banning billboards and poster advertisements within 300 metres of certain locations, creating a new watershed time for alcohol advertising, banning alcohol advertising in cinemas, etc., it is important to note that the Government has already agreed to establish an expert forum to consider further restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship. Whereas we know that during the course of the select committee debates on both bills that were considered in the last term of Government there was a significant push against alcohol advertising and alcohol sponsorship, it is also important to recognise that the evidence we were confronted with was also countered by others as well. I believe that it is an important thing for us to establish our own forum, to report back initially within 12 months, to have a look at how alcohol advertising influences the way people drink and their purchase behaviours in this country, rather than overseas. What we know, for instance, within this country in respect of the rapid take-up of technology is that although there may still be advertising on our television screens at regular and frequent intervals after certain times, people are watching less and less advertising, as we have the ability to screen past it.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 115, from Dr David Clark, the Government will not support this Supplementary Order Paper, because, as mentioned, the Government is setting up its own expert forum on alcohol advertising and sponsorship, and it will consider whether further restrictions are needed to reduce alcohol-related harm. The forum will be established after the bill is passed, and it will report back to the Minister of Health within a year.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 81, from Te Ururoa Flavell, the Government does not recommend supporting this proposal, because there is little research about the effectiveness of these restrictions at reducing alcohol-related harm. Most of us would—

Te Ururoa Flavell: Oh, come on!

Hon Nathan Guy: Ka pai, bro.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: —give him a smack—agree that the advertising we see in respect of alcohol is ludicrous. We wonder how it can possibly be affected. But the point that he made quite well in his speech was that the alcohol companies would not be spending $150 million a year if it was not making some difference. However, they tend to do that as they continually make the point that they are trying to establish a brand, as opposed to starting people drinking. Well, none of us are too sucked in by that. However, I return to the fact that this Government wants to be able to have a look at its own research and create its own response to that.

The member’s Supplementary Order Paper would also have a significant consequence for many clubs and organisations, which would lose income. The responsibility for making transitional funding—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: We’ve heard all this before. Benson and Hedges, Rothmans—they all ran this argument, every single one of them.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: —will be very expensive to a Government at a time when there is not a lot of money about. I do not know whether the member interjecting would even concede that, bearing in mind that a lot of that money is going to parts of her electorate.

These restrictions would be premature ahead of recommendations from the expert forum, and that will be established after the passing of this bill.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to respond to a number of the issues that the Associate Minister of Justice, Chester Borrows, has raised. First of all, I want to remind him that the legislation that was introduced by the Labour Government in 2008, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, was a baseline bill. It was the bill that contained the baseline for the changes that we were going to implement, to be supplemented with a substantial root and branch exercise—actually to be done by the Law Commission at the same time. In fact, I announced the Law Commission review—the referral to the Law Commission that my colleague Annette King was responsible for as the Minister of Justice—on the same day that I lodged that bill. That bill and the Law Commission report were hand in hand, and designed for the urgent stuff to be got on with. One of the urgent things that was to be got on with was the introduction of local alcohol plans to give local communities an opportunity to have a say about what was happening in their own neighbourhoods. That was a direct response to the demands from communities throughout New Zealand who were sick and tired of so many licences being issued, regardless of the situation that they were in.

I think it is a bit unfair to describe this bill as something that had just been replaced by the Government, as something that Governments always do. This bill was designed to be introduced as baseline legislation. In fact, the National Government had the first reading after its 100 days of action, where it referred it to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It did not tell all of the people who submitted on that bill that their submission was going to be a complete and utter waste of time because it was going to discharge the bill once it was reported back to the House. I actually do not believe that the Government intended to do that, until after it got the Law Commission report. There were two things that Minister Borrows did not point out. One was that we required the Law Commission to write a bill. We always said to the Law Commission that not only did we want it to come back with the evidence that we need to make real law in this area and respond to the real issues but also we wanted it to come back with a bill. We would introduce that bill to Parliament, we would let the evidence speak for itself, and then we would have submissions on the bill that the Law Commission wrote. We had committed to that. And what did National do when it become Government? It thought it would just truncate the time that the select committee had for reporting back, which meant that the Law Commission would not have time to write that bill.

When the Government actually saw what the Law Commission had recommended in its substantial report Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm, I believe that the problem that arose at that point for the Government was that it did not want a bar of many of the recommendations to be going before the House. So what it did was it made sure that a number of the amendments would be outside the scope of the bill, and it also made sure that the bill that we had introduced would have no further truck at all. So it discharged the bill in December 2010, just after referring this bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, to the select committee on 11 November 2010. In November the Government introduced its own bill to replace a bill that was coming back from the select committee after it had heard all of the submissions, after it had put all of that effort into it. No, it was not going to be; the Government had simply decided that the bill was going to be discharged. So I think that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is something that ought to be spoken of in this regard, and I believe that there has been, really, an unfair representation of how we have got to the situation that we are in today.

To criticise my colleague for his views on the conscience issue, when we honestly believed that the Government was committed to introducing a second bill—not to replace the bill that all of the submissions had been heard on—that did not contain the major recommendations of the Law Commission, well, I think that that is not an accurate reflection of the position that we have ever had on it. I was the first person who raised the question of the conscience vote disappearing, and I believe that we should ultimately have the position where we are able to take principled positions on legislation based on the evidence—I really like evidence-based policies in these areas—but sometimes these are really hard issues and the reason that I raised the conscience vote in 2008 was because it was an election year. People do not have the courage to face up to some of these really hard issues in an election year, and I am not going to comment on the “why for”, it is simply a matter of fact that we cannot get real change in these fundamental areas in an election year for that reason.

I want to talk about the advertising sponsorship and promotion of alcohol in the context of chapter 19 of the substantial report of the Law Commission. I want to remind the Committee that the Law Commission, when it had put out its original issues paper, had taken the view that the existing system of self regulation was generally sufficient, and it said that it proposed leaving the bulk of alcohol advertising regulation to the Advertising Standards Authority. I remember when that change was made, and I remember who was in Government when that change was made, because I was here and I saw the unfortunate correlation of two portfolios in one person. The Minister of Broadcasting was the Associate Minister of Health, and that was the Hon Maurice Williamson, who, unfortunately I think, was enamoured of some of the advertising that he had seen in Australia, which apparently was very funny advertising, very humorous. He felt that it was not fair that in New Zealand those who were promoting those products were not able to advertise these products in such a cheerful and positive way. So the law was changed to remove it from the broadcasting standards area into the Advertising Standards Authority—an industry-based body with the responsibility for regulating brand advertising.

The Law Commission listened to the submissions. I think members in this Committee should realise just what they are doing in voting against these Supplementary Order Papers. Almost every submitter had something to say about advertising and sponsorship. Out of 2,939 submissions, 2,281 commented on the policy options about advertising and marketing. Of the 2,281 submissions, 86 percent supported banning or restricting all advertising of all alcohol in all media. That is how the people feel about it. That is how people want us to respond as a Parliament. The reason that it is hard for us to respond to this issue is because of who pays for the advertising, who benefits from the payment of the advertising, and what other elements that might affect the work that we do in this Parliament have to do with that, i.e. the media have a lot of influence in terms of public opinion over politicians and politics generally, and, obviously, they stand to benefit from the advertising dollar. There is a multiple layer of effect that actually prevents this Committee doing the courageous thing that in this case is the right thing, which is to find a way of reducing the amount of alcohol advertising in our country. The Law Commission said to do it over a period of time and that will be OK, and these Supplementary Order Papers that are before the Committee also say to do it over a period of time.

I have made submissions to the Advertising Standards Authority on the alcohol code of practice over the years since I have been in politics—obviously not when I was a Minister, as I did not have a relevant portfolio, but when I was an MP in the early 1990s, I submitted twice to that body. On both occasions I supported a complete prohibition on the television broadcast advertising of alcohol. Often the point was made “But that’s freedom of speech. It comes under the Bill of Rights Act. We have got the freedom to speak on these matters.”, and my argument was that sometimes it is better not to have things promoted in a way that undermines a health promotion message.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I am sure my colleague who has just resumed her seat, Lianne Dalziel, will continue this debate, because she has probably more knowledge on this issue than any other member in this House and feels very passionately about it. I would like to continue from where Lianne Dalziel left off, and that is in terms of having a principled position on alcohol in New Zealand. I am absolutely amazed that the members opposite are not participating in this debate. This is the first big opportunity we have had in over 12 years to debate an issue of major importance to New Zealand, but they sit with their heads down and are not prepared to get up, even if it is to disagree, and at least participate in a major issue of importance to New Zealanders. New Zealanders have made it clear that they do believe it is an issue. As a former Minister of Police I have never forgotten the police coming to me and saying that in just over 70 percent of crimes there is an alcohol component. We have members opposite who stand up and talk about law and order, but are not prepared to address one of the key issues related to crime, and that is the control of the sale and purchase of alcohol.

I notice that the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, said that the Government wants to look at its own research. Well, I say, Minister, that I am in favour of looking at your own research, but look at the research that was provided to the Government by the most comprehensive work that has been done in many years—the Law Commission report of 2010. It is an absolutely amazing piece of work, where the commission went out and spoke to the people in a way that a select committee cannot do in the brief time that it has to hear submissions. You heard from Lianne Dalziel that the people said overwhelmingly that they wanted a ban or restriction on alcohol advertising. Does that count for anything? Do the over 2,281 submissions, 86 percent of which supported a ban on advertising and restrictions on advertising, count for anything to the members opposite? Do the members opposite think it is even worthwhile making a submission on an important piece of work like the Law Commission’s, or even to a select committee for that matter, if it does not count for anything? So I say to the Minister, yes, look at the research. Plenty of it was offered in the Law Commission’s report, but it seems to me that in this area it has been ignored, and continues to be ignored.

I am going to support the amendment from my colleague Dr David Clark, Supplementary Order Paper 115. This is not some piece of amendment that he has got from a German model. This is based on the restriction and banning of the advertising of tobacco. We know that since 1990, when the Smoke-free Environments Act was brought in, with a ban on advertising, in combination with a number of other public health programmes and education, we have seen a drop in tobacco consumption. We have seen the number of people smoking reduce considerably, and we have had members opposite proudly saying “Look how the smoking rates have dropped in New Zealand.” That came from a menu of things, including a ban on advertising. So why can members support it for tobacco, which is another dangerous product if it is not handled properly—in fact, probably with tobacco, none of it can be handled properly—and why can they see that it is OK for tobacco, but they cannot see it for alcohol? It just does not make sense to me.

And we know the power of advertising. Why else do they advertise? I find it fascinating that we have got the British American Tobacco company advertising on television at the moment, in a very discreet way, against plain packaging of tobacco, and this week they started on alcohol. They are using an advert that I think is just a scare tactic to say to the public “They’re coming for alcohol next. Look out. You don’t know what’s going to happen to your alcohol.” You see, they know that the public are influenced by advertising, and particularly young people. We ought to have the courage to make some decisions for the benefit of New Zealanders and young New Zealanders. So will members opposite get on their feet and debate this issue, or are they just going to sit as if they have been muzzled, as if they do not care about what is a massive debate that we ought to be having?

I do not believe in a conscience vote on alcohol. I think we are gutless in this Parliament, because this is not a conscience issue. This is a public health issue. This is an issue that affects New Zealanders. This is an issue that affects the health of our young people. This is an issue that costs this country millions of dollars a year, not because everybody abuses alcohol, but because there are enough people who are affected by alcohol even when they are not abusing it, because alcohol is a substance that affects the body. This is a public health issue. When are we going to have the courage and the guts in this place to say that this an issue we treat as a Parliament?

What we have got now is a dog’s breakfast. This bill, the Alcohol Reform Bill, is a dog’s breakfast. At least if we had picked up the Law Commission and allowed it to write the legislation, we could have gone out and debated it and made the change as a sensible Parliament. But what we have got now is a whole lot of amendments as people try to fix up a bill that does not do what it ought to do. I am really disappointed that we as a Parliament have not taken this opportunity. We will not get the opportunity to follow a big report like the Law Commission’s one for many, many years to come. We are squandering that opportunity because we do not have the courage in this Parliament to make the decisions that we ought to. I just think, if members have got a conscience at all on this issue, at least vote for some changes that are going to strengthen the bill that is there and maybe make a difference for young New Zealanders in particular. But I fear that that will not happen.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): First of all, I would like to acknowledge the three members who proposed these particular Supplementary Order Papers. I think they are all worth considering, and I thank them for the efforts they have put into it. I would also like to acknowledge the Government for its willingness to further examine with an expert panel the law regarding the advertising of alcohol. However, New Zealand First does want to see some advertising restriction, but we think it must be reasonable, it must be practical, and it must be effective. So for those reasons, we would oppose Supplementary Order Paper 81, regarding advertising and sponsorship, and also Supplementary Order Paper 115, relating to TV advertising, both of which we see as being too extreme. We would support, however, Iain Lees-Galloway’s “small measures” proposals in Supplementary Order Paper 91.

Dealing first with Supplementary Order Paper 81, general advertising prohibitions are not appropriate, and that is what it is, with four relatively minor exemptions: one relating to price lists, another relating to adverts in media from overseas, a third one to advertisements in magazines for employees of manufacturers only, and another exemption relating to material in museums and art galleries and videos, that sort of thing. So apart from that, it is a pretty extreme measure in prohibiting advertising at all for alcohol, and that is not appropriate. The amendment to prohibit advertising of alcohol in that way is misdirected because it misses the point. It is not about no use of alcohol, and it is probably not even about an overall reduction in alcohol; it is specifically about the misuse of alcohol.

I would have to disagree with those speakers who try to use smoking and tobacco as a comparison, because alcohol is not inherently dangerous. It is potentially dangerous if misused, whereas tobacco is inherently dangerous no matter how little smoking one does. So I do not see that there is a good comparison between those.

There is no clear connection between appropriate advertising and the abuse of alcohol. One other speaker adverted to the fact that there is, in fact, very little evidence to connect the two and we would need to do a great deal more research to know whether more advertising would cause more harm or, indeed, whether a general prohibition on the advertising of alcohol would actually have much effect at all.

The restriction on the use of trademarks is another provision that seems inappropriate. That will have very little positive effect, unduly restrict commercial interests, and would damage unnecessarily commercial operations, especially, for example, wineries. The advertising of wine does not seem to me to be necessarily an encouragement of the consumption of alcohol or the abuse of alcohol. Trademark restrictions are not practical, they are not effective, and they are not necessary. New Zealand First does accept that some control on sponsorship by alcohol interests is appropriate, but not this general prohibition on it. And we do take notice of the fact that such a prohibition would damage the ability of clubs and non-profit organisations to earn income without any correlative worthwhile benefit.

But New Zealand First does accept that some additional advertising restriction is necessary. So we looked at Supplementary Order Paper 91 and we saw in that some significantly more modest provisions that are capable of support. The first of those relates to the publishing of alcohol products and advertising on posters and billboards within 300 metres of any school or early childhood centre. That seems to us to be perfectly acceptable. Similarly, no person may broadcast, or arrange for anyone else to do so, any alcohol product advertisement before 9 p.m. You can see the logic of that. Young children are not likely to see advertisements after that, but are likely to see them before that time of day. And, thirdly, that no person should screen any advertisement concerning alcohol unless all films screened have been classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification as restricted to audiences of 18 years and over. So, similarly, that is a modest provision that is targeted at the protection of children. It is practical, it is effective, it is not a great imposition on those who wish to advertise alcohol, and it is a modest and acceptable provision, we feel. Those are the sorts of provisions that New Zealand First does accept as being appropriate and as being effective but not so extreme that they are unnecessary, in terms of a general prohibition. We would support those sorts of provisions.

We also do not support a general prohibition of television advertising, for the same reasons: too extreme, unnecessary, not well targeted, and without any real information being provided that it would make any difference at all. The cost-benefit ratio or the benefit to avoiding alcohol abuse is not demonstrated. For those reasons the proposal should not be supported.

New Zealand First, therefore, does want to see the investigation that the Government proposes, with its expert panel. We want to see the results of that. In the meantime, we feel that those modest provisions proposed by Iain Lees-Galloway should proceed, but the general prohibitions are not appropriate, are not demonstrated to be effective, and should not be supported.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to respond mainly to a couple of comments made by the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, which I want to debate a little. He challenged a view that he suggested I was taking, that the German cultural system be overlaid in the New Zealand situation in respect of our understanding of alcohol.

I just want to be clear in my intention in speaking of the German situation in respect of alcohol. They have a drinking age that is much younger and a culture that reflects an understanding of alcohol as a social lubricant in a similar way to us, but with an understanding that those who experiment are much younger and therefore experimentation with alcohol is considered a more juvenile thing, whereas in New Zealand it is often associated with adulthood, which has its own complications. In raising that whole issue I was really wanting to say that there are other ways of having a culture around alcohol.

I was not wishing to suggest that we should adopt wholeheartedly the German situation, nor that ours in its own way is completely faulty either. What I was wishing to suggest was that there are other ways of conceptualising alcohol culture, and that we have in this legislation, the Alcohol Reform Bill, an opportunity to actually make a measurable difference in our own society and in the culture around alcohol through pulling the levers that are at our disposal, as recommended by the Law Commission in its report. Those levers that are most effective, according to the Law Commission report, are the levers around price and marketing. Those are precisely the levers that this Government is refusing to go near.

My Supplementary Order Paper 115 aims to address the issue of marketing. It deliberately sets out—modelled on the tobacco legislation—to ensure that new advertising is not created to entice people to drink alcohol who would not otherwise be drinking alcohol, recognising that there are harms associated with alcohol. When the research is looked at, that is pretty evident to anybody who looks at it with a dispassionate eye. It is not something that needs to be encouraged. It is part of our culture, and not all aspects of alcohol are bad for our culture, in my view.

I want to suggest that we could, however, make a measurable difference, as suggested by the science, through adopting some of the more sensible Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward. There are three that have been put forward in this area: my one, Supplementary Order Paper 81 by Te Ururoa Flavell, and Supplementary Order Paper 91 by Iain Lees-Galloway. These three make some steps in that area. They would make a measurable difference to the culture of alcohol in New Zealand over time, when alcohol ceases to be glamorised in the way that it is currently. That is worth doing. I do not see how the Minister could argue otherwise.

The other point that the Minister in the chair made, as I understand it, was that the Law Commission had recommended in one of its reports that voting in respect of alcohol issues be along party lines. That might very well be true, if the legislation that was put before the House was in line with what the Law Commission was recommending. I contend that the law that has been proposed to the House to adopt is not along the lines of what the Law Commission was recommending in all aspects.

Some aspects—and I concede that there are some useful aspects, and that is why I will be supporting the legislation—address issues of distribution, which are usefully addressed and do make a difference, according to the evidence. But other major changes that could be made to effect positive change in our alcohol culture are not being considered. Instead, we are being railroaded primarily into a debate on age, which, in my view, is largely a sideshow. Changing the age does make a difference. The evidence suggests that changing the age is like starting to bail out a bucket with a teaspoon, but that is still a change and over time it does make a difference.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that pulling these bigger levers does make a difference. The distribution lever, which the Government is pulling, will make a difference. Our local councils support the particular change that is proposed, because they have examples where that particular lever has not been available to them and they would have liked it to be. It could have made positive change in our community in Dunedin.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to follow on from those thoughtful remarks from Dr Clark, and perhaps make an initial point that what he is saying about culture is very interesting. What we know about culture is that culture changes over time, so it is entirely relevant to draw examples from other cultures about how we could aspire for our culture to be.

I want to pick up on the remarks made by the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, and to cite the World Health Organization—in particular, its comment that “Exposure of young people to alcohol marketing speeds up the onset of drinking and increases the amount consumed by those already drinking.” There is no question at all that alcohol advertising and sponsorship works. It gets people drinking earlier and actually increases the amount that they drink. In particular, it increases the amount drunk by those who are already heavy drinkers. In other words, it fuels the binge drinking culture that we have now. And it is interesting to me that the Government is placing the entirety of its defence of what is currently in the Alcohol Reform Bill on the shoulders of Chester Borrows, and that none of the other members of the Government—some of whom were lions in the debate on the age provisions—seem to have anything at all to say about this issue, despite the fact that there is considerably more evidence about the effectiveness of the measures that are promoted in the Supplementary Order Papers on this particular issue than there was around age.

The Hon Chester Borrows talked about the Government’s wish to have New Zealand research and said that is why it was not moving on this right now. I found that a little surprising, because there is a wealth of New Zealand evidence available to the Government on this point already. I will cite just a few examples of that. For example, penetration of alcohol advertising to minors was illustrated by research on the Chin Heads ad. Some members of the House will remember the Chin Heads ad, and I see people nodding around the Chamber. Indeed, that is evidence of the pervasiveness of that advertising. Research showed that 97 percent of minors recalled the Chin Head advertisements, 71 percent of those young people—those minors—knew that the ad was for Lion Red, 92 percent had positive views about the ads, and 64 percent thought the Chin Head humour would appeal to minors, and, indeed, that is whom it was aimed at. So that is a piece of New Zealand research that we already have. For me, that is evidence enough to move.

In another piece of research, New Zealand boys aged between 10 and 13 said that they knew more about drinking from watching ads, but none of that alcohol advertising, of course, depicted any of the harms. The 10 to 17-year-old New Zealanders who recalled the most alcohol ads were more likely to think that it was OK for kids their age to get drunk, to think that their friends drank frequently, and, consequently, to drink more themselves. Again, that is New Zealand research on the impact of advertising and sponsorship.

The highly internationally respected Dunedin multidisciplinary study found an impact and response to advertising on later consumption. Numbers of alcohol ads recalled at age 15, in response to a question about the portrayal of alcohol in the media, significantly predicted heavier drinking among males at the age of 18. Those who responded positively to alcohol advertising at the age of 18 were heavier drinkers and reported more alcohol-related aggression at the age of 21. By the age of 26 the amounts drunk, but not the frequency of drinking, had declined for most of these young people. Those who had responded most positively to alcohol advertising at the age of 18 were the most frequent drinkers at the age of 26.

I could go on. There is no shortage of New Zealand research on the impact of advertising and sponsorship from the alcohol industry on problem drinking. The jury is absolutely in; it is simply that this Government is choosing not to respond to that evidence. The evidence is there. If the Government was seriously interested in doing what the object of this bill was, which is to minimise harm, it would be taking the steps advocated by the commission.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I listened earlier to the remarks of the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, about the discussion in the Justice and Electoral Committee concerning the way in which votes were likely to occur on this issue. I am not sure that we share a recollection of the way in which that discussion proceeded. That is probably the fairest way to put it. In saying that, I will repeat what I have said on earlier occasions. I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister—then the member—did chair the committee. It was a courteous exercise in which all submitters were heard, I think, carefully. But I think it is important that we do not make assumptions on the basis of discussions in the committee as to how the Committee of the whole House ought to act. I certainly repeat my earlier plea to National Party members to think about these Supplementary Order Papers on their merits.

The evidence, as I said at the select committee, was overwhelming from all players other than those directly representing the industry. There was a real desire to see controls around the advertising, the pricing, and the availability of alcohol. What I want to do, if I may, is just take the Committee of the whole House through what we know is the advice that the Government received from the officials concerning each of the Supplementary Order Papers, and discuss that advice, starting with what I think is the excellent and far-sighted Supplementary Order Paper 81 from the Māori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell.

The first thing that his Supplementary Order Paper would do would be to bring in a prohibition on advertising of alcohol products and alcohol sponsorship, and introduce an offence for breaching advertising and sponsorship restrictions. The officials—and we know this because the Minister circulated this advice to every member of Parliament—gave advice that that part of the Supplementary Order Paper should not be supported. The advice conceded that there was strong public support for a complete ban, but little research regarding its effectiveness, and said that some evidence suggests that a complete ban could have a modest effect on drinking by young people. Well, I would say particularly to those members who were emphatic in their support for either a split purchase age or a uniform age of 20 that even a modest decrease in youth drinking, surely, in your view, members, would be a good thing. I would ask that, on the basis of the official advice, those of you who did vote for other than a uniform age of 18 look again at this Supplementary Order Paper. Even the advice received from the officials indicates that it would go some way to achieving the aims that you were so keen to see at an earlier stage of this debate.

There is also some concern expressed around transitional funding—the same sorts of concerns that were expressed at the time that the Health Sponsorship Council had to look at replacement advertising and funding for tobacco. But that was something this Parliament showed it had the ability to deal with and overcome. I am confident that we would be able to rise to the same challenge on this occasion, if there were a will from the Government and the Minister of Finance to look carefully at this issue.

Finally, there is the response that the Government has already agreed to establish an expert forum to consider further restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship to reduce alcohol-related harm. There is the advice that the forum will be set up once the bill is passed, and is due to report back to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health within a year. Well, the question has to be, on that point, how long do we want to wait. We have got the opportunity now to legislate and to deal with these problems. Why would we kick something off to yet another so-called expert committee when, as the previous speaker, Kevin Hague, noted, there is actually sufficient evidence before the House for us to act now?

The second part of the Supplementary Order Paper is new clause 35B, which would establish a sinking lid on off-licence premises where 85 percent of the annual sales revenue is expected to come from alcohol sales, unless the premise is replacing another identical or larger premise in the same territorial authority—termed a relocation—and the premise is not located within a 5-kilometre radius of any existing bottle stores. The advice here concedes that there is a definite link between outlet density and alcohol-related harm, and notes that reducing density would, therefore, reduce alcohol-related harm. Again, that is a good reason to look at the Supplementary Order Paper on its merits. The advice goes on to note that local alcohol policies, something that we will deal with in debate on a later part, can limit the density of licences without contravening certain other—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is Part 3.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: I am aware of that, but I am dealing with the officials’ advice on this Supplementary Order Paper, and one of the components of the advice is that it should not be supported, because the local alcohol policies, which we deal with in a later part, deal with the issue. So I would appreciate it if you would just let me complete the point.

The problem, of course, with that part of the advice is that the local alcohol policies, which we will come to deal with later, are not mandatory. So they might well provide a mechanism to deal with the explosion of liquor outlets that we have seen since 1989, but the trouble is many local authorities simply will not operate them, because they are not required to—at least, in terms of the legislation as it stands.

Then Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper would add a power to the bill to introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol sold on licensed premises, and would introduce an offence of the sale of alcohol at below minimum price. Basically, the advisers say to the Minister and thence to MPs: “Well, that is premature because the Government is already investigating a minimum pricing regime for alcohol.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is definitely Part 3.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: I am aware of that, but, as I said, what I am doing—with respect—is running through the advice from the officials, which the Minister has published to members of Parliament, as to why this Supplementary Order Paper should be opposed. What I am inviting members to do is look at that advice and consider why it should not be taken on board.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, we have got—with all respect to the member—three amendments under new Part 2A and new Part 7, and that is really what I ask the member to come back to. Tie in what you are saying, but we are really concentrating on those. What you are saying is fine, but all that should be covered in debate on Part 3.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Clause 44 on the Supplementary Order Paper would change the national minimum trading hours to 10 a.m. to 3 a.m., with a compulsory one-way door from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. for premises that have an on-licence or a club licence, and 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. for off-licences. Again, the advice that is received—this is in Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that it is in his Supplementary Order Paper. What you are saying is correct—it is in the Supplementary Order Paper—but we are not dealing with that part, which is in Part 3. We are dealing only with what is in new Part 2A and new Part 7. So if you could just—

CHARLES CHAUVEL: In that case, what I will do is I will move to the other two excellent Supplementary Order Papers that are before the Committee in this part of the debate—that of Iain Lees-Galloway and that of Dr David Clark. Supplementary Order Paper 91 would insert a new Part 2A banning billboard and poster advertising within 300 metres of schools and early childhood centres, creating a 9 p.m. watershed for alcohol advertising on TV, and banning alcohol advertising in cinemas and public screenings for all films that are not rated R18. The advice, again, is not to support that, because there is this expert forum that is going to be convened, and it is premature to move in that area. Again, I would simply say what I said in respect of the earlier part and the earlier Supplementary Order Paper: we have the evidence about the harm, we need not wait, this is the opportunity to legislate, and we should proceed.

Finally, Supplementary Order Paper 115 from my colleague Dr David Clark would add restrictions on the advertising of alcohol on television and also on radio. Again, the officials say there is strong public support for a complete ban, but little research regarding its effectiveness, and some evidence suggests that a complete ban could have a modest effect on drinking by young people. So the same point arises as in respect of the first part of Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81: if we can, as the officials concede, have some effect on drinking, particularly by young people—irresponsible drinking—we ought to take it. This is the opportunity that we have. There is no benefit in further delay. We have heard the strong public urging that we ought to legislate more strongly in these areas. Here is an example of strong legislation that could make a real difference. And then there is the chestnut around the expert forum. Well, again, I think that has been comprehensively dealt with in the debate.

These are three excellent Supplementary Order Papers. They do tighten up on advertising and on availability, and they do deserve careful consideration and, certainly in my view, support by the Committee.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the Alcohol Reform Bill. There is no question, as many of those who have contributed to the debate so far today have acknowledged, that alcohol has become—if, indeed, it has ever ceased to be—a most insidious influence on society and in our community. Part of the problem, as we have all acknowledged, is that we continue to debate alcohol law reform as if it were a moral issue or as if it were something other than what it actually is, which is a health issue. Alcohol is a drug. It is a drug that has won considerable social acceptance over decades—indeed, centuries—so we confer upon it a status that we would not give any other comparable substance. And, indeed, we eschew other substances that have as much of, if not a greater, impact as alcohol. So we debate this in a funny context and at a difficult time.

Perhaps the other thing that has happened more so in the last 20 years than prior to that is the considerable financial stake that many businesses and individuals now have in the peddling of this particular drug under the cover of it being socially acceptable. In that respect, the Supplementary Order Papers that go to new Part 2A, particularly Supplementary Order Paper 91 from Iain Lees-Galloway, and Supplementary Order Paper 115 from my other colleague Dr David Clark, provide restrictions on the marketing of alcohol that are, in my submission, absolutely critical. If we are serious about alcohol sale and distribution and we wish to do something that is meaningfully going to address the serious problems that all the evidence tells us now prevail—the problem of a growing number, an excessive number, of people turning up at our emergency departments every weekend seeking care and help because of their alcohol-related and alcohol-inflicted wounds; because of the number of young people who are falling prey to the blandishments of alcohol and brewing companies, and suffering the health effects as a consequence, and not just young people but the older people who continue or who have embarked on habits that are causing major health effects, and other costs in the health system. If we are serious about addressing those and accepting those as a social problem, then it is incumbent on this Parliament to regulate appropriately and accordingly.

When it comes to marketing and advertising, this Parliament can provide leadership, can discharge its responsibilities as a tribunal of the people, and can do something meaningful about it. That does mean confronting some of those large and wealthy vested interests, and saying that we do not wish to continue the social problems that prevail and that we do not wish to decline to do something in the face of something we know we can do something about. Regulating the advertising and the marketing is a response that this Parliament can make that will confront the vested interests, and it is vital if we are going to address and meet those public health demands that are on us.

Te Ururoa Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper 81 and his proposed amendment, which is the ban to take effect in 2 years, is a very harsh initiative. That is a very harsh initiative. The sad reality, as he points out in his own explanatory note, is that there are many sports clubs and similar organisations that have become dependent on the support they get from the brewing companies and other marketers of alcohol, if not for their survival, then to at least provide them with a source of support and finance that enables them to function in the way that they do. It would be most desirable, in my submission, to remove alcohol, and alcohol branding and marketing, from sports activities and sports functions, but at the moment we need to focus on those things that are achievable, and possible, and credible. For those reasons, I will be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers of my colleagues Mr Lees-Galloway and Dr Clark, because they focus on the very immediate and very insidious advertising and reach that the alcohol companies currently engage in. They have an obvious target, and it is the young. The style of the advertising is so often clearly aimed at those who are on the precipice of making, or those who are just starting to make, their decisions and choices about alcohol.

There is no matching or corresponding advertising—public-good advertising, you might say—about the deleterious effects of alcohol, apart from perhaps on the traffic front. Certainly, our Ministry of Transport has spent a large amount of money on the drink-driving issue. But in terms of providing that information that enables particularly young people embarking on their life habits, including habits around the consumption of alcohol, there is no social-good advertising that informs people or educates people about making an informed choice about the consumption of alcohol—about the impact, for example, of the hard liquors; about the impact of volumes of alcohol, and the impact that they can have; and about the long-term consequences on the organs of the body. So I think that in that context, and knowing the vast sums of money that get spent to pitch to young people—and to other sectors of the community too, but predominantly to young people, which is why they get into the sports clubs and the sports activities—that calls out for a responsible approach from this Parliament.

That should be underscored by the very call that members of the public have been making, that submitters to the bill made, and, indeed, members in the last few hours this afternoon have been making, for this Parliament to do something meaningful and, therefore, substantial. The “frilly bits” approach that has been taken by the bill to date is clearly not intended, on the face of the bill to date, to have any meaningful impact at all. If it is intended to, the reality is that the legislation as it currently stands, and without the sorts of amendments that we are currently debating, is not going to have any impact. So I simply record my views and my intentions in this regard. I do so because I consider, like all of us, that I am responsible in my representation role and in discharging my responsibilities as a member of this Parliament. Knowing the social ill that now sits at the feet of the alcohol industry, we are called upon to respond and to react, and to provide proper and meaningful regulation of this part of this industry, without depriving those who can consume responsibly and all the injunctions we get about that. These types of measures that are provided for in these two Supplementary Order Papers are crucial and necessary. I will be supporting those.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I do want to take another call, because there have been a number of comments made that I wish to respond to, but I also want to pick up where I left off in respect of the public health message that we want to have here. I was making the point that in some jurisdictions there have been cases taken where big tobacco have argued that they have the right to advertise under the Bill of Rights freedom of expression because advertising a legal product is a matter of freedom of speech. Well, I reject that because I think there are times when freedoms have to be subservient to the greater public good, and the public good is what health promotion is all about. I used the example of the manufacturers of a perfectly legal product, which is baby bottles. Baby bottle manufacturers and their suppliers have taken a deliberate decision not to advertise their products on television, not because their product is illegal but because their product undermines the public health message, which is to promote breastfeeding. That is the only reason they do not advertise on television. It is not something they have to do; it is something they choose to do because they are behaving in a responsible way. I believe that with regard to all organisations that are involved in the sale and supply of a product that causes significant cost to the country, let alone the human cost on top of the financial cost, there is a responsibility to take a responsible attitude towards it.

I have made the point that this is something that the public of New Zealand want, but I think we should remember a few things about the alcohol industry. One is that it spends millions of dollars annually on alcohol advertising. I just want to quote from a couple of the submissions to the Law Commission report: “The ads promote alcohol consumption and associate drinking with having fun, partying, confidence, success, sophistication, and desirability. The ads normalise drinking and sustain our current drinking culture.” and “[The aggressive marketing] of alcohol is a huge driver of the heavy drinking culture with its clever and sometimes witty advertising creating a false impression and seek[ing] to promote the sale of alcohol whilst totally ignoring the dangers of this drug … the advertising of alcohol should be severely reduced in NZ and it should not be allowed without a warning regarding the dangers.”

Those examples go on, but here is the response from the producers, the retailers, the broadcasters, and the people involved in regulation: “The purpose of liquor advertising is to influence brand choice, not to increase per occasion or total consumption.” We just saw a young man miss out on a trip to the UK that he had won as a result of the multiple entries into a competition that he applied for on the basis that the more often he applied for it the better his chances were of being drawn. Hey, guess what? He was drawn, but they would not give him the prize. Actually, I agree with them for not giving him the prize. They should have actually been quite up front from the start and said “If you have been convicted of an alcohol-related offence, then you are not the sort of person that we are going to give this trip to.”, because, of course, it involved buying alcohol. To advertise a prize on the basis that the more you buy the more likely you are to get a prize—I mean, how is that a responsible campaign? How is that just about brand consumption?

In the report the producers, the retailers, the broadcasters, and the people involved in regulation said: “This is no different to the advertising of, say, shampoo,”—well, yes, alcohol and shampoo; I can see an immediate similarity—“where the objective of the advertising is not to encourage people to wash their hair more often, but rather to choose one brand over another …”. They said: “We have no commercial interest in marketing our products to people who are not legally able to buy them—ie people under 18 years old.” Well, I just want to use an alcohol advertising slogan to respond to that and say “Yeah, right!”. I mean, if you look at the ads on TV, they are marketing to a younger culture all the time. That is what the ads are about. They are supposedly ads that are minimising the risks that alcohol is involved in. Actually, I was just thinking of the—

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I just wanted to mention a particular brand of alcohol, and now I cannot remember the name of it, but it comes in a can and it is something to do with Woodstock. The advertisement talks about whether it is OK if your friend’s mother gives you a “woody”. Am I getting this right? And are we all actually slightly revolted by what I just said? Because there is an implication of sexuality around that, which it is designed to do. The advertisement stops and everything is freeze-framed in order to make the point that this is OK to have on our televisions. But it is OK; that has got through the self-regulatory thing.

They said in the report: “We never encourage rapid, excessive or irresponsible consumption in any of our marketing or promotions …”. Well, I am sorry, but whenever one looks at the advertising that is on television, we see those very direct linkages to sexuality, to good times, and, actually, to not being able to have a good time without having alcohol involved. I think all of us have at different times got ourselves involved in the FebFast campaign, where we take a month off from drinking. Some have not done that, but—

Charles Chauvel: Unpatriotic!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Some think it is unpatriotic—that is fine—but I have certainly done that and I know that others in the House have done that, as well. But what struck me the first time I got involved in that campaign was the number of occasions where I said “I’m not drinking this month.” and the people who said “Well, have one anyway.” or “We’ll buy you a night off.”, when they realised that there was a buy-out provision in the campaign. I just think we have got ourselves into a habit of drinking on all sorts of occasions when, in fact, it is not necessary in order to achieve the purposes of the occasion.

I think this link between drinking and advertising and sponsorship is compelling, particularly with regard to young people. That was the finding of the Law Commission. It has looked at the evidence. I do not think the jury is still out on this. I think there are, indeed, some self-interested people in the industry, and that is not just the liquor industry. People have to remember that it is the advertisers and it is the media that are dependent on the alcohol advertising dollar that will, in fact, try to push public opinion in a particular way. But no matter how much they push it, the public want to see change, and I do not know how anyone in this Committee can vote against some of the amendments that we are considering here today. All of them pick up a gradual move towards change that the public have been demanding for some time.

We have never had the, I think, courage to look at the Loi Evin, which is operating in France. Of course, the Law Commission said that that is a long way from where it thinks we could be, but it was passed in 1991, and despite the many challenges that have been brought against that law—which allows for no advertising targeted at young people, no advertising on television or in cinemas, no sponsorship of cultural or sports events, and advertising permitted only in the press for adults, on billboards, or on radio channels under very precise conditions, and its content is very controlled—it has worked. A health message is included on each advertisement, to the effect that alcohol abuse is dangerous for health.

It should go without saying, but alcohol is actually dangerous to the purse of the New Zealand taxpayer. I do not know why people do not understand that for every person who takes up a hospital bed as the result of a crash caused by a drunken driver, that is somebody who is not getting an elective surgery, and for every person who cannot get the police officer to come after they have had a burglary, because that police officer is in town dealing with a fight that has broken out in the early hours of the morning, that is because of alcohol-fuelled harm. I cannot see why the people of New Zealand cannot see that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a total free-for-all in all of these areas and have alcohol advertising to the extent that it does dominate public opinion. I think it is time for real change in this House.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 2A and new clause 58A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 44

New Zealand Labour 26 (Chauvel, Clark, Cunliffe, Curran, Dalziel, Dyson, Fenton, Goff, Horomia, Huo, Jones, King A, Mackey, Mahuta, Moroney, Parker, Prasad, Robertson G, Robertson R, Shearer, Sio, Street, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Noes 76

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 7 (Ardern J, Cosgrove, Faafoi, Hipkins, Lees-Galloway, Little, Mallard); New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

New Part 2A and amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 44, Noes 66.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to insert new Parts 2A and 7 and to clause 220 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand Labour 30 (Ardern J, Chauvel, Clark, Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Dalziel, Dyson, Faafoi, Fenton, Hipkins, Horomia, Huo, Jones, Lees-Galloway, Little, Mackey, Mahuta, Mallard, Moroney, Parker, Prasad, Robertson G, Robertson R, Shearer, Sio, Street, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Noes 64

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 3 (Curran, Goff, King A); ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

New Parts 2A and 7 and amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Dr David Clark to insert new clause 220A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 30 (Ardern J, Chauvel, Clark, Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Curran, Dalziel, Dyson, Faafoi, Fenton, Goff, Horomia, Huo, Jones, King A, Little, Mackey, Mahuta, Moroney, Parker, Prasad, Robertson G, Robertson R, Shearer, Sio, Street, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Noes 72

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 3 (Hipkins, Lees-Galloway, Mallard); New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to Part 3. This is debate on clauses 12 to 284. I will just explain the procedure that we will be following. The debate and voting on amendments to Part 3 will be grouped as follows: licensing requirements and conditions, subpart 1 other than minimum pricing proposals—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just for clarification, because I am trying to mark things off on this as we go through, was the new Part 7 dealt with at that time, or will that be voted on later?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That part has been defeated. We have just had that. That was part of new Part 2A and new Part 7. We have dealt with that. We are now on Part 3.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I had different votes for the two parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Would you like to explain your position?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Well, for Part 2A, the amendments in the name of Mr Flavell, we had 26 to 7, which is what I cast. For new Part 7, which was the alcohol advertising reform committee, on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of Lees-Galloway, I had 32 in favour, one opposed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): So you are wishing to change your votes?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No—well, how can I split the vote when they have been put together?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This was an agreement of the Business Committee, so—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, but not the votes. Certainly the debate was put together, but I did not think the votes were put together.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): So what you are asking for is that on Iain Lees-Galloway’s amendments, you wanted to separate out new Part 2A, relating to advertising, and have a separate vote on new Part 7, establishing an alcohol advisory reform committee—is that what you are asking?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You need to seek leave for that.

Louise Upston: I thought we voted on Supplementary Order Paper 91, both of those components. Can you clarify whether we did or not?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are right; that is what we were doing. But what the member is asking for—in Iain Lees-Galloway’s amendment there is actually two parts to it. There is new Part 2A and new clause 220, relating to advertising. That is what they are suggesting shall be one question, and the second question is on new Part 7, which establishes an alcohol advisory reform committee. That would be a second vote. To do it, the member has to seek leave, because I have already put the vote and I cannot change it unless the Committee approves that we go back to it and have the vote again.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I seek leave that a vote be taken on new Part 7, to establish an alcohol advertising reform committee, on Iain Lees Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper 91.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. So we go back to new Part 7.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to insert new Part 7 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 32 (Ardern J, Chauvel, Clark, Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Curran, Dalziel, Dyson, Faafoi, Fenton, Goff, Hipkins, Horomia, Huo, Jones, King A, Lees-Galloway, Little, Mackey, Mahuta, Moroney, Parker, Prasad, Robertson G, Robertson R, Shearer, Sio, Street, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Noes 62

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 1 (Mallard); ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

New Part 7 not agreed to.

Part 3 and amendment to clause 382

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are just going back now to where I was before—Part 3. This is debate on clauses 12 to 284. The procedure we are going to follow is that the debate and voting on amendments to Part 3 will be grouped as follows: licensing requirements and conditions, Subpart 1, other than minimum pricing proposals—so we will have the amendments related to that, and then we will have the vote on those. The next one is minimum pricing, Subpart 1. The third is local alcohol policies, Subpart 2. The fourth is licensing process and licensing bodies, Subparts 3 to 7. The fifth is offences and enforcement, Subparts 8 and 9. So we now move to licensing requirements and conditions, Subpart 1, clauses 12 to 74.

LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking to clarify. I understood that all of the votes for this part would be taken in one go, so it would be debated as one part.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): As I explained earlier we are actually splitting this into five separate debates within Part 3. So we are going to deal with those topics that I mentioned. Once we have completed that, the amendments under those headings will be put—the questions will be put—and we will deal with those. Then we will move on to the next provision. Does the member wish to say something? Are we all comfortable—

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could I just ask your indulgence? I think we have understood the manner in which the debate and the voting will occur. Would you mind just reading the subparts out one more time?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. This is what the Business Committee has agreed to. The debate and voting on amendments to Part 3 will be grouped as follows: first, licensing requirements and conditions, Subpart 1, other than minimum pricing proposals. Once we have dealt with that we will then put the amendments related to that section. Then we will move on, and the second one is minimum pricing, Subpart 1. The third is local alcohol policies, Subpart 2. The fourth is licensing process and licensing bodies, Subparts 3 to 7, and, finally, offences and enforcement, Subparts 8 and 9.

Charles Chauvel: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members—[Interruption] I stand corrected, members. It is one debate on Part 3, but we are going to be dealing with those separate areas for separate votes in that order. All right? So it is a debate on Part 3—[Interruption]—on the whole of Part 3. So the question is—

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The reason I just want to have some clarity around this is because my understanding is that we were going to group them into these different areas for the purposes of the debate and the voting, so I did not think it was going to be separated off. The reason that I mention this is that I do have an interest in it, because the Supplementary Order Paper that is in my name is on minimum pricing, which ends up being one of these five different areas of debate. But my amendment would be in Part 6 otherwise, except that it is being brought into this part. If that was then to be part of just a single debate for the whole of Part 3, then I would be restricted to four calls, when I would have had four calls on my Supplementary Order Paper, had it been dealt with in its own part. It has been brought out of Part 6 and brought forward in order to group it with another one for the purposes of debate. No one would have agreed to give up debating time on an important issue in order to move something. For the ease of the Committee, I think we have all been agreeable to having the different votes, but I never understood that that would actually mean that there would be a restriction to four calls over the five very separate debates that we have agreed to have. Otherwise we would never have agreed to have my Supplementary Order Paper brought forward into the largest part of the bill and removed from Part 6, where it properly sits.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what you say—

Kevin Hague: Speaking to the point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am just getting some clarification.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Point of order, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just one moment. I will get back to you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to support the point of order raised by my colleague Lianne Dalziel. We are in a similar but different situation in that I am the spokesperson for my party on all of the issues associated with this bill, so if we were to be confined to four calls per member for this entire part, that would restrict us to just four calls, and the span of this part is much greater than four calls would suffice for. I know that other parties, perhaps New Zealand First, would be in a similar position.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are in the hands of the determinations of the Business Committee, and I will just read what it says: “Part 3, sale and supply of alcohol generally, including minimum pricing, new clauses 43A, 230A, and amendments proposed to clauses 267 and 382(1), will be one question.” I understand that the member’s amendments relate to subclause 382(1), and the issue is that if this is taken as one part the maximum number of calls would be four—and this is the point that the member Kevin Hague also made—so you are affected by that. We are governed, however, by the determination of the Business Committee, and the only way, I think, to deal with that once a debate starts and you have had your four calls would possibly be to seek leave to go beyond the number of four calls. I cannot make rules here to change what the Business Committee has determined, so I am actually guided very much by this.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Would it possibly be a solution if I were to apply for the leave of the Committee for spokespeople only to not be affected by the four call limitation, in respect of this subpart? If so, I so apply.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is appropriate to seek leave for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This has certainly come as a bit of a surprise, I think, to a number of us, and I accept that I was not involved in that decision. It simply has come as a bit of a shock, so I am trying to see whether we can get our shadow Leader of the House to assist in the matter. But I wondered whether, even though obviously we are governed by the decision of the Business Committee, there was some opportunity for the Committee to take leave to make any changes to that, or are you saying that that cannot be changed even by leave of the Committee?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I did put leave on the point of order that Charles Chauvel made. I put leave that the spokespeople would be given extra calls. That leave was denied, so I have actually done that.

LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Business Committee has spent a significant amount of time working through the logistics of this bill and the Committee stage. I believe we should proceed on that basis, given that it has had the agreement of all parties in the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I seek leave that Supplementary Order Paper 113 in my name, which amends clause 382 in Part 6 of the bill, be debated under Part 6 of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): First of all, I wish to register the Green Party’s objection to the Government’s position on this. But I want to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot comment on the decision I have made. I am reflecting the Business Committee’s determination. The Business Committee made it, and I am here to ensure that that is what we follow.

KEVIN HAGUE: Mr Chair, if I could just clarify. I was not objecting to anything about your conduct. I was stating my disappointment that the Government has taken the position that it has.

LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is well known that the Business Committee operates on near unanimity. As I have said before, there have been lengthy discussions in the Business Committee. It has reached near unanimity on this decision, and so I object to that kind of point.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear Charles Chauvel.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: My colleague from the Green Party was not disputing what the junior Government whip has just said. What I took him to be objecting to was the fact that Government members chose to decline leave to a proposal that sought to get around the problem that had been identified—that is, that spokespeople under this determination of the Business Committee are restricted to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I am sure the member was just expressing his disappointment about the way that it had gone. That is the end of the matter. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.