Hon MATT ROBSON (Progressive) : I move, That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Law and Order Committee. In 1999 Parliament voted, by a narrow margin, to lower the minimum age for the purchasing of alcohol to 18. The New Zealand Drug Foundation, the Ministry of Health, the Alcohol Advisory Council, and other public health organisations at the time opposed the lowering of the drinking age.

There was one speech in this Parliament that I remember well. It went like this: “I have to say that the term ‘conscience vote’ is something of a misnomer, because I believe that I also have a responsibility to the people who elected me to Parliament to represent their viewpoints. On the key controversial issue of the drinking age, every poll conducted, including a poll I did in my own electorate, shows that, overwhelmingly, by a margin of two to one, the public does not want the legal drinking age lowered.” The member went on to say: “… a national survey showed that a quarter of 16 and 17-year-olds were binge drinkers each week. I wonder whether lowering the drinking age, with the impact that will inevitably have of lowering the de facto age of drinking, will make that situation better.” The member does not have to wonder any more. The Hon Phil Goff, the Minister of Justice, has evidence from his own officials, and from those of the Ministry of Health, to show that his direst predictions have eventuated.

If the justice officials and officials from the Ministry of Health are not enough to confirm what Mr Goff wondered about, the New Zealand Police can present him with conclusive evidence that his worst fears have come to pass. In a recent report available to Minister Goff, the police state: “Alcohol is increasingly available in today’s New Zealand. As well as the 1999 lowering of the minimum legal age for purchasing alcohol, which has legally allowed a whole new group of 18 to 19-year-olds to buy liquor and to drink on licensed premises, there have never been as many places where you can get hold of alcohol as there are today. As the policing task has got bigger and bigger, more and more pressure is placed on already stretched resources. In some cases, this means police cells filling up with grossly intoxicated people on Thursday, and Friday, and Saturday nights. For all those who are less intoxicated, too much alcohol has contributed to them getting into a fight, or being caught drink-driving, or wanting to carry on drinking in a public place despite there being a liquor ban by law in effect. So we are seeing greater numbers of young people being referred to Youth Aid for alcohol-related incidents, involved in alcohol-related crashes or driving offences, and greater numbers of young people being picked up for disorderly behaviour or receiving liquor infringement notices for various offences. And LTSA figures consistently tell us that alcohol is a contributing factor in around 25 percent of fatal crashes and 20 percent of serious injury crashes on our roads.”

The police concur with the ministry officials who report to Minister Goff that all the evidence “presents a picture of the change in legislation having a detrimental effect on young people’s drinking behaviour.” Yet despite the overwhelming evidence that our legislation needs urgently to be reviewed, Minister of Justice Goff and Associate Minister of Justice Barker, having helpfully given me the notes of their Labour caucus, have advised the caucus not to vote for this bill. I can tell them that their Progressive colleagues in Government will vote for it, and will campaign for the public health evidence on this crucial issue to see the light of day. Associate Minister of Health and Progressive leader Jim Anderton has told me that in the countless number of forums he has held on drugs and alcohol up and down the country, the voice of the public health experts, the police, and the community is that they want effective action on the No. 1 drug problem, that of alcohol.

In 2004, public health experts were asked to report to the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy on the effect of the 1999 legislation to lower the drinking age. The report was delivered in August 2004. Its finding was unequivocal: “From a public health perspective, there is enough international and New Zealand evidence to strongly suggest that there would be overall population health benefits from raising New Zealand’s current minimum legal purchasing age back to 20 years.” I read that report and many others on the effect of lowering the drinking age. I talked with many public health agencies and their experts. I concurred with the ministerial report that we, the members of Parliament, had got it wrong. All the New Zealand evidence, along with international studies, were in agreement with the June 2004 study by a university in Finland that: “Delaying the initiation of drinking from early adolescence to late adolescence is an important goal for prevention efforts.”

In our ministerial report, the research showed that with the lowering of the drinking age in 1999 harmful patterns of drinking alcohol had emerged, and that those harms had extended to young people well below the new legal age of 18. The hopes in 1999 that civilised drinking patterns would develop in the 18 to 19 age group, and that strict enforcement would prevent under-age alcohol consumption, have not been fulfilled. Hospital admissions for heavily intoxicated 13 to 17-year-olds have increased, along with those for 18 to 19-year-olds. Traffic crash data for both age groups, in both fatal and non-fatal accidents, have shown that the contribution of alcohol has dramatically increased. The number of fatal crashes during high-alcohol hours has increased sharply. In all areas studied, from hospital admissions to sexually transmitted diseases, the lowering of the drinking age was associated with greater alcohol-related harm.

It was that evidence that has caused me to submit my member’s bill, which will raise the minimum legal purchase age of alcohol back to 20, and set strict controls on the advertising of alcohol. I must say to members that if any defects in this bill are shown by the public evidence that comes before us, then that is the time for the experts from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health to help us to craft a bill that will meet the needs of all our people, and particularly of our young people.

Opponents of the bill have stated that the genie, once released, cannot be put back into the bottle. I am not sure whether those opponents have consciously used the image of the bottle, but Parliament has to deal with the real world, not the imaginary one. We have to learn from other public health measures what the appropriate steps to take are. We cannot use magic. We have to rely on scientific methods and on tried and tested techniques. Some opponents have also criticised my bill as taking a narrow, legalistic approach, and they say that we face a deeper social question. I agree that if we do not take up the deeper social questions and have a range of responses, legislation in itself will be insufficient to deal with alcohol abuse. But an appropriate legal framework is required to keep the genie in the bottle and to allow us to carry out educational activity that is not fruitless. Parliament needs to set a legal age that is in accord with the best public health advice available.

Furthermore, Parliament needs to regulate—as my bill does—the advertising by the liquor industry. That industry does not put forward the public good as its paramount pursuit. Its alliance with the sporting and entertainment worlds to showcase the glamour of alcohol is an alliance with those bodies in pursuit of profit. Alcohol is a mind-altering depressant drug. It is no ordinary commodity that should be marketed like toothpaste or porridge. Without appropriate legislation on and regulation of advertising, all the education in the world to change the culture of drinking will fall on barren soil. In excess of fifty million advertising dollars per year are spent in the broadcast media alone to promote alcohol. Sport and sex are becoming the common ingredients to promote that mind-altering drug. The target audiences are becoming younger and younger. The harm and the staggering number of cancers arising from alcohol are not part of the advertising. Liquor industry psychology researchers callously target the drinking of 11 to 14-year-olds and of 15 to 17-year-olds. They use the knowledge that educationalists have discovered of developmental stages in order to target our young people. New longitudinal studies, particularly in the United States, show that advertising in all mediums is having a great effect on young people, in inducing them to drink at a younger and younger age and more frequently. Our Parliament needs to study those trends, if we are to make appropriate decisions for the public good. We need to decide whether it is in the public interest for Heineken to place two bottles of its beer in the two holders in PlayStation controls. Members will know that advertising like that is aimed squarely at teenage and pre-teenage drinkers.

Appropriate analogies to show the need for legislation, while accepting that a comprehensive approach is required, can be drawn with other public health measures. Safer driving is a good place to start, as alcohol plays a large role in unsafe driving. It is also a major factor in youth crime. Education campaigns and methods that teach us and exhort us to drive safely are an important part of our efforts to lower the road toll and protect our citizens from dangerous, careless, and negligent driving, but a legal framework is needed to ensure that drivers comply with the rules and regulations that make us safe. One important part of that law that is being debated now is the wisdom of the driving age. We have gone from allowing a full driver’s licence to be gained at 15 years and 1 day to putting in place a range of restrictive conditions and hurdles that have to be passed before a full licence is granted. Consideration is now being given by experts as to whether the age of application for a learner’s licence—the first step—should be raised. The objective is the safety of the younger driver and the public. It is not to prevent young people from having fun; it is aimed at allowing them to live a long life.

I would ask members of this Parliament to send this bill to the select committee on the basis that public health evidence is telling us that we urgently need to review the legislation that lowered the drinking age to 18. That would also allow the select committee to soberly—and I use the word advisedly—judge the evidence that comes before it, and allow the public to have their say and have their input into this bill. Parliament could then link science with policy, so that we get the best drinking policy possible for the people of this country. If there are defects in this bill, they should be fixed in the select committee.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I will be supporting this bill to the Law and Order Committee. I did note that the Hon Phil Goff sought a call, and I want to make a comment about that. Phil Goff, Matt Robson, and I were all on the Justice and Law Reform Committee in 1999. We heard the evidence, considered it, and—at least in two of our cases—actually voted to reduce the age limit, which was then 20, to 18. I acknowledge that Mr Goff did not do that, and that Mr Robson and I have changed our minds.

There are good reasons for doing that. After 6 years it is time to re-examine the situation properly, look at the evidence, and give the public the chance to make their submissions to this Parliament. I say to those members who might be considering not supporting this bill that if they vote against it, they are denying the public the opportunity to make submissions to the select committee. They are denying Parliament the opportunity to weigh those submissions and the evidence, and to modify the bill in ways that might be appropriate—in short, to review the decision of 6 years ago in light of new evidence and circumstances.

I am one of those who do not support the bill in the way it is written. Parts of the bill do not adequately capture the situation, but select committees are set up to deal with those issues, and I noted that Mr Robson acknowledged that point. But one cannot even consider that issue unless the bill goes to the select committee. So I urge those members who are saying that we should stick with the decision of 1999 to think again and to give the public, to give themselves, and to give the new Parliament—because it will be a new Parliament that finally votes on this bill—the chance to reconsider.

I specifically sought the call tonight because I was a member of the Justice and Law Reform Committee. In that select committee we heard substantial evidence from a wide variety of sources, and in some respects we neglected a critical consideration. It took several months before this even emerged through the evidence. The situation in 1999 was that 18-years-olds could go to any bar or restaurant throughout this entire country, unaccompanied by an adult—and I stress that—and they could drink. The only requirement was that they had to have what was referred to in those times as a “substantial meal”. In reality, that was chips or nachos. So we actually had a drinking age of 18 in on-licence premises: bars, restaurants, and clubs. Because of that, the select committee by a majority recommended to Parliament that it change what was then effectively a de facto age of 18 to a de jure age of 18, and we did that. We also recommended strengthening the identification criteria, which I think is now widely acknowledged to be abused, and a lot of fraudulent cards and driver’s licences have become part of that.

Where the select committee failed—and it was not deliberate; it was essentially through ignorance—was that we did not make an adequate distinction between on-licence premises and off-licence premises. The reality—and a proper review of the evidence might bear this out—is that whilst there may be some problems in on-licence premises, they are not nearly of the magnitude of the problems in off-licence premises. As the submitters said in 1999—and they have been proven to be right—if we change the age to 18, we effectively open the gate to 16-year-olds, 15-year-olds, and younger. The majority of the Parliament was inclined to dismiss that claim. In fact, the parliamentarians were wrong and the submitters were right. We know, from practical experience, that that is exactly what happened.

I acknowledge that Mr Robson has done the right thing by this Parliament and has given us the opportunity to review that move. The reason is just simple human dynamics.

Although 18-year-olds have 16-year-old friends, by and large 20-year-olds do not. That is a fact of life. So 18-year-olds can readily be prevailed upon by their 15 and 16-year-old friends to buy them alcohol, and they do that. They go to liquor stores and supermarkets and buy alcohol, which is then consumed by their young friends. We know the reality of the problems. Mr Robson has done a very good job of pointing out the scientific evidence about binge drinking and the increase in consumption of alcohol by those who are 15 and 16—something, I might add, that parliamentarians did not want to happen but in reality has happened. The only way we can deal with this is to refer the bill to the select committee to hear that evidence.

Some time ago a newspaper polled members of Parliament, and I think most members responded. We had to choose between the ages of 18, 20, and, in some cases, a mixed age. I happen to be one of those who said: “Split the age.” In reality, the problem is not nearly so significant in bars and restaurants. I will be persuaded by the evidence on that. But I am very aware of the serious problems to do with off-licences—liquor stores and supermarkets. I would like to take at least some personal credit for ensuring that supermarkets do not sell hard spirits and alcopops. I moved the particular amendment to that effect, and at least that was carried. But it has not been enough.

Rod Donald: What about wine?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I actually knew people in the armed forces—young men—who killed themselves through drinking spirits. That was a pretty tragic situation. Two young men who did not know how to handle liquor—if one can put it that way—died as a result of their consumption of spirits. It could not happen with beer or with wine, but the concentration of alcohol in spirits is such that people can literally drink themselves to death in the course of an evening, and it has happened.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: They can do that at any age.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, that is true, but we have made it worse. I say to my colleague Dr Smith that the change in the law has made it worse, and that we as a Parliament need to fix that. So we do have an obligation to look again at that decision. The select committee, with all the best intentions, thought it was doing the right thing. In some respects, at least, we were not.

My normal practice is to poll the electorate I represent, North Shore, to ask their views. In 1999 the choice between an age limit of 18 or 20 resulted in an extremely close call. It was not a close call on Sunday trading; there was overwhelming support for that. But on the issue of an age limit of 18 or 20, the result was an extremely close call. Because of the short time frame in which this bill has come up, there has not really been an opportunity to conduct a subsequent poll. But, based on the calls I receive and the views of people I speak to, many of those who 6 years ago supported the change to 18 would now like that issue to be reviewed.

This Parliament owes it to the people of New Zealand to review the law, to assess whether we got it right or whether we got it wrong. Tonight, parliamentarians—the 120 members in this House—get the opportunity to give the people of New Zealand that chance. I ask my colleagues at least to vote for the bill to go to the select committee. Defects in the bill, which Mr Robson acknowledges, can be fixed at that stage. But at least we should allow that reconsideration.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) : I first want to correct two things that were said by my friend Matt Robson in his introductory comments. The conclusion of the Ministry of Justice is not, as he suggested, that lowering the drinking age has been damaging and should be reversed. The Ministry of Justice does not take a position on this bill. That would be inappropriate. I have circulated to all members of the House, in a bipartisan way for their information, the comments I have from the Ministry of Justice.

In fact, the principal findings of four reviews by the Ministry of Justice, to try to work out what the impact of lowering the drinking age has been, have all been similar. The ministry states: “As in earlier reports, the statistics show a mixed and partial picture of the possible impact, with no clear picture of whether lowering the minimum purchase age has had a detrimental effect on young people’s drinking behaviour.” That is the conclusion of the Ministry of Justice.

The second thing I wish to comment on, by way of correction, is that I most certainly have not given any advice to my caucus not to vote for the bill. This is a conscience vote. Every individual will make his or her own decision on how to vote, so I am not sure where that mistaken assumption came from.

I intend to vote for the bill to proceed to the select committee. I do so because I believe that there is a public interest in that happening, and I also believe that there is real benefit from a close analysis by a select committee of the problem of alcohol abuse in this country—not only by young people but overall—and of the efficacy of the proposed solution.

I voted in 1999 against the lowering of the drinking age to 18, but I have real reservations about what will be achieved at this point by raising the age back to 20. I am also concerned that the implication of this bill is that the serious problems of alcohol abuse in this country will be solved by making it illegal for one small group—18 and 19-year-olds—to purchase or even to be supplied with alcohol, when we all know there is a critical problem with 12 to 17-year-olds in binge drinking. It is illegal for them to drink, but that is the age group in which serious binge drinking is happening. Nothing in this bill will solve that problem, and it is a helluva jump of the imagination to believe that drinking problems stop at 20. Some people’s drinking problems never stop throughout their lives.

Let me say, as well, that I believe that people aged 18 and 19, because of their lack of experience and maturity, probably abuse alcohol in a higher proportion to other groups. But, having said that, I believe that the vast majority of 18 and 19-year-olds do drink responsibly. Why would we punish the majority to get at the minority who abuse alcohol?

How do we justify a society in which young persons can drive at 15, legally have sex at 16, vote at 18, go overseas and fight in a war for their country in the defence forces at 18, but in which, somehow, it is illegal for them to have a beer or a glass of wine until they are 20? I cannot understand the logic of that.

We should make no mistake about it: alcohol and abuse of alcohol is a serious problem in our society. That is why I voted against the lowering of the drinking age in 1999. There are clear associations of alcohol abuse with road safety, with violence, with unprotected sex, and with health problems. But let us look at where the basic problem comes from. I believe that the problem in this country is that we have a culture in which most of the population see getting drunk as unexceptionable and, in fact, a bit of a laugh. If young people act similarly, with additional propensity for risk-taking and exuberant behaviour, they have learnt that culture from their elders.

We will not solve the problem of alcohol abuse in this country until we change the culture. Why is it that in countries like France and Italy there is no drinking age, yet there is much less of a problem with alcohol abuse than there is in northern European countries, from where we take our culture and where the problems of alcohol abuse are very apparent?

Teenage binge drinking is a serious problem but, as I said before, the greater problem is with the 12-17 year age group, and raising the drinking age to 20 does not solve that particular problem. We have a responsibility to address the problem. I support the bill going to the select committee, but I hope the approach of the select committee is evidence-based and not emotion-based.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) : New Zealand First members support this bill. I start by saying that New Zealand First has been the only party to be totally consistent in voicing its absolute opposition to the lowering of the drinking age, with all New Zealand First MPs having voted against the lowering of the drinking age back in 1999. New Zealand First has led the way on this issue not only by voting against the lowering of the drinking age but also by our leader, Winston Peters, introducing the Local Government (Prohibition of Liquor in Public Places) Amendment Bill back in 2001 so that councils could take control of their streets. It has worked.

Another New Zealand First member’s bill, the Sale of Liquor (Increase the Drinking Age) Amendment Bill sponsored by my colleague Ron Mark and now in the name of Bill Gudgeon, would return the law to what it was in 1999. We acknowledge that the bill Ron Mark sponsored is different from Matt Robson’s bill but, as Wayne Mapp said, the bill before us can be sent to the select committee so that it can discuss and talk through the issues, hear from New Zealanders who are working at ground level with teenagers and so on, and make its decisions from there. New Zealand First put its bill in the ballot 3 years ago, before any other member had even thought of doing so, and while Matt Robson was still wondering whether lowering the drinking age was a good idea or a bad idea.

The actions of MPs who voted 5 years ago to bring the drinking age down to 18 years were nothing short of shameful. We have an epidemic of teenage drunkenness in this country, and it is time for the MPs who voted for this madness to accept that they got it wrong, and to restore the drinking age to 20 years. If the police had the resources to absolutely contain youth drinking to those aged over 18, then the current legislation might be appropriate. But youth drinking definitely has not been contained. I believe that every member of this House would agree with that. New Zealand First did its homework on this issue and made the obvious point that drinking would spread like wildfire to younger people. But people did not believe us. We told them, and nothing is as sad as saying: “We told you so.”

Tonight I will name MPs who voted for that legislation who are still in this House, because it is shameful that they even thought of it—that they did not listen to New Zealand First, to thousands of New Zealand parents, and to people who work with young people. They did not listen to those ordinary New Zealanders. Those MPs include Shane Ardern from National, and the current Minister of Police, George Hawkins—an incompetent Minister who finds it hard enough to make tough decisions on a good day, much less make a simple decision that clearly would affect New Zealanders. He voted for the legislation. A Minister of Police, of all people, voted to bring the drinking age down to 18 years. The Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard, the man who is looking after our young people—the children of our nation—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Yeah, right!

CRAIG McNAIR: That is right—yeah, right! The current Minister of Education voted for a disgraceful piece of legislation that New Zealand First warned all members of Parliament about. Wayne Mapp, as he mentioned, voted for the legislation. Tim Barnett did—well, everybody knows that Tim Barnett votes for such legislation. Mark Burton, David Carter, John Carter from National, Lianne Dalziel, Rod Donald, and United Future leader Peter Dunne voted for it. When I was on the campaign trail and at different debates and so on, when we candidates were asked what our party’s stance on the drinking age was, not one United Future candidate—not one future United Future MP—told people what the United Future party thought, how it had voted, and how its leader had voted on this issue. New Zealand First says that that is disgraceful. Bill English from National and Rodney Hide from ACT voted for the legislation.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) : I seek leave to table the voting results from the 1999 vote on the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act, so that the member can return to some substantial arguments rather than personal attack.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Mr McNair’s speech has ended.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) : I am a little surprised to find that I am the first speaker to speak against the bill—

Hon Member: You are opposing it?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I sincerely hope so, and I was a little disappointed I was missed out of the previous member’s list, because my vote has not changed. I realise I may be the only ACT member to speak tonight, so let me make it clear that for the ACT party this matter is a conscience issue. I have proxies here for two members who intend to vote for the bill, and seven who are going to vote against.

The argument of those two members who are going to vote for the bill has, I think, been eloquently put. It is the argument that if we do send the bill to a select committee, at least the matter can be reviewed by MPs, and there is an argument to say that after 6 years we should look at the issue again. But if members think about it, they would see that that is actually an argument to vote for every single bill. The other seven members take this view. Firstly—[Interruption] Well, the Ministry of Justice has produced not one but four reports that refute the emotional statements that there is some sort of disaster happening with our young people.

I want to put a second argument, which I think Mr Goff put, in a way, and it is certainly a position that I hold. We should hold people individually responsible for their actions, and 18-year-olds are old enough to vote and they should be held responsible for their actions. Those who misuse alcohol—and of course there are some; just as there are some 22-year-olds and some 82-year-olds who misuse alcohol—should be held responsible. The idea that we should have collective guilt for all 18 and 19-year-olds is abhorrent. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of 18 and 19-year-olds have behaved in the way that members of this House hoped.

The next thing I have to say, after listening to Mr Mapp talk about this and about how 18-year-olds know 16-year-olds—I think that was the logic—is that I remember Mr Ken Shirley telling me that he was 6 foot 3 inches tall when he was 10, and when he was 14 and the liquor age was 21 he was sent by 20-year-olds to get the liquor for them. Some members think that this problem has developed only in the last few years. What planet are those members on?

I have another objection. I am a former Minister of Police. I was well aware when I was the Minister of Police that that restriction to 20-year-olds could not be enforced. The police told me they could not do it. Now, they could not do it 10 years ago, and no member really believes that they can do it today. It is bad lawmaking to pass a law that we know our over-stretched police cannot carry out. But it is also bad lawmaking to pass a law that will mean that a lot of 18-year-olds of good character, who will not take any notice of this law if we pass it, could have convictions against them. If members think that is wrong they should go down to their local university drinking hole and have a look, as I did, prior to the passing of the last bill. I actually did a survey at Victoria University, and I discovered some drinking establishments where the people were drinking very well, and over half of those who were there—and this was before the law was changed—were actually under age.

But there are other things. I can remember, as Minister of Police, suddenly being confronted by what appeared to be a crime wave in Hastings. The newspapers were full of it. Crime arrests were way up. I asked for the data and I read it. Of course, as a lawyer I realised that a large number of the people arrested were being arrested for under-age drinking, and others were arrested for resisting the police arresting their mates for under-age drinking. I suggested that the local constable, who was doing such a good job, should be transferred to Ruatōria, where the Rastafarians were, and suddenly the crime wave in Hastings came to an end. It was a nonsense, and this bill is a nonsense. I am sure that amongst New Zealand First’s Grey Power supporters there are people who would vote for a bill to have the age limit set at 30, or probably 40. The truth of the matter, as Mr Goff eloquently put it, is that there are people aged 30 and 40 who do not handle alcohol well. But we know, as a Parliament, that prohibitions do not work. They may be populist, but we have a duty as a House to pass good legislation.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : Like the ACT party, the Green caucus is treating this bill as a conscience issue. Like ACT, two Green members will be voting to send it to a select committee for debate; the remaining seven Green members will oppose it, because we believe that the age-limit should remain at 18. We will recommend, instead, that a select committee inquiry be set up to have the debate, which everyone says is so needed, on how to reduce the harm caused by alcohol in society, and how to change the drinking culture, especially amongst our young.

All of us agree that there is a serious problem with some teenagers binge drinking, and we all support the provisions to tighten liquor advertising on television—though some of us think they do not go nearly far enough. We agree that the current law is not being enforced properly, and that we need far more resources to ensure that it is enforced, and that existing penalties are properly enforced. But where most of us part company with the supporters of the bill is that we believe that raising the drinking age will not be a solution or a panacea to teenage binge drinking, or a substitute for our taking real action on the drinking culture in New Zealand. In our view, age is not the real issue; the issue is the attitude we have towards alcohol.

The problem of teenagers binge drinking is a reflection not of the legal age-limit but of a drinking culture that pervades New Zealand. It is a culture that is a hangover from the 1960s 6 o’clock swill, a culture that affects all age groups, not just the young, and a culture that tolerates and, indeed, encourages drinking. If we are serious about trying to restrict young people’s access to alcohol, why do we allow it to be sold in supermarkets, which young people frequent? Why do we allow endless advertisements glamorising and promoting alcohol, which young people see every time they turn on their television sets? Why do we allow alcopops and alcohol iceblocks to be targeted at our young? If this Parliament is serious about reducing the harm of alcohol, why do most members of the Health Committee oppose something as simple as putting labels on alcohol that warn of its harmful health effects? It simply does not make sense to pass a law criminalising drinking by 18 and 19-year-olds, while doing nothing significant to change the drinking culture in New Zealand. Young people, particularly those who are convicted of under-age drinking, will see it as utterly hypocritical that a society that tolerates and encourages drinking says it is unacceptable and criminal to drink at 18 or 19. As a recent New Zealand Herald editorial stated, until adults change their drinking habits it seems unlikely that teenagers will mend their ways, no matter what the law says.

We question, too, whether raising the drinking age will reduce alcohol consumption by teenagers or simply drive it underground. Is changing the law really going to stop university students aged 18 and 19 from drinking? I do not think so. Why should it be acceptable for 18-year-olds to be able to vote, to go to war, to become a member of Parliament, to get married, or to have a civil union, but not to drink? Why should it be acceptable for an 18 or 19-year-old to drink in his or her own home, but not in a bar or cafe? It simply does not make sense. Why, if the present law is not being enforced, do we think passing another law will result in more effective enforcement? Members will recall that the Youth Parliament debated this issue at length. The core of its argument was that the age-limit ought to stay the same, the law ought to be properly enforced, and our drinking culture changed. Why not listen to the representatives of youth from around New Zealand whom we paid to come to this Parliament to debate this issue?

So before we raise the age-limit again, let us control the promotion and endless sponsorship of alcohol, including amongst young people and on campuses. Let us ban the advertising of alcohol on television, and, above all, enforce the current law. Research showed in the 1990s that young people see on average 300 to 400 alcohol advertisements every year, and the more they are exposed to advertisements glamorising alcohol, the more likely they are to want to drink. So if we are serious, let us start with getting those advertisements off television. And, yes, there is an argument for allowing the bill to go to a select committee for debate, but, frankly, we can equally have a Health Committee inquiry, or other select committee inquiry, to allow a wide-ranging debate on this issue.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this bill of Matt Robson’s. United Future also is treating this issue as a conscience issue. First of all, I will pick up on one of the points made by Phil Goff that a 15-year-old can get a driver’s licence, a 16-year-old can have sex, and an 18-year-old can vote, etc. Those are all very relevant arguments when one is arguing that a young person should be able to drink at the age of 18. There is one difference with drink—it changes our behaviour and the brain begins to alter. So I do not believe that that is a fair argument.

In respect of the drinking age, I personally believe that the maturity to drink does not necessarily come with an age, but rather with an ability to behave in an acceptable manner in society. If we were to restrict the ability to drink solely to age, I do not know what age I would like to place on it. Many people my age—the mid-fifties—to me do not have the responsibility to be able to drink. I do not have a problem with anybody drinking. But I do have a major problem with people getting drunk—off their face—and causing damage to others and to society.

I also have a member’s bill in the ballot that is probably a little different from Matt Robson’s bill. I will be supporting his bill to a select committee, because I believe that it is time for this issue to be discussed and put forward to the public again. However, my bill allows 18-year-olds to continue to drink in licensed establishments, because I believe that supervised drinking is helpful in the process of gaining maturity in respect of drinking.

I feel for a lot of the young ones in this country. I believe that a vast number of young people are, at 18 years of age, well capable of drinking in a licensed establishment, at parties, and with their friends. But, sadly, many have also grown up in home environments where the example from their parents and adults has been very poor and, therefore, they have never been taught responsibility and how to drink.

Likewise, the driving age was mentioned, and the drinking age was associated with the reasons to increase the driver’s licence age. Personally, I would not go along with that. I think that 15 is a very good age to get a driver’s licence, before one comes under the peer pressure that, to a greater extent, comes when one is with 17 and 18-year-olds. I was pleased that my children got their driver’s licence virtually on the day they turned 15. At least they had a year or two of driving under their belt before the pressures came on later. United Future has two members who will be voting against this bill, and the rest will be voting for it to go to a select committee.

• Debate interrupted.