BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I move, That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill confronts what can be done immediately to reduce the harm associated with alcohol advertising. The specific measures proposed by the bill are to amend the watershed for liquor advertising on television from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and to return the exclusive jurisdiction of liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. In front of us today is a small measure to reduce alcohol-related harm. Television is a small but influential component in our fight against the ills that alcohol inflicts on our communities and especially on our youth. It is my view that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians representing New Zealand communities to refine current rules as best we can and as soon as we can.

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is one of several similar bills currently before the House. This bill aims to reduce alcohol-related harm, along with the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, introduced under the previous Labour Government, which looks towards local alcohol plans. It is important to note that the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill differs from Metiria Turei’s Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, also currently before the House. This bill does not seek a complete ban on liquor advertising, but simply a change in the watershed and jurisdiction of liquor advertising to further align liquor legislation with international norms and with the important premise of upholding the public’s health. I suggest that this bill complements the bill that is now in the name of the Hon Simon Power, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. That bill also seeks to ensure that liquor advertising is consistent with the promotion of responsibility and moderation in the consumption of alcohol and to ensure a reduction of the overall exposure of children and people under the age of 18 years to liquor advertising and liquor promotion. There are provisions in that bill to stop liquor advertising and liquor promotion from holding strong appeal to children or young people. However, whereas the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power has liquor advertising playing a supporting role, this bill that we are considering tonight allows that issue—a key to the proliferation of New Zealand’s binge drinking culture—to take centre stage.

This bill would actively reduce the overall exposure of children and people under the age of 18 to television liquor advertising and promotion, and change the watershed when adverts can first be screened from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. The second provision of this bill is to return the oversight of liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The bill recognises that alcohol-related harm is a public health issue; as such, it should be under the jurisdiction of the Government. Again, the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power has provision to give the Director-General of Health the ability to pull liquor adverts from the air. This recognises that the Advertising Standards Authority, as an industry body, can only go so far in addressing concerns about public health. This bill clarifies that rather than leave the important task with an industry body, liquor advertising should be brought back from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Such a move would show that this Parliament is willing to acknowledge that, although the Advertising Standards Authority does a commendable job in regulating advertising at large, liquor is not simply another commodity. As a public health issue, it needs to be dealt with by the Government.

The current review by the Law Commission, outlined recently by its chair, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, supports the facts associated with alcohol-related harm. The societal and cultural damage caused by alcohol is systemic, and this bill, taken in conjunction with the Hon Simon Power’s bill, seeks to have us, as parliamentarians, acknowledge that we need to act on behalf of the communities we represent.

I will mention some background to this bill. It was originally sponsored by the Hon Matt Robson before being passed to Martin Gallagher in 2005. The bill had two parts: firstly, to raise the purchase age to 20 years and to strengthen the provisions relating to the supply of minors; secondly, to provide a statutory restriction on broadcast liquor advertising before 10 p.m. and transfer the jurisdiction of liquor advertising from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

After the bill’s first reading, the Law and Order Committee divided it into two separate bills, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill, which was defeated in 2006, and the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, which is back before us today. The select committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with the following amendments: that the watershed relates only to television broadcasting of liquor advertisements; that exceptions to the watershed include one for advertisements in which liquor depiction is incidental to the advertisement’s purpose, so as not to create problems with, for example, televising international sporting events; and that the exclusive jurisdiction of liquor advertisements on television by the Broadcasting Standards Authority be clarified.

The history of broadcast liquor advertisements goes back to 1981, when the advertising of alcohol-related outlets on broadcast media was permitted. In 1991 brand-name alcohol advertising on television and radio was permitted, as a result of a decision made by the then National Cabinet, without the consultation of Parliament. These changes, combined with the proliferation of liquor outlets in our communities and the lowering of the alcohol purchase age in 1999, have had adverse effects on alcohol-related harm, which I think we all acknowledge. The current regulatory environment for liquor advertising on television comes under the jurisdiction of the Advertising Standards Authority. It works in partnership with the Advertising Standards Complaints Board and the Advertising Standards Complaints Appeal Board, which is the final arbiter for complaints. This bill moves to reinstate the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s jurisdiction over liquor advertising, which it lost in 1993 after the Hon Maurice Williamson’s Broadcasting Amendment Bill was passed with staunch opposition from Labour. As stated, it also seeks to amend the current liquor advertising watershed from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Some points members may wish to consider include the fact that youth exposure to liquor advertising increased by 20 percent in 2003 after a panel appointed by the Advertising Standards Authority brought the watershed forward to 8.30 p.m. The self-regulatory framework that the Advertising Standards Authority is governed by means that the industries involved could unilaterally alter the watershed. It was believed that by adding a new principle that stated that liquor advertising must observe a high standard of social responsibility, the watershed could be relaxed. That premise is misguided. As the Advertising Standards Authority is an agency driven solely by public complaints, social responsibility on the part of advertisers cannot be guaranteed. Research conducted by the New Zealand Drug Foundation shows that despite the Advertising Standards Authority’s intention that liquor advertisements do not use heroes of the young or unduly masculine themes or behaviour, in fact television advertisements are largely associated with exaggerated mateship, masculinity, and boisterous group scenes. Under the Advertising Standards Authority all those advertisements pass industry pre-vetting. That indicates that there is a reoccurring issue with advertisers’ interpretations of the code.

There is now a call from constituents asking us as parliamentarians to address the concerns of alcohol-related harm. This bill asks that we take a small, responsible step and give regulation to a body with the public interest as its primary concern, and also move television liquor advertising to a later commencement time. I believe that it is expected of us as parliamentarians to do our best to align the bills currently before the House. The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill complements the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power by providing a specific focus on the power and influence of television advertising. I commend this bill to the House and I seek the support of members, who, of course, are allowed to exercise their conscience vote on this measure. Thank you.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am pleased to speak to the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I note that the bill was originally introduced by the Hon Matt Robson in May 2005, so it languished for some considerable time before it was resurrected here today, and it currently stands in Brendon Burns’ name. At its first reading, this bill was treated as a conscience matter because it contained provisions dealing with the minimum legal purchase age and the supply of liquor to minors. This bill was split into two separate bills at the select committee: the first bill being the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, and the second bill being the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill.

This particular bill seeks to make a number of changes to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. It does so, firstly, by extending the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It seeks to do that so that the Broadcasting Standards Authority alone has the jurisdiction to deal with certain specified complaints that are currently dealt with by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. So the bill is essentially moving those complaints from one agency to another. The Broadcasting Standards Authority does a very good job of exercising control and self-regulation over certain specified complaints relating to the broadcasting of liquor advertising. It has, firstly, established a fine not exceeding $100,000 for a breach of this restriction, and, secondly, it has restricted the broadcasting of liquor advertising.

This bill seeks to restrict the broadcasting of liquor advertising to between 10 p.m. and midnight, which has been termed “the watershed”. At the select committee National members were not convinced that the so-called watershed needs to be limited to between 10 p.m. and midnight for television and radio broadcasting of liquor advertising. In fact, there is a compelling argument that the watershed should not apply to television and radio broadcasting. Many young people aged between 10 and 19 watch television and listen to the radio between 9 p.m. and midnight, meaning that their exposure to alcohol advertising may actually increase if this bill passes without amendment. If advertising is condensed to between 10 o’clock and midnight, and these young people are watching a significantly increased amount of advertising during that period, their exposure would be far greater than if the current provisions prevail. That is why National members of the select committee were not convinced. I guess that raises some of the issues the Law Commission refers to in its report, which is titled Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor. The report refers to some of those concerns around robust legislation. I might go back to it later.

This bill is essentially surplus to requirements. Although it might be said that it could be concurrent with the current investigations and legislative proposals along the same lines, I suggest that the bill is superfluous to them and should probably have been dropped way back in 2005, since when it seems to have languished. The bill has been overtaken by the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which had its first reading this year in March. The bill really is quite extraneous, superfluous, over the top, or whatever you will. In short, it is unnecessary in light of the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which had its first reading in March. However, in spite of that, Mr Burns has persisted and we have this bill before us now.

The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also deals with the advertising of liquor, and the more recent bill provides an integrated approach to addressing under-age drinking, with a focus on increased responsibility for families and friends of the youths, as well as the youths themselves. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also sets clearer standards around advertising and ensures consistent monitoring, with a focus on advertising that targets young people. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also targets the areas of youth drink-driving by making it clear that any driver under 20 without a full licence cannot consume any alcohol. Finally, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill addresses licensing laws to give communities more input into licence applications and to provide clarity around when it is appropriate for an outlet to have an off-licence.

I will come back to the drink-driving issue. It is a significant issue that has been raised by submitters to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill who would like to see serious offending through repeat drink-driving taken much more seriously and with far greater penalties in sentencing. In talking about the Law Commission and its review of the Sale of Liquor Act, I tell members that it has been made clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are a matter of priority for the Government. The commission has been asked to bring forward the report-back date, and the commission, in light of this direction from the Minister, is to release an initial discussion document in July. The piecemeal and fragmented proposals set out in the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill provide another example of why New Zealand needs a coherent, comprehensive response to liquor law reform.

The Law Commission report I referred to earlier talks about the idea of a party-based vote for alcohol laws and suggests that the conscience vote for alcohol bills is in place largely because of historical precedent and that it would be preferable to have standard party-based voting rather than a conscience vote for future bills relating to the sale and supply of alcohol. The key reason for this is that conscience votes pose a problem to the quality and coherence of legislation, and that tradition alone is not a satisfactory reason for continuing with the premise that the sale and supply of alcohol liquor laws should be based on a conscience vote. The suggestion from the Law Commission about alcohol bills is that there should be a move away from conscience votes because that would create a parliamentary environment that is stable and able to produce better legislative outcomes.

Also in the report is a comment by the New Zealand Police, which expressed support for a comprehensive review of alcohol laws. The statement was from 2008. The police voiced reservations about the use of conscience votes for the resulting legislation, and it was their view that the benefit of any legislative changes to be realised had to be adopted as Government policy and that the tradition of addressing alcohol-related legislation as a matter of individual choice is not conducive to delivering a comprehensive and cohesive legislative framework. That was the view of the Law Commission and the New Zealand Police. So here we have a member’s bill that will be voted on with a conscience vote and is really superfluous to the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which had its first reading in March. That is why I will not be supporting this member’s bill.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I wish to support the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I pay tribute to all of those members who have been involved in its travel through this Parliament—my former colleagues Matt Robson and Martin Gallagher, and, of course, my current colleague Brendon Burns—who have really championed an important cause in respect of this legislation.

On the one hand I was heartened by the comments from Sandra Goudie, because we have had here today a very clear statement from National members that they will be supporting the removal of the conscience vote for liquor bills, which is fantastic. I really, really commend the member for her statements to the House tonight that National will vote as one on this legislation because they agree that the conscience vote is outmoded and that it is time for it to go. Our party has not yet determined its position on the report of the Law Commission. I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition to prepare a report for our caucus in order to debate what is a very, very important issue. But I take great heart that the Government of the day, National, has decided to eschew the conscience vote on alcohol issues. It is a major step forward for this Parliament and I am very, very heartened by it.

There is a book that I think every member in this House should read. It was prepared by the World Health Organization and has contributions from public health professionals all around the world. It is called Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity. This book is extremely relevant to the legislation we have in front of us today. It is also why I am disappointed that Sandra Goudie stated that National would vote as one against the continuation of this particular law. The reason why I believe that the member would vote this way is that she has not looked at the evidence around the question of reducing consumption and alcohol-related harm. This book makes it very clear that if we want to have an evidence-based approach to the question of dealing with alcohol issues, five very simple steps need to be adopted. The first is to increase the price; second, to increase the legal drinking age; third, to reduce the availability of alcohol; fourth, to reduce the advertising; and, fifth, to increase drink-driving surveillance. Those five measures are evidence-based internationally as mechanisms, or means, by which we can reduce alcohol-related harm in this country.

I presented a submission on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which the member Sandra Goudie referred to in her comments in the House today. I can say that that bill does not cover the areas that are covered by this bill, which is why it is perfectly acceptable that members vote for this bill and also support the Government measure that is currently in front of the select committee. I will tell members why. Two things are covered in this bill that are not covered in the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. One of them is the watershed time issue, which my colleague has traversed in some detail. It was a decision of the Advertising Standards Authority to bring back the watershed time to 8.30 p.m. To be honest, I was not aware that the authority had brought back that watershed time, because the last time I appeared in front of the authority was Wednesday, 22 April 1998, when the watershed time was much later than it is today. It is really important that Parliament gets to decide these issues. They are important issues. We know that alcohol advertising has an impact on the environment and on the way that alcohol is being treated as an ordinary commodity in this country.

The second issue that this legislation deals with is the transfer from the Advertising Standards Authority back to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Again, this issue is not dealt with in the sale of liquor legislation that is before the select committee at the moment. So I reject the previous speaker’s comments that we should vote against this bill because another bill before a select committee deals with other ways of addressing some of the concerns about the type of advertising that the current law allows.

I believe that this bill must be supported, because it is a very positive public health matter. It seemed strange to me, and I was a member of Parliament at the time, when the then Minister of Broadcasting was also the Associate Minister of Health. I could not quite get that he would be responsible for overseeing the jurisdictional transfer from the Broadcasting Standards Authority to the Advertising Standards Authority. I wonder whether, as a Government Minister today, he really stands by the decision that he made at that time.

Sue Moroney: Who was it?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Maurice Williamson was responsible for that decision. Although I very strongly support the need for stronger supervision in this area, which is why I very much support the transfer back to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, I do not believe that the issue was properly debated at the time. The genie was already out of the bottle, to use an expression I have used in another context. The reason the genie was already out of the bottle was that we already had brand advertising on television by the time the transfer was made. That was not something that Parliament had an opportunity to debate. I recall being a brand new member of Parliament and being quite frustrated by this major shift in social policy, which was occurring without the opportunity to debate it within the House. The amendment to the broadcasting legislation that my colleague Brendon Burns referred to in his contribution actually occurred some time after the real decision about broadcasting alcohol advertisements on television had already been made.

I will comment on a few of the things that I said back in 1998, even though, in a way, nobody wants to be proved to be prophetic in that regard. One of the arguments that was used against reducing, limiting, or, indeed, banning—which is my personal preference—alcohol advertising on TV was the question of whether there had been an increase or decrease in consumption. Those who were arguing for the public health message were being asked to prove issues around the question of consumption rates. The industry itself was never asked to prove whether the rate of decline would have been higher had the industry not been able to push those advertising buttons.

The other issue is the question of aggregate figures hiding the impact on certain groups who are much more exposed. At the time, I used the example of the youth unemployment rate, which was over three times higher than the New Zealand aggregate. Often the aggregated figures hide the real problem, and in this area the youth drinking problem is being hidden. I used the argument that from a public health perspective we had to argue the other side, which was about what alcohol advertising does to the environment and what it does to enhance the public health of New Zealand. We know from the Business and Economic Research Ltd estimates that alcohol, as a whole, causes $5.3 billion worth of damage in terms of the cost to our economy on an annual basis. We are talking about a major harm here. So I ask why we are on the back foot arguing around alcohol advertising, when the industry should be defending its right to advertise, instead of it being the other way around.

I mentioned at the time that we had a visiting public health expert in New Zealand. She worked in a busy emergency department in a large city hospital, and kept seeing the results of violence. It did not take her long to work out that violence has to be treated as a public health issue. She talked about the different forms of interventions: primary, secondary, and tertiary. She used the example of smoking. A primary intervention would be a programme designed to prevent people from taking up smoking, a secondary intervention would be a smoking cessation programme, and a tertiary intervention would be an operation on a cancerous lung. She asked whether health promotion dollars would be best spent on surgeons doing the operations. The point is that, no, that is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We are spending an awful lot of money at the bottom of the cliff—on prison for the offenders and on hospitals for the victims. This bill deserves support.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : I want to clarify that there will be a personal vote, not a party vote, on this bill from the National side. The National members understand that. All sensible, thinking people would agree that liquor abuse is a hugely vexatious issue for New Zealand. I commend the intention of the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. The Government has made it clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are a matter of priority for the Government. With direction from the Minister of Justice, the Law Commission is working on documents regarding the whole issue, which are becoming available to us as we seriously review the concerns that New Zealand society has about the harm caused by liquor, especially to our young people.

The intention of the bill before the House is to reduce the harm of liquor to the lives of young people—and who would not agree with that intention? Just as important, the intention of the bill is also to reduce the harm on all those who are affected by young people under the adverse influence of liquor. The sponsor of the bill calls it a small step. I believe that the bill does not go to the lengths needed to effectively address the problem.

The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Amendment Bill that has been presented by the Government to the House also seeks to amend the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and to address the issue of the harm of liquor to youths in a more comprehensive and integrated manner. Like a multitude of parents of teenage children, I am extremely interested in legislation that will make our children’s worlds safer for them and their peers. About the time when teenage boys become interested in liquor they also become increasingly interested in fast cars, which is a dangerous and volatile combination, as we know.

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, sponsored by Mr Brendon Burns, seeks to address the issue of advertising, but in ways that I believe may—as my colleague mentioned before—make little change to liquor advertising or may possibly even increase the exposure of teenagers to liquor advertising. The bill seeks to restrict all advertising of liquor to the 10 p.m. to midnight time frame. However, the probability that teenagers will not watch TV or listen to the radio between 10 p.m. and midnight is extremely remote. In fact, if liquor advertisers have only that time frame in which to advertise, it is likely that the concentration of liquor advertising during that time frame—a time when a lot of teenagers are viewing TV and listening to the radio—may increase. An unintended consequence of the bill could possibly be that teenagers actually get increased exposure to liquor advertising than is currently the case. Another title for the bill could be the “Compulsory 10 p.m. Bedtime for All Teenagers in New Zealand Bill”.

Iain Lees-Galloway: What’s wrong with that?

JONATHAN YOUNG: I was, of course, being facetious with that last comment. Research indicates that parents are the main suppliers of liquor to minors: 60 percent of minors identify parents as the primary source of their liquor supply. Around 30 percent of liquor is supplied by friends, and 10 to 15 percent is purchased by minors from licensed premises.

I will read out a quote from the New Zealand Medical Association’s New Zealand Medical Journal from 2 June 2006: “The severely worsening statistics for alcohol harm, especially for women and young teenagers, call for radical thinking about the multiple causes, and their long-term solution, not just regulatory, pricing, or policing measures, important though they are … Highly sophisticated advertising, some electronic, is largely ‘beneath the parental radar,’ and promotes youth alcohol culture. Scottish researchers have found that the industry knows the distinct preferences of even 11-14 year olds (who like inexpensive sweet drinks and colourful, wacky packaging) and 15-17 year olds (who prefer sophisticated adult brand names).”

In reading that quote I am saying that there are issues and problems in our society regarding the consumption of liquor by young people—we do not doubt that—but the association says that there are multiple causes, and that the long-term solution is not just regulation, pricing, or policing, as important as they are. I believe that the association is referring to attitudinal changes that our society needs to embrace and adopt. The issue will not be addressed just by further regulation of TV and radio advertising.

I believe that the problem has to do with the attitudes of the public at every level. For instance, when a drink becomes popular amongst teenagers because it is called Cocaine—it is available in some local supermarkets—we ought to wonder not just about advertising times but about attitudes in our society whereby the name of a class A drug can be normalised in the pursuit of financial gain. We have to ask how far over the edge of the cliff we are willing to let our young people lean.

Coming back to the issue of the harm of liquor to youths, the fact that 60 percent of liquor is provided by parents puts the issue of liquor supply and potential harm strongly with the parents’ attitude to liquor. I believe that parents are the best way for teenagers to learn how to handle these sorts of issues, and the responsibility regarding them, in a very positive way. Although electronic advertising is not an issue to be ignored, the biggest promoter of how to manage liquor is the lives and examples of parents and caregivers. Responsible attitudes to liquor are very important to the mature development of our young people.

One principle of the code of advertising liquor from the Advertising Standards Authority is “Anyone visually prominent in a liquor advertisement depicting liquor being consumed shall be and shall appear to be at least 25 years of age with their behaviour and appearance clearly appropriate for people of that age or older.” That principle is to ensure that, in advertising, the consumption of liquor is seen as an adult activity, and that the behaviour associated with it is deemed to be responsible, in keeping with that age.

A number of liquor advertising complaints have recently been made to the Advertising Standards Authority, particularly about some of the adverts that are probably enjoyed most of all by teenagers. None of those complaints received by the Advertising Standards Authority was upheld. That does not mean that the complaints were superfluous, by any means, but rather reflects that in the balance of things the authority felt that the advertisers did not contravene the principles of the guidelines. One complaint that was upheld was an advertisement that stated “Sometimes you can have a hell of a day and still have a hell of a night.” The majority view of the authority was that the advert crossed the line by implying that liquor created a desirable change in mood—to turn a bad day into a good night—and, as such, did not meet the “high standard of social responsibility” required by principle 2 of the code of advertising liquor and was in breach of the guidelines.

I believe that social responsibility is the key aspect we need to see in the thinking and attitudes of New Zealanders regarding the use of liquor and its associated influence on teenagers. Social responsibility is the one mitigating component that ensures that liquor consumption is not harmful to others. The National Government’s legislation takes a comprehensive approach that seeks to highlight social responsibility as the most powerful modifier of the abuse of liquor, by seeking to support a more moderate drinking environment and a culture that reduces normalisation of youth drinking.

I reiterate the New Zealand Medical Association’s comment: “The severely worsening statistics for alcohol harm, especially for women and young teenagers, call for radical thinking about the multiple causes, and their long-term solution,”. Although regulation is a means and a lever to address alcohol harm—and it touches on the issue of advertising—society itself and the environment of the home will provide the deeper and longer-lasting solution. Thank you very much.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : Let me state at the outset that the Green Party will support the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. We agree that there should be much stricter regulation of alcohol advertising in New Zealand. However, I say with respect that we do not believe that this bill goes far enough. Indeed, we have our own bill in the name of Metiria Turei, the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, which would remove broadcast advertising of alcohol from television and radio.

The aggressive promotion of alcohol features strongly in New Zealand society. This cannot but exacerbate the problems of alcohol abuse. In 1992 alcohol brand advertising was introduced into broadcast media, leading to a 42 percent increase in advertising expenditure and a fourfold increase in televised alcohol advertising in the first 3 years. By 1998 there was approximately $52 million of alcohol sponsorship and advertising on television and radio, and in newspapers and magazines. The money spent on health promotion messages is a fraction of that amount. As a result, the primary source of information for most people about alcohol and how to use it is alcohol advertising.

Alcohol advertising in broadcast media is characterised by the association of alcohol brands with desired lifestyle images. The message coming from that advertising is that if one wants to have what it takes, one has to be able to take one’s drink. The Green Party bill seeks to address the problems associated with this kind of advertising by regulating the marketing, advertising, and promotion of alcohol products through the broadcast media. However, our bill has not been debated yet, and we look forward to the day when it is debated.

Alcohol is a drug like any other drug. When used in moderation by adults, its harms to the individual and the community are generally considered low and acceptable. However, as with all drugs, there are many who abuse and misuse this particular drug, which causes considerable harm to both the individual user and to the public at large. In order to manage those harms while retaining the principle that adults will, and do, engage in non-problematic drug use, a strong regulatory framework is inevitably required. In the case of tobacco, the community harms are severe. This drug, alcohol, similarly causes severe harm. Therefore, it too should be subject to a very similar regulatory framework that applies to tobacco. To this end, it is Green Party policy that the public health measures should include the following: firstly, a ban on broadcast of alcohol advertising; secondly, a requirement for compulsory health warnings on all alcohol and tobacco products; and, thirdly, support for the use of pricing mechanisms, including taxes, duties, and levies, to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol.

This bill, as I say with respect, does not go far enough to address these concerns. Yet none the less, we will support it as far as it goes. We encourage the House to support any and all measures that will reduce the harm that this powerful drug causes in our own national community. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The key mechanism we are voting on this afternoon is to support a specific restriction on the broadcasting on television of liquor advertising. It is a debate set within the context of the current regulatory framework for alcohol advertising: the power of the message. In this respect, when I consider the steering group gurus—the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC), the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Youth Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the Broadcasting Standards Authority—there is no denying that those organisations with the power over the policy are able to guide the House to know whether this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill sets the standards that it suggests it does. So when I read the views of ALAC that more detailed research is needed to understand the impact of advertising on Māori and Pasifika peoples, and that dedicated resources should be set aside to address the impact of alcohol use on Māori, I think that those views should be listened to and respected.

This bill will take the blatant advertising of booze off our television screens. That is a good thing, but it is small speck in an ocean of desperation; a system in which meagre benefits are transferred straight into the hands of grog sellers and where the owners of the alcohol outlets profit from the addiction of the people. In terms of this situation of misery, the Māori Party is particularly concerned with the outcomes for Māori and particularly our rangatahi. We know that amongst young people, there are no significant differences in the prevalence of alcohol consumption between males and females or between Māori and non-Māori. For once, we are all equal. Starting with the good news first, the 2003 ALAC study of New Zealand drinking trends showed that 50 percent of the population of 12 to 17-year-olds are non-drinkers. So often this place is obsessed with fixing up the problems and telling the country what is wrong with it. It is a classic case of the glass being half full or half empty. We need to be looking at this 50 percent figure. What is it that stops our rangatahi reaching for the bottle? What sort of whānau support is in place to mean that alcohol is not the answer?

The other fact we need to promote is that the actual number of young people drinking alcohol is not increasing. The issue lies in how we drink. This is particularly so for rangatahi Māori. Māori youth drink less regularly in comparison to youth in general, but Māori youth drink heavily when they do drink. According to ALAC’s study, Māori youth drinkers were significantly more likely to have consumed large amounts of alcohol at least once a week, at 23.8 percent, compared with non-Māori youth drinkers, at 9.8 percent. The culture of binge drinking across all sectors of our community has a particular impact on our young Māori kids. It is the nature of binge drinking that makes for high risk. I am pretty confident in assuming that it was our Māori kids that Māori MPs were thinking of in 2005, when 14 of them voted in favour of raising the sale of alcohol age to 20.

We believe we need the sort of leadership that is legendary amongst Māori. That leadership dates back to a group of staunch Tai Rāwhiti women who stood up against their men, as those men composed the famous haka “Poropeihana” in opposition to the introduction of legislation on the prohibition of alcohol. Those women called on Apirana Ngata to stand tall to promote the message that alcohol abuse was not part of the Māori dream. I think now about all those cause champions in Kaunihera Whakatūpato Waipiro, or ALAC, who are promoting the message: “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” It saddens me to think that we are still struggling with the “go hard and drink until you drop” culture, and the glory of getting wasted and getting out of it, almost a century after those Ngāti Porou wāhine called on Ngata for intervention. When we think about this bill and the restrictions that will be placed on TV advertising, perhaps we need to think more carefully about messages pointing out the hazards of drinking frequently and consuming higher volumes of alcohol.

In researching the background to this bill, one of the things that got me going was that over half of the young people aged between 12 and 17 years who binge drink said that their parents gave them alcohol, and a staggering 48 percent of them reported that they are not supervised by an adult when they drink. So when we look at youth alcohol abuse, just as I think the alcohol outlets should be targeted and not the boozers, maybe our energies need to stop going into attacking young people and instead need to target whānau. We need an all-out, comprehensive approach that holds us all responsible. We could look at how many parliamentary functions would be shut down if we started putting some limits around alcohol advertising sponsorship. Any members who go out on night patrol with the cops around their electorate will witness the cells filling up with grossly intoxicated young people on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. How many fights are fuelled by liquor? How many convictions result from drink-driving or alcohol-related crashes? How many young people are referred to Youth Aid for disorderly behaviour? Will this bill address the fact that alcohol is a contributing factor in around 25 percent of fatal crashes and 20 percent of serious injury crashes on our roads?

The Māori Party supports the regulations and prohibition placed on advertising by the liquor industry. Let us be clear: the industry is not interested in public health or youth development when it glamorises the power of alcohol as a mind-altering substance. The essential evil of alcohol is the attitude we hold towards it. I take great pride in being a non-drinker, a non-smoker, and drug-free, knowing that for so many of our whānau, alcohol exacerbates the issues that already confront them. I also take pride in being the mother of five Māori children, who, thankfully, made it safely through their adolescence. But my youngest daughter had several friends who did not make it through, and in many cases alcohol was the cause of their deaths.

Sixty percent of Māori inmates say that alcohol or drug use was a factor in their offending. Whānau destruction goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse. We do not need to see any more photos on the 6 p.m. news bulletins of houses with bottles lined up outside against the wall to see the connection. Sure, the booze barons and the corporate giants must be held responsible for peddling a killer substance across the counter, but I have to ask who takes the first step in initiating change. We need research to liberate our families from dependence on alcohol. We need restrictions in place to ensure we put the brakes on a drinking culture that is motivated by getting totally legless and off one’s face. Most of all, we need to have real alternatives to replace the keg or the bottle. We need whānau who can have fun without the booze, recreation that does not depend on liquor outlets as the only venue, and real opportunities to turn away from drug and alcohol dependence.

Alcohol is still the most damaging drug in our society, and the most frightening thing is that this drug is legal from the age of 18 years.

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

RAHUI KATENE: It should not be a matter of “Just say when.”; it should be “Just because we can.” or “Just because we care.” We will be supporting the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Kia ora.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I rise tonight to speak to the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break I listened to the very interesting speech made by the MP for Te Tai Tonga, Rahui Katene. I share her concerns about the tremendous harm caused by the misuse of alcohol and the insidious nature of the companies that peddle alcohol. Societal harm from alcohol is all too common.

There can be no question that we all wish to reduce the amount of harm caused by alcohol, particularly as it relates to young drinkers. Alcohol-related issues are a priority for this Government—we have made that very clear since the very early days of our Government. I think that all members would agree that this is a significant issue for our communities, that it is a major driver of violent crime—especially domestic violence—and that it causes a significant number of problems for our health system to deal with.

Since I was fortunate enough to become a member of the House, I, like many of my colleagues, have spent time with local police. In speaking with them and spending time out on patrol with them in their cars, one message has kept coming through, and that is the tremendous amount of work caused for them by the abuse of alcohol in our society. Some of the police I have spoken with have estimated that as much as 90 percent of their average workload is related in some way to alcohol. I am particularly concerned about domestic violence, which often affects women. It also affects children and older folk in our community.

These issues are tremendously enhanced by the long hours that drinking establishments are allowed to be open each day and each week. Equally, I have found when speaking to colleagues in the health profession, particularly those in the emergency departments of our hospitals, that the story is the same. If they did not have to deal with alcohol-abuse issues, their lives would be far easier and the pressures on our health system would be considerably reduced.

So it is clear that heavy drinking is not putting only our young people at risk. It puts at risk their families and any stranger who may have the misfortune to encounter them at the wrong moment—perhaps when they are behind the wheel of a car. It also puts at risk the hard-working members of our police force and our health system. It also puts at risk our fire crews and our ambulance drivers, none of whom ask for this problem to come to their doors.

Against the backdrop of the harm caused by alcohol, I commend any member of this House who tries to find ways to address some of these serious issues. But that does not mean that any attempt to deal with alcohol issues should be supported without careful thought. These are serious issues but they are complex, and as a politician I am seriously wedded to the need to ensure that we guard against doing something just for the sake of it. Too often this House has passed laws that have been driven by the need to do something but that do not address the real mischief. I understand that we all feel a need to make a difference, but we have to be careful when we pass laws. It is an extreme responsibility, and we need to be very careful that the laws we pass will actually make a significant difference.

As I said, this is a complex area. My strong preference is not to play around the edges and take a piecemeal approach but to consider the whole of the problem, which has many aspects, and look at real, substantive solutions. When I considered this bill and how I wanted to vote on it, I came to the conclusion that its measures will not make a meaningful difference. I was not lucky enough to sit on the Law and Order Committee, which considered the bill, so I acknowledge that I do not have in front of me all the information that the members of the committee had, but I am called upon to make a decision. I have given it careful thought, and I simply cannot see that the two elements of the bill will really do much more than give the members of this House a warm feeling of having tried to do something.

The transfer of responsibility for alcohol advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority from the current jurisdiction of the Advertising Standards Authority seems to me to address a problem that does not actually exist. I have not seen any real evidence that the Advertising Standards Authority is not handling the issues competently. The more substantive measure in the bill is to restrict alcohol advertising on TV and radio to between 10 p.m. and midnight—the so-called watershed.

I was particularly affected by the argument that a lot of the young people we want to target are more likely to watch TV and listen to the radio in the later hours of the evening—certainly from 9 p.m. to midnight. A real concern worth reflecting on is the fact that if we limit alcohol advertising to those hours, there is a real risk that the proportion of alcohol advertising that young people will be exposed to will in fact increase. That is something we certainly should not take lightly.

I will not be supporting this bill. Although I applaud its focus, I am simply not satisfied that it will achieve anything in real terms. New Zealand deserves a comprehensive response to liquor-related issues, and that response, I believe, is already in progress. The good work that is under way needs to be looked at as a whole.

The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill is already before the Justice and Electoral Committee. That bill covers a number of the issues addressed by this bill and provides an integrated approach to youth drinking issues. It is not a silver bullet, and I do not hold it up as being one, but I think it provides a more comprehensive approach to the issues. It certainly includes provisions around the advertising of alcohol. We are better placed if we leave this Parliament and the select committee to complete their work on that bill rather than try to muddy the waters around the edges.

In addition—and I know that this has already been mentioned in the debate—we have to be mindful of the fact that the Law Commission, which is a specialist body that considers such issues, is in the process of completing a comprehensive piece of work on the issues around alcohol abuse. One of this Government’s first actions was to indicate, through Minister Power, that it wanted that to be treated as a priority item, and it asked for the report-back date to be brought forward.

The first volume of that work has already been released. It relates to conscience voting and to how that has had an impact on the quality of our liquor legislation. Certainly, that has provided food for thought. My understanding is that we can expect the remainder of the report to be released sometime within the next few weeks—I understand that the commission is working to a date sometime in July. In light of the fact that a comprehensive bill is already working its way through the House and that the Law Commission is completing important work on the issue, we really need to take the approach of doing it once and doing it right. We should not try to muddy the waters.

In conclusion, I say that I applaud the work of the members who have brought this bill to the House, seen it through the select committee, and continued to support it, but, for my part, I do not feel able to support it. It falls into the camp of doing something for the sake of doing something. I do not see that it will make a real difference in terms of these important issues. I would prefer that the House focused on the important pieces of work that are looking at this issue more comprehensively. Thank you.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) : Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. It is indeed my pleasure to stand in support of my colleague the MP for Christchurch Central, Brendon Burns, and his Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill.

This bill is very important because it confronts the reality that we all need to take collective responsibility to reduce the harm associated with alcohol advertising. Everyone in New Zealand—adults, young people, children, families, and communities—is affected by alcohol advertising. The two specific measures of this bill are to amend the watershed for liquor advertising from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and to return exclusive jurisdiction for liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

I have been really impressed with the amount of research and consultation my colleague Brendon Burns has done in relation to this legislation. He has worked with many groups, including the New Zealand Drug Foundation, and looked at alcohol advertising policy, the Review of research on alcohol advertising and sponsorship, and the report of the steering group for the Review of the Regulation of Alcohol Advertising. One of the biggest reasons why we need to take collective responsibility is seen daily through the evidence particularly of our young people, the impact on them of excessive alcohol consumption, and also the huge influence of advertising.

I want to point out some facts from the research and from the huge amount of consultation that Brendon has done for this bill. First of all we should approach this issue with the knowledge that 99 percent of New Zealand children watch television. In fact, in many families television is a babysitter for our children. Ninety-two percent of 12 to 13-year-olds, 68 percent of 9 to 11-year-olds, and 24 percent of 6 to 8-year-olds are still up after 8.30 p.m. on weeknights and, consequently, are exposed to liquor advertising. The other point the research has brought out—and this research is all sourced—is that young people learn their drinking behaviours from those around them. The results of the secondary school survey conducted in 2007 showed that 72 percent of our students have tried alcohol and 54 percent of students sourced their alcohol from their parents. Dr Sue Bagshaw from Christchurch’s Youth Health Centre sees around 7,000 teenagers every year. She says that for a teenager in New Zealand binge drinking is a rite of passage, and that nothing will change until the marketing of alcohol, and of alcopops in particular, is restricted, based on looking at what we have achieved with nicotine.

A lot of the evidence of the impact of advertising on our children and young people is there. Of course, we see evidence in relation not only to crime but also to drink-driving and binge drinking. In my own electorate of Mana there are nine alcohol outlets in Porirua East, where the majority of the 19,000 residents are aged between 15 and 24. We have seen huge evidence of the negative impacts of excessive alcohol advertising and easily accessible liquor outlets. Alcohol advertising will have contributed to the fact also that over the 10-year period from 1990 to 1999, 14 to 17-year-olds doubled the amount they drank on a typical drinking occasion, going from drinking two to three drinks to drinking five to six in later years. The information acquired by the Group Against Liquor Advertising from Statistics New Zealand showed that teenagers from 14 to 17 years of age drink about $2.7 million worth of alcohol per week.

The other group that has concerns about this issue in relation to our young people are parents. Eighty-four percent of parents surveyed in the Seen and Heard: Children’s Media Use, Exposure, and Response study from the Broadcasting Standards Authority in 2008 registered concern about their children’s exposure to television content. The steering group for the Review of the Regulation of Alcohol Advertising, set up in 2007 after a recommendation from our Health Committee, said that the goal of the review was “to see whether the existing regulatory framework for alcohol advertising fits with the Government’s alcohol policy.” At the core of the work of that steering group was the recommendation—a strong recommendation—to minimise the overall exposure of our children and young people under the minimum purchasing age to alcohol advertising. This is a big issue for us; it is the role of Government to look after the welfare of its citizens, especially our young and especially our children. The review also showed that alcohol advertising plays a role in shaping the culture of drinking that has proliferated in New Zealand; it reflects and amplifies drinking practices in the context of a country’s social and economic and cultural history. It is important that we take responsibility for this issue as it is very, very serious.

The other thing with the Broadcasting Standards Authority jurisdiction is that voluntary health and community sectors have long advocated that alcohol-related harm is a public health issue best regulated by Government, hence the importance of moving that advertising responsibility to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It is a public health issue; it is an issue for all of us.

What was also interesting from the work of the steering group was that it showed a call from our youth for Government regulation. Submissions from youth-orientated organisations all over New Zealand proposed that alcohol advertising should be Government regulated. These organisations wanted regulation of alcohol advertising within broadcast programming and other alcohol advertising brought under one body, and that call came from the young people also. It is really important that we hear that call.

One of the most important issues in relation to this bill sponsored by Brendon Burns, and it is why I encourage everyone to use their conscience vote to support it, is that we have to take responsibility. That is why we are in these public roles; that is why we are members of Parliament. Our role is to make sure that we minimise alcohol harm but also ensure that it is a public health issue—it is an issue for all of us. We are expected as parliamentarians to do our best to align these bills before the House; of course, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill complements the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. The spirit of being able to rise above party politics is to use our conscience vote in a way that can really make a difference. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is really just an example of what we will face in this Parliament, and have faced over many years, with regard to this issue. It is not a new issue; it is not something that has just arisen in recent times. In fact, this bill has its genesis in many other members’ bills that have been put forward to deal with the issue. That constant relooking at the issue of youth alcohol, the advertising of alcohol, and the alcohol drinking age is something that Parliament is grappling to come to terms with. In reality, the constant number of members’ bills in this area reflects a concern in the community and in this Parliament, but also an inability to find solutions. Governments of all descriptions have been grappling with the problem just as the members have. Members did not come to a unified approach in the last term of the previous Government, and this Government is making attempts through the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill to remedy the issue.

When we look at this bill we need to reflect quite deeply on the history and the nature of this issue. I remember that Martin Gallagher took over the bill from Matt Robson, who originally brought it to the House. That was some time ago, in 2005. Martin Gallagher was a member from Hamilton like me, and he was a very good member. Tim Macindoe has taken over his seat, representing it on behalf of the National Party, and he is dealing with the very same issues in his electorate now that were there then. When Martin was bringing this bill forward he struggled to get votes for it, as well. He found it difficult to get support across parties, because the reality is that this Parliament has not judged the issue on its full merits yet. This Parliament is trying just to find some solutions and some stop-gap measures for something that it does not really want to face or has not had the courage to face in the appropriate manner. That is probably at the heart of what we should take from tonight’s debate. There is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but this bill may not be the best way to deal with it. There may be better ways, if we take a more cohesive approach and look at the wider issue and what we are actually dealing with. I think that is why, from my personal point of view, we will not be, or I will not be, supporting this bill. In the sense that—

Hon Steve Chadwick: “We”?

DAVID BENNETT: No, that is my personal view, and I am allowed to have my personal view. There is an issue here, but it needs to be dealt with in the appropriate manner. The appropriate manner is to find a cohesive solution that deals with the issue. We have been talking about members’ bills in this area for many years now, and we have not received the response we needed. National has made an attempt, as a Government, to do something in this area. If we look at the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which had its first reading in the first part of this year, we see that it also deals with the advertising of liquor and provides a more integrated approach to dealing with that issue. It focuses on families and youth in dealing with the issue and providing for personal responsibility. That bill deals with the advertising issue and sets clearer standards and provides consistent monitoring.

One of the negatives of the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that we are debating is the restriction on broadcasting of liquor advertising, in the sense of that watershed period of 10 p.m. to midnight. Basically, a young person in the age group that would be engaged in drinking will be up at that time of night. The really young will not be up then, but for the others 10 p.m. to 12 p.m. is not late. That is probably the time when the TV programmes that are more suitable to their age group would be on and they would be watching them. That is why we have to look at the heart of the bill that we are debating tonight. It does not provide the right solution, and that is why I am not voting for it. If it provided the right solutions, then we would have a better chance of getting this bill through.

When we look at the bill, we see that it has separated out the purchase age from the restrictions on broadcasting, which we are essentially talking about tonight. That purchase age is actually quite a heated issue, and is part of the equation that needs to be dealt with along with the broadcasting issue. Breaking the issues up is an attempt to get one part of the approach through, while leaving the other more contentious part out of the political arena at this time. From a political point of view that may be a savvy decision, but it does not show that the bill intends to deal with the issues that we need to deal with. It probably shows an attempt to try to just deal with part of the issues—

Brendon Burns: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I point out that this bill does not have any reference to age issues. That matter was dealt with by the select committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat.

DAVID BENNETT: My whole point was that this bill does not have any talk of the age in it. If that member had been listening, he would have been aware of that. But he was not listening to the nature of the debate. He did not take cognisance of the issues that have been raised, and that is a shame when we consider that he is promoting this member’s bill.

The bill should take into account the wider issues and deal with the nature of the problem, rather than have a part taken out of it when that member thinks that it is politically expedient to do so and that it will enable the passing of the legislation. The reality is that we need a cohesive approach to this issue. We need to take a constructive approach, where we look at the nature of the issue and work for some common solutions that will deal with the problems. We do not need to start up a patchwork of solutions, which members think they can get through this House, just because a bill deals with part of the issue. We need to take a more open approach and look at it in a wider sense. That is why the bill does not have my support, anyway.

When we look at the legislation that we can pass—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime.

DAVID BENNETT: Well, I do not see Labour members making alcohol illegal. That really goes to the heart of how we should deal with this issue, rather than using slogans like “Tough on crime” when we are debating a bill that deals with a very important issue in our community.

There is an opportunity for the House to delve into this issue at some stage and come to a constructive solution, but this bill does not provide that solution. It is an attempt to provide part of the solution, and, in doing that, it does not take into account the real issues that we are dealing with. We encourage members to look at those real issues in the future, and to look to legislation that provides real and meaningful solutions, rather than a measure that has been cut down for political expediency, just to get it through the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : Before I get under way, I offer my congratulations to my colleague and friend Dr Rajen Prasad on becoming a grandfather for the first time today. Dr Prasad can see that the whole House is congratulating him and his family on the beautiful baby girl who has joined their family.

But getting down to business, I say I gave the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill quite serious thought, because it is, after all, a conscience vote on the bill tonight, although people may be surprised to hear that if they have just tuned into this debate. Earlier on in the debate Sandra Goudie made the slight mistake of using the word “we”. I do not know whether it was the royal “we”, but she accidentally said: “We will not be supporting this bill.” I thought: “OK, the National Party has had a bit of this lately. It doesn’t quite get around to telling its junior members exactly what its position is on everything.” After all, that happened to Melissa Lee with regard to the Waterview extension. She was not quite told what National’s position was on it, and then she was hung out to dry. I thought the use of the word “we” might show a lack of communication, but then as the speeches went on we heard the same arguments being made over and over again. Obviously, the National research unit did not produce very many notes on this bill, so we heard the same arguments, the same reasons, for not voting in favour of this bill.

Then the previous speaker, Mr Bennett, let that royal “we” slip in there again, just by mistake, I am sure. It was just a slip of the tongue.

Hon Steve Chadwick: It wasn’t a mistake.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It was not a mistake at all. It is not that the National caucus is not talking; actually the conversation at caucus probably went something along these lines: “We can’t whip you, but here’s how you’re going to vote.” Members opposite have all been whipped into line, even if just quietly—

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been listening very intently since that gentleman rose to his feet, but I have not heard one thing about the bill. All that he has spoken about so far is how, supposedly, National members are going to vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think the member makes a point, but this debate does tend to be a little wider ranging than the member’s expectation. I would have to say that some other members have transgressed in that respect.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This is a conscience vote, and I know there have been some discussions of that. If I get time this evening, I will refer to the Law Commission’s Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor and the commission’s thoughts on conscience voting to do with alcohol issues.

This bill, as we have discussed several times tonight, does essentially two things: first, it amends the watershed time for liquor advertising from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., and, second, it seeks to transfer the jurisdiction for liquor advertising from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Mr Burns has put in a lot of work to make sure the Labour caucus is very well informed about the history of this bill. It was first introduced to the House by Matt Robson back in 2005. The torch was then passed to Martin Gallagher, and it has now been passed to Brendon Burns. That is not a reflection at all on the quality of the bill; it is simply the nature of members’ bills, I think. We have very few members’ days, and members’ bills can languish at select committees.

This is a good bill. It is a small step, but a step very much in the right direction. We do have problems—not a problem, but problems—with alcohol in this country, and there is an expectation that we as politicians will be prepared to do something about that. We have heard from a lot of speakers on the other side of the House tonight about how we must do something about alcohol, or about how we as a society must accept that we have to do something. But given the chance to do something that will do no harm—this bill will do no harm whatsoever; although this step may be a small step, it is a step in the right direction—given the chance to take a step in the right direction, and given the chance to take a favourable position on a public health issue, the Government has failed to do so. The Government has absolutely failed to do so. Those members have been pulled into line on a conscience vote, and—

Hon Steve Chadwick: They know.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is right; those members know. Some of them should surely be able to see the merits of this bill and of getting in behind a small step in the right direction.

When we talk to the police, to social agencies, to community drug and alcohol treatment services, or to youth workers, we find that they all want to talk to us about alcohol: about how alcohol is a driver of crime, a driver of social deprivation, and a driver of family and domestic violence. We have heard already this evening about the economic impact of harmful alcohol misuse and abuse. The cost to this country of alcohol abuse is $5.3 billion annually, and that is out of a total cost of $6.2 billion—that is, just $0.9 billion more—associated with harmful drug and alcohol abuse. That $5.3 billion cost is attributable to alcohol. Alcohol stands out; by far and away the single biggest drug issue we have in this country is the harmful misuse and abuse of alcohol. Yet given the opportunity to take one small step to do something about it, the Government has failed to do so.

We get nervous about tackling alcohol issues. Why is that? It is because there is a reasonable, sociable, and responsible way to use alcohol. I am sure that most members in this House probably enjoy a drink or two from time to time, and enjoy it in an absolutely responsible and socially acceptable way. We get nervous around alcohol, but we do not get that same kind of nervousness when we are talking about other drugs. One of those other drugs in particular at the moment is methamphetamine. Methamphetamine has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever—none, whatsoever. It is highly addictive, just like alcohol, but it does not foster any social behaviour patterns in the way that alcohol can. The damage caused by methamphetamine use is absolutely minuscule in comparison with that caused by alcohol, yet the Prime Minister, amongst others, has been banging on and on about P and methamphetamine. I do not disagree that we need to be vigilant about the harder drugs, but why do we have such a disproportional attitude and response to something that has such a tiny impact in comparison with alcohol? I think that that is something we really have to come to terms with, in this House.

Alcohol is a drug. Geoffrey Palmer is on record as saying “Alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is a drug. Alcohol would be classed as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 if it were treated on its merits … Obviously, that is not going to happen, but the properties of alcohol are the reason why it must be closely regulated. Alcohol, like any other drug, can do harm.” The opportunity is here tonight for members to take a small step, and it is an opportunity where we are not being whipped but can stand up and speak on our own behalf and say what our position is. But, unfortunately, the Government is not prepared to take that opportunity. It is not prepared to take that opportunity, at all.

Some people would say to us that the advertising of alcohol does not really have very much of an impact, and that it does not really encourage people to drink more. Do members know what I say to that? Yeah, right! That Tui advertising campaign is now so much a part of New Zealand culture that it almost does not stand apart as an advertising campaign in itself. It is part of our culture. It is as much a part of our culture as binge drinking is. It is part of the normalisation of a harmful approach to alcohol. So advertising does work, and I am sure most people will remember an example of that—and we are going back a couple of years here—namely, the Lion Red Chin Heads advertising campaign. The penetration of that advertising to minors was illustrated through research that showed that 97 percent of minors recalled seeing the Chin Heads ad, 71 percent knew that it was for Lion Red, 92 percent had positive views about the ad, and 64 percent thought the Chin Heads humour would appeal to minors. OK, advertising works. It is why the liquor industry engages in advertising, it is why Coca-Cola engages in advertising, and it is why the tobacco industry has found the one last bastion of advertising, which is point-of-sale advertising.

We know that advertising works, so an opportunity to restrict the consumption of alcohol should be leapt at. But Government members—and I say this again—have absolutely failed to take that opportunity. As I have said, I have given this bill considerable thought. It is a small step, but it is a step worth taking. I am very, very pleased to vote in favour of this bill and to support my colleague Brendon Burns.

AARON GILMORE (National) : It is a pleasure to rise as the last speaker on this bill, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. This is a conscience matter, and the bill was originally introduced well before my time in Parliament, but it deals with some really interesting matters that I think affect my family and people I know. It is ironic that the bill is being sponsored by the member for Christchurch Central, given that the last two members who have sponsored the bill are no longer in the House. It does not create auspicious occasions for that member.

Amy Adams: Bill of doom!

AARON GILMORE: It is a bill of doom. I am opposed to this bill, and opposed to it for some good reasons. I am not opposed to some of the bill’s aims, but I am opposed to its means. It seeks to go about achieving its aims in ways that I just cannot agree with. This bill, in effect, has also now been superseded.

We are all worried about the impacts of alcohol; we are all worried about the impacts of alcohol on young people in particular. As one of the youngest members of this House, I have recently experienced and seen many of the things that alcohol can do to young people. In my time as a young man, I have been one of the generation that has been a guinea pig for alcohol laws. We are the ones who have grown up with booze in our dairies, we have had ads for brands blasted at us 24/7, and we have seen the good, bad, and ugly after the lowering of the purchase age from 20 to 18. Working part-time in a bar as a student also made me see the stupidity of the old law, with the purchase age at 20 years, and the lengths that students would go to in order to deal with some of the law’s potential loopholes, like selling meal tickets and other strange behaviours.

It is also ironic that the focus of this bill is solely on youth, when we know that young people get a bit of a bum steer. I was interested in Rahui Katene’s mention tonight of how this bill is focused on youth, and how youth are not always the sole problem in regard to drinking. I can tell members that the most scared I have ever been in my entire life was when I was a bar manager in Christchurch, on the night of a male strip review, and 20 middle-aged women were liquored up to the max, to the extent that I was frightened to leave the building and I locked myself in the toilet. I was the most frightened I had ever been in my entire life. When 20 drunken middle-aged women were chasing me, looking for action, I can tell members that that was the most frightening moment of my life.

Hon Member: Come on—you enjoyed every moment of it.

David Garrett: You can see your six-pack from here.

AARON GILMORE: That is right—that is right. I have seen many, many middle-aged people out of control from drinking. A number of members of this House have had their problems with drinking, with drink-driving, and with other things needing professional help for their drinking. Some of those members have spoken tonight. Alcohol abuse cuts across society, not just youth. We are fooling ourselves if we think this bill will solve that problem. It is my experience that most young people watch television and listen to the radio—shock, horror—late at night. Yet what is this bill designed to do? It restricts the advertising of alcohol to late at night.

What would that mean in practice? Let us talk about some of the research. According to research by ACNielsen—which, by the way, the research unit did not come up with—total drink advertising expenditure in all media in 2005-06 was 21 percent lower than the level of advertising in 2002, which is a drop of about $11 million. This drop in advertising was accompanied by an increase in per capita consumption of 7 percent. So the relationship between advertising spend and alcohol consumption is not quite as valid as one might think.

Hone Harawira: Hiding in the toilets, eh!

AARON GILMORE: That is right—hiding in the toilets. I can tell my friend that it was a frightening evening. What would happen if we shortened the time for advertising? It would intensify the effectiveness of the TV broadcast dollar spend. That $41 million or $50 million would be spent in a shorter space of time. We would have wall-to-wall advertising showing all sorts of things that we do not really want to see. To borrow a phrase from one of the liquor providers, if members think this would solve the problem—yeah, right! I can see the billboards now—“Yeah, right!”. Will this bill solve the problem? Yeah, right! This bill also tries to tidy up some perceived crossovers in responsibility between the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority in relation to TV. I can tell members that my 6-year-old son knows that the “Yeah, right!” billboard that we drive past every week to go to rugby practice advertises Tui, and Tui means beer. But he also knows that beer is not for kids or teenagers, because he has good parents who teach him that.

This bill would fragment liquor regulation of the media, and that seems to me to be just nuts. More important, this bill is not just about using the wrong tools to solve problems that we wish to solve; it is being superseded by another bill—the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. This bill deals with the problem in the advertising of liquor. That bill gives us a better, more thoughtful way of dealing with and approaching these issues. Yes, I agree, as do many members in this House, that our alcohol laws need some change. But this bill we have tonight will not do it. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill goes further.

I enjoy a social drink with my friends and whānau, and I would hate to see a move to restrict too far the law-abiding people who wish to pick up a bottle of wine at the supermarket and enjoy it with good food, or to see a restriction on my ability to know what is the biggest special on wine at my supermarket.

Tonight we have heard many arguments from across this Chamber. Most agree that we need to do something about this problem. Most have spoken in favour of the bill from the opposite side of the House. But even those members opposite who have spoken admit that this bill will not solve the problem of youth drinking. Members opposite claim that this bill is a step in the right direction. I say that this bill will not go far enough, and the bill that is soon to become before us—

Paul Quinn: It’s window dressing!

AARON GILMORE: That is right; this is just window dressing. This bill will not solve our problems. It is better that we stop, we wait, and we see the work of the Law Commission, which is currently doing a good job, and this work is about 6 weeks away. The Government has indicated to the Law Commission that it will give priority to liquor issues and to the advice of the Law Commission. Many members would have seen the early work that has come out from the Law Commission, and it talks about all sorts of things that I think we need to have good discussion about. The Law Commission, which is led by a former Labour member, has put forward some good ideas on how to deal with some of these problems. It is 6 weeks away. It is wrong to go off half-cocked and get to a situation where we have processed this bill but then have to change it or amend it to fix some of its problems.

I look forward to seeing the results of the Law Commission review and the debate we will have on it at that time. I think we need to sit down and think about it. Is this a bill that would solve youth drinking? No. Is this a bill, as borne out by statistics, that would stop the advertising of liquor? No. Is it a bill that may increase the effectiveness of spend in a period of time? Yes. Does a reduction in spending on alcohol advertising result in decreased alcohol consumption? No, it does not. This bill should disappear. Research has shown that in 2005-06 a decline in expenditure actually led to an increase in alcohol consumption. ACNielsen did that research. It is a very good research company that is independent of everybody sitting here tonight. I say to this bill: haere rā!