Hansard and Journals
Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill — First Reading
Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I move, That the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee. I urge all MPs to support this bill’s referral to the select committee for further discussion and debate. I also acknowledge Brendon Burns and his latest efforts to deal with the issue of the advertising of liquor.
This bill will prohibit the broadcast of all liquor advertising in New Zealand, except in films that have been made overseas—a practical measure. Alcohol advertising was introduced to broadcast media in 1991, and it has become the primary source of information for most people about alcohol and how it is used. Alcohol, through advertising, is associated with desirable lifestyle images, normalising and encouraging widespread alcohol use.
To use the Drug Foundation’s words, alcohol is New Zealand’s “most widely used psychoactive … recreational drug”. Its effects include lack of coordination, mood changes, aggression, overly emotive feelings, confusion, blurred vision, poor muscle control, nausea, vomiting, incontinence, impotence, shrinking of testicles, sperm damage and low sperm count, alcohol poisoning, coma, and death. Alcohol can be addictive, and “withdrawal effects include loss of appetite, nausea, sweating, body shakes, anxiety, insomnia, irritability and confusion. A person withdrawing from severe alcohol dependence may risk convulsions, delusions, hallucinations, vomiting and death.” The Drug Foundation reports that research has shown that “the social cost of alcohol in New Zealand ranged between $1 billion to $4 billion each year. Lost productivity cost New Zealand $1.17 billion each year; the burden on the public health sector was $655 million, crime and related costs added up to $240 million, social welfare $200 million and other alcohol-related government spending $330 million.”
Alcohol is dangerous, lethal, and expensive for this country. Yet this dangerous drug is marketed in a myriad of ways to our communities, and particularly to our young people. Sold in stores, this drug is readily available. Research here and overseas shows that a restriction or ban on the advertising of this drug is an important step towards reducing the use of and, therefore, the harm caused by this psychoactive drug.
I refer to a recent submission to the Law Commission by Professor George Seber of the University of Auckland, who described in that submission the results of a French law. In France, alcohol advertisements are prohibited on television or in cinemas. The French data show that the introduction of the law to ban broadcast advertising ensured that levels of use continued to drop in that country, and in 2007 there was a 2 percent fall in wine sales. France has also taken the courageous step of banning the alcohol industry’s sponsorship of sport—something that New Zealand has failed to do. Norway has a total ban on alcohol advertising. Twenty-one of the 27 European Union member States have a partial or complete television advertising ban with regard to time and/or product.
The science group of the European Alcohol and Health Forum has produced a report that includes 13 longitudinal studies that involved 38,000 young people aged between 10 and 21 years old. I will describe for members three extensive reviews referred to in that report.
The first was conducted in 2009 by Lesley Smith and David Foxcroft: “The data from these studies suggest that exposure to alcohol advertising in young people influences their subsequent drinking behaviour. The effect was consistent across studies, a temporal relationship between exposure and frequency of drinking … was clearly demonstrated”. Another study from 2008 stated: “Available evidence suggests that price promotions do increase binge drinking and that exposure to point of purchase advertising predicts the onset of youth drinking. Regardless of their explicit intention there is evidence for an effect of alcohol advertisements on underage drinkers.” A third survey in 2009 found: “Longitudinal studies consistently suggest that exposure to media and commercial communications on alcohol is associated with the likelihood that adolescents will start to drink alcohol, and with increased drinking amongst baseline drinkers. Based on the strength of this association, we conclude that alcohol advertising and promotion increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to use alcohol, and to drink more if they are already using alcohol.”
A further study published in The Lancet noted: “Making alcohol more expensive and less available, … are highly cost-effective strategies to reduce harm … Banning of alcohol advertising, drink-driving counter-measures, and individually directed interventions to drinkers who are already at risk are also cost-effective approaches.”
That was a long recitation of reports, and there are many more just like them. The fact is that MPs and the community know the truth of the matter. For as long as the community turns a blind eye to the harm caused by this drug and continues to refuse to take the easy and basic measures to control and manage its use, we will all continue to suffer the grotesque consequences.
Alcohol contributes to about 25 percent of fatal car crashes. Twenty-five percent of car crashes that result in a death are attributable to alcohol. Twenty percent of crashes that cause serious injury on our roads are attributable to alcohol. New Zealand research shows that nearly 4 percent of all deaths in this country are attributable to alcohol consumption. Nearly 4 percent of all deaths are attributable to the consumption of alcohol. The harm is real. The harm affects all of our families and communities. This drug must be better controlled and better managed. Our bill proposes a very small step towards controlling and managing this drug in a way that will protect our community from harm.
The Green Party believes that the three most popular drugs in New Zealand should be regulated within the law under a similar framework. To this end, it is the Green Party’s policy that public health measures should include the following aspects: first, a ban on the 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 such as taxes, duties, and levies to discourage the use of alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills; so does alcohol. Both should be regulated under a similar framework. This bill takes one step towards achieving that consistency. It deals with the first measure, which concerns the banning of broadcasts. The bill is reasonable, rational, and demonstrably effective. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) : I do not think that it will have escaped those who are listening to or watching this debate at home, or who have been following the proceedings in Parliament this evening, that there is irony in the fact that the Green members spent the past hour arguing for liberalisation around marijuana, and they now, after Metiria Turei’s speech, sound as though they are on the verge of calling for the prohibition of alcohol.
The member made a number of good points about alcohol. There is no question that abuse of alcohol in New Zealand is a very serious issue. All Governments around the Western World grapple with the issue; this Parliament grapples with it on a regular basis. A couple of years ago there was a conscience vote here on raising the drinking age back to 20 years from the level of 18 years that was set back in 1999. It is on the record that that vote was lost. But in looking at what we can actually do to address the issue of alcohol abuse in New Zealand, I do not think that the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, which calls for a total ban on all broadcast advertising of alcohol, will achieve that effect. The bill provides that, subject to certain exceptions, no person may broadcast, or arrange for any other person to broadcast, any liquor advertisement in New Zealand. We will have a conscience vote on the bill, and I can tell members that I will be opposing it.
This Government understands that liquor is a major issue in New Zealand. Indeed, the current Parliament has a number of bills before it in order to consider the issue in depth. This bill, however, addresses only selected aspects of liquor management, and pre-empts other similar bills currently before the House. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill was introduced to the House in August 2008 and had its first reading in March this year. It deals, amongst other things, with the advertising of liquor. It is before the Justice and Electoral Committee, which will report back in September this year. In addition, the Law Commission is currently undertaking a full review of the Sale of Liquor Act. It has been made clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are something that this Government wishes to address, and we have asked the commission to produce a report 12 months earlier than the previous Government had directed.
We believe that this Parliament wants one crack at getting it right so that we do not need to repeat this conversation about liquor regulation on an annual basis. In light of that direction, the commission is expected to report back with a discussion document later this month. A full report will follow that—one that responds to this consultation process. Both the aforementioned bill and the review are more comprehensive than the current bill before the House. It is also worth pointing out that another member’s bill, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, was recently defeated in the House by 62 votes to 58. It is crucial that we avoid a piecemeal approach to liquor issues.
The Government is of the view that the Advertising Standards Authority currently does a sufficient job of exercising control and encouraging self-regulation over certain specified complaints relating to the broadcasting of liquor advertising. It is interesting to note that in 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority received 1,240 complaints, of which fewer than 5 percent were about alcohol, and that most of these complaints were about advertising in media other than television. The Advertising Standards Authority is currently in the public consultation phase of the development of a liquor promotion code. This code will deal with issues such as packaging and promotion, which this bill does not even touch upon.
I say again that the Justice and Electoral Committee is taking a much broader look at the whole area of legislation in this area. It would seem to make sense to see that process through to completion, rather than to develop piecemeal solutions that might be superseded by this review in the coming months.
It is also important to note that this bill would have a significant commercial impact. The television industry is facing serious economic challenges due to an ever-changing broadcasting scene and the ongoing recession. It is on the record that advertising revenue for free-to-air broadcasters has dropped considerably in recent years. It is also interesting that those who have complained the loudest about job losses at Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and problems in that sector are the very same people who would further seek to cut the revenue of free-to-air broadcasters by supporting measures such as this bill and the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that was before the House 2 weeks ago. I tell members that the livelihood of free-to-air broadcasters will depend on their ability to continue to advertise, and to self-regulate their advertising in a responsible manner. Indeed, if this bill is successful, the advertising industry estimates that upwards of $16 million per year in television advertising revenues will be lost. This in turn will lead to further job losses in the industry and lower investment in local programming content. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they do not want freedom of advertising on television, but at the same time get upset when there are job losses in the television industry, where there is damage to that industry on a long-term basis.
I will certainly be interested to hear what some of the Labour Party speakers have to say about this, because I know they supported Brendon Burns’ member’s bill 2 weeks ago. He was very vociferous on the issue of banning advertising on television, but at the same time he was very prominent in calling for a stemming of the job losses at TVNZ. He is in quite a difficult position, trying to reconcile supporting our State broadcaster with at the same time wanting to ban its ability to advertise as it sees fit in a responsible manner during its own schedule time.
In the last 4 years, the amount spent on alcohol advertising on television has reduced from $24 million a year to $15.8 per annum. Across all media, it has gone down from $40 million a year to $36 million a year. As a percentage of annual media spend, alcohol advertising on television has gone from 60 percent to 44 percent, while in other media it has risen, most notably in newspapers, where it is up from 16 percent to 24 percent. To impose additional constraints that have unproven benefits will not provide a public good, but will have a serious negative effect on the television industry as advertisers of alcohol move to other media, most notably the print media.
Also, it would seem that the reason for this bill’s introduction is now obsolete. Although the concerns over negative aspects of consumption of alcohol have risen, alcohol advertising is actually in long-term decline. Advertising for alcohol peaked in 1998 and has been dropping steadily ever since. This bill also completely ignores the fact that New Zealand is now in a global media market. A lot of content comes in from overseas, yet this bill allows for international liquor advertising—embedded, say, in coverage of a baseball game from the US via ESPN—but not for Steinlager to be advertised on the billboards of an All Black test match. This bill is bad for New Zealand companies. It is bad for the advertisers. It is bad for the broadcasters. It is bad for New Zealand sport events. But at the same time, it will be OK for foreign brands supporting foreign sports events and foreign broadcasters to be beamed into our television screens here in New Zealand.
Finally, alcohol advertising is currently restricted to between 8.30 p.m. and 6 a.m. The broadcasters have generally taken a responsible approach to what they broadcast in terms of liquor advertising, and when they broadcast it. Alcohol advertising already has many restrictions designed to ensure that the target audience is not youth, and the liquor industry generally acts responsibly to appeal to an adult audience.
In summary, we would say that banning liquor advertising will not really have the desired effect of reducing alcohol abuse in New Zealand; there is no evidence that it will. I also make the point that New Zealanders are starting to watch their televisions in a way that cuts out the advertising anyway. Innovations like personal video recorders and the ability for people to time-shift content mean that a lot of people now do not even watch the ads. I think this legislation is really a solution looking for a problem. A wide range of approaches are currently before Parliament. We want to get right the issue of how liquor is handled by New Zealanders. We want to approach it once, and once only; we do not want a piecemeal approach. There are more effective ways to curtail alcohol abuse than through the passing of this bill. The final point I make is that one cannot say that one is for the State broadcaster but that one supports cutting its right to advertise.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, the following calls are of 5 minutes, and there will be a warning bell at 4 minutes. I call Brendon Burns.
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased to speak on the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, and to follow in the wake of the Minister of Broadcasting’s crocodile tears for the 90 jobs lost at Television New Zealand.
If this bill related to banning the advertising of guns, would the Minister still stand up and say that Parliament should not consider it?
Hon Ruth Dyson: No principles there.
BRENDON BURNS: That is right. Obviously television advertising is a powerful medium.
I acknowledge that I have some concerns about this bill—a dilemma, in fact—because, like many New Zealanders, I have long enjoyed a drink, mostly responsibly. I also think that our current alcohol laws are an absolute mess and do not do much to manage the harm that alcohol creates in our communities on a day-by-day basis. That said, as has been noted, I hold the Labour broadcasting portfolio. Although I believe that television and radio are particularly powerful influences on our drinking culture, it cannot be seriously argued that they are wholly responsible for the harm done by alcohol and the promotion of alcohol. This bill fails to acknowledge the role of other media and other advertising. If Parliament had the courage to restrict or ban advertising on television and radio, and across other media, it would have to be done in that kind of way—in concert with other advertising. We must treat all media equitably. That said, I will support this bill going to the select committee as a vehicle to promote the message that the tide has gone too far, and that we need to comprehensively review alcohol laws.
I hope that this bill, if referred to the select committee, would only be considered alongside the wide-ranging reforms of all alcohol laws now under consideration by the Law Commission. I will quote the President of the Law Commission, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a very fine former member for Christchurch Central, who recently, in the somewhat ironic setting of The Honest Lawyer pub in Nelson, made this comment: “Alcohol is no other 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 will not happen, but the properties of alcohol are the reason why it must be closely regulated.” I think that the premise must be that the regulation of alcohol should put public health as the primary concern. It is the founding principle of the Sale of Liquor Act, but that Act, currently under review, fails to enshrine that in any sense whatsoever.
Alcohol is a very major public health concern, and a huge amount of international and local research confirms the impact that television and radio advertising has on young people. A longitudinal study in Dunedin found that males could recall seeing many alcohol adverts at age 13, and that those who could recall the adverts drank larger amounts of alcohol at age 18. The 12 to 17-year-olds who recalled most alcohol adverts were more likely to think it was OK for kids of their age to get drunk, to think that their friends drank frequently, and to drink more themselves. If members can recall the Lion Red chin head campaign of a little time ago, research shows that 97 percent of minors recalled seeing the chin heads, 71 percent knew the advertisement was for Lion Red—these are kids as young as 12 years of age—92 percent had positive views about the ads, and 64 percent thought the ads would appeal to minors.
Alcohol advertising, it has to be acknowledged, is not the only change that has happened since 20 years ago when we began allowing alcohol advertising on television and on radio, but it has certainly played its part. Obviously, we have had considerable other changes, including the reduction in the age of purchase and the increased availability of alcohol, particularly in supermarkets. But, none the less, in the 10-year period of 1990 to 1999 the amount that 14 to 17-year-olds were drinking doubled on a typical drinking occasion, which coincided with the period when alcohol advertising on radio and television was first allowed. Parliament has to acknowledge the damage and harm that alcohol causes. It is appropriate that we use every opportunity to consider those issues. This bill provides another mechanism for that. I support it going to the select committee for that sort of consideration.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) : I rise to speak against the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, a bill that was introduced by Jeanette Fitzsimons in 2006 and has been carried forward by the new co-leader of the Greens, Metiria Turei. I, along with my colleague the Hon Jonathan Coleman, also see the irony in what is being put forward in this bill, given what was debated in the previous bill, which involved the liberalisation of marijuana. I speak against this bill first and foremost because its content is already covered by other legislation and reviews that are currently going through the House.
It is a challenging issue, as the three previous speakers have already mentioned, in that, on the one hand, we see the damage that alcohol does in our society, but, on the other hand, we also have to recognise and acknowledge freedom of speech and the freedom to advertise legal products. It is a very dangerous path to travel when we regulate completely against the advertising of what can be, when consumed in moderate amounts, an enjoyable product. It is really challenging the freedom of the majority of the adult population who drink, and drink responsibly. But for those who do not drink responsibly, would a ban on alcohol advertising right across the board have any effect? For those who go about on Friday or Saturday nights and get, shall we say, plastered, or drunk, or create havoc, whether a ban would have any impact on those people is rather questionable, indeed.
This bill addresses only selected aspects of liquor management, and in my view it pre-empts other legislation going through the House. Really, rather than banning advertising outright, we should give wider consideration to context. There is the sale of alcohol, its supply, and, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, its control and consumption—for example, the licensing of retailers who sell alcohol, as well as point of sale requirements at the point of retail or wholesale distribution. Another aspect that is particularly important in mitigating the damage that alcohol does in our society is the public education about the consumption of alcohol, particularly by our youth.
This bill has also been overtaken by the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which was introduced last year by the previous Government and which had its first reading in March of this year. It is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee, which will report back on 10 September. So in my view this bill is highly redundant. As we have already heard, the Law Commission is also undertaking a full review of the Sale of Liquor Act, and it has been made clear to the commission that liquor issues are a matter of priority for this Government. We have asked the Law Commission to produce a report ahead of the scheduled date that the previous Government set for it, and again that is an example of this Government taking action where the previous Government lapsed into inaction. So I speak against this bill. I think it is redundant, I do not think it is good legislation, and I thank members for their time.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : I will take a fairly short call on the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill this evening. The call is for only 5 minutes, so we will see how far we go. It is interesting that the two speakers from the Government benches have talked about the ironic position of the Green Party putting forward the two bills that we have been speaking about this evening. There is some irony—
Hon David Carter: Ha, ha!
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —the Minister of Agriculture had a chuckle there—in the position those members are taking, as well. We are talking, essentially, about two public health issues, and I think that the Green Party is trying to achieve improvements in public health measures. We are also talking about freedoms. The previous speaker, Sam Lotu-Iiga, spoke about the freedom to advertise a legal substance, yet earlier on he voted against giving people the freedom to use a substance that could alleviate their pain, a substance that is already available in a limited way—
Paul Quinn: Illegal.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, that is exactly my point, I tell Mr Quinn. The substance is already available in a limited way for pain relief, but the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill was about expanding that availability and providing freedom for people to use that substance for pain relief. I tell Mr Quinn that cannabis is not illegal for that purpose. There are avenues through which people can already use it. However, we are not talking about that bill at the moment. I just wanted to reflect on that irony, given that irony is something that Government members have been interested in.
As I said, the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill is a public health measure, and if I thought that it would have a positive effect on the public health issues around alcohol, I would vote for it. However, I do not think that this bill will achieve those outcomes, so I will not be voting in favour of it this evening. I do not believe that a blanket ban on broadcast advertising will have that positive effect. I have some reservations about the ability of people in New Zealand who produce wine and boutique beers for sale on the market to advertise their products in a responsible way. I also have concerns that the bill would simply shift the advertising spend away from broadcast advertising into other avenues for advertising.
I believe that the public health issues around alcohol are not, as some speakers have spoken about tonight, just about young people getting boozed and causing havoc. They are also about people who have mental health issues, and about those who are chronically addicted to alcohol. They are about domestic violence. They are about a whole range of issues. We have spoken several times in this House about the economic effects of alcohol and its detrimental effects. I do not think that this measure will have the impact that the Green Party hopes it will have. For that reason, I will not be able to vote for this bill this evening.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : We have created a culture in New Zealand where we demonise some drugs such as cannabis, which we have just been talking about, and we tolerate, encourage, and indeed glamorise other drugs such as alcohol. It reminds me of when someone came to a select committee once and said that in Saudi Arabia it was exactly the opposite. They demonise alcohol, and cut off people’s arms for drinking alcohol, but they tolerate, accept, and indeed encourage cannabis. So each culture has drugs that they demonise, and drugs that they glamorise; in ours it is alcohol we glamorise and cannabis we demonise. The thing is, though, that it is extraordinary that alcohol is a highly intoxicating, highly addictive drug, and nobody can dispute the fact that it causes huge harm, huge damage, in our society. Indeed, when we look at the statistics, we have to say that alcohol must be one of the most destructive drugs in New Zealand. It contributes to over 1,000 deaths a year. I mean, that is phenomenal—1,000 deaths a year. Others have mentioned that. It contributes to 25 percent of fatal injuries and 20 percent of serious crashes on our roads, and half of all serious crimes in New Zealand are related to alcohol. That is incredible.
If we were serious about violent crime—the Minister of Justice and so many others in this House are going on about violent crime, and saying that we must reduce violent crime in our society—then one of the first things we would do is reduce the accessibility, the overwhelming accessibility, of alcohol and the aggressive marketing of alcohol, all over New Zealand. Yet what is happening is quite to the contrary. This addictive and psychoactive drug is sold in virtually every dairy and supermarket in New Zealand, and even in dairies right outside schools—dairies that are carefully positioned right outside schools. In fact, there are liquor outlets right outside schools. Alcohol is available everywhere in New Zealand, and it is marketed aggressively by the liquor industry, but particularly to young people with all the alcopops, and so forth. Every time we go to sports fields, we see alcohol advertising, as we do at rugby matches with the All Blacks, and so forth. But all of that aggressive advertising normalises and legitimises alcohol.
So it is supremely ironic that on one hand in this Parliament we constantly wring our hands and deplore the fact that adolescent New Zealanders are drinking alcohol at younger and younger ages. We deplore the binge-drinking culture in New Zealand, yet at the same time we do absolutely nothing to reduce the accessibility, the incredible accessibility, of alcohol and its aggressive advertising.
Members of the Government and the ACT Party are constantly banging the anti-crime drum and going on and on about violent crime. They were only too happy to lock people up: “Let’s build more prisons. Let’s have three strikes and they’re out. Let’s do anything to reduce violent crime, but we won’t do anything about the aggressive advertising of alcohol in New Zealand, which fuels and contributes to the fact that alcohol contributes to 50 percent of crime in New Zealand.”
The Minister Dr Coleman admitted that his party’s opposition to this bill is because free-to-air broadcasters depend on liquor advertising for their survival. He effectively said that we cannot hurt the revenue of broadcasters, so we cannot support this bill. We cannot do anything about advertising. Dr Coleman needs to understand, as Associate Minister of Health, that the primary concern in this Parliament should be not the revenues of broadcasters and advertisers, but public health concerns. Frankly, I was appalled that the main reason the National Government is opposing this is the influence of the alcohol and advertising industries. Clearly, the alcohol and advertising industries exert huge power and influence over this Parliament, and that is the reason why the excellent bill of 2 weeks ago was voted down in this House.
|Beaumont||Fitzsimons (P)||Locke (P)||Turia|
|Adams||Dean||Key (P)||Roy H (P)|
|Ardern S (P)||Dunne (P)||King C (P)||Ryall (P)|
|Auchinvole||English (P)||Laban (P)||Sepuloni (P)|
|Bakshi (P)||Finlayson (P)||Lee (P)||Shanks (P)|
|Bennett D (P)||Foss (P)||Lees-Galloway||Smith L (P)|
|Bennett P (P)||Garrett (P)||Lotu-Iiga (P)||Smith N|
|Blue||Gilmore||Macindoe||te Heuheu (P)|
|Borrows||Goff (P)||Mallard (P)||Tisch (P)|
|Boscawen (P)||Goudie (P)||Mapp (P)||Tolley (P)|
|Bridges (P)||Groser (P)||McClay||Tremain|
|Brownlee (P)||Guy (P)||McCully (P)||Upston|
|Calder||Hayes (P)||Nash||Wagner (P)|
|Carter D||Heatley||O’Connor (P)||Wilkinson (P)|
|Carter J (P)||Henare (P)||Parata||Williamson (P)|
|Chadwick||Hide (P)||Peachey (P)||Wong (P)|
|Coleman (P)||Horomia (P)||Power||Woodhouse (P)|
|Collins (P)||Hughes (P)||Prasad||Young (P)|
|Cunliffe (P)||Hutchison (P)||Ririnui (P)|
|Curran (P)||Joyce (P)||Robertson H (P)||Teller:|
Motion not agreed to.