Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I move, That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. First of all, I acknowledge and pay tribute to the Hon Matt Robson who was the original sponsor of this bill. Even though he is not in Parliament at the moment, he has continued to take a very keen interest in the bill’s progress and I wish to acknowledge also his ongoing assistance and advice.

I acknowledge also the splendid work of the acting chair of the Law and Order Committee, Ron Mark, and all members of that select committee. Notwithstanding their individual views, they have conscientiously listened to the nearly 200 submissions and have returned this bill in a workable form. I thank and pay tribute to each individual member of that select committee for the very professional job they did. I acknowledge that there were differences and members will hear tonight from members of that select committee.

Most of all, however, I pay tribute to the many, many New Zealanders who are working in the field to try to minimise the devastating consequences of harmful and inappropriate consumption of alcohol amongst our young. I wish to deal in further detail with regard to the submissions made to the select committee by these groups. I also wish to reiterate the fact that their considered submissions definitely do not represent a knee-jerk reaction to a problem, as argued by some who oppose this particular bill.

I am aware also that many members have apparently not made up their minds on this issue and I am aware that there are members of this House who wish to consider fully some amendments to this bill, including the split age of purchase of alcohol in terms of on-licence and off-licence premises. To state the obvious, in order to do that, members must clearly support the second reading of this bill, so that we can discuss it line by line and clause by clause in the Committee of the whole House.

More important even than that, is this simple reason: poll after poll from a variety of organisations is recording anything from 65 percent to at least 71 percent public support for this bill. It is my view that the Parliament of this country should at least consider in depth this bill on a clause by clause basis along with the recommendations reported back from the select committee. As previously mentioned, this can be done only during the Committee of the whole House to ensure this happens. On that basis and, indeed for some members, on that basis alone, I urge members to support the next reading of this bill. I note that many members will have not had the opportunity yet—particularly, of course, those who did not sit on the Law and Order Committee—to read some very well-thought-out and researched submissions, albeit, I acknowledge, the very good summary report produced by the select committee.

In 1999 this Parliament voted to lower the age of purchase of liquor from 20 to 18. While I personally did not support this at the time, and indeed I was not even a member of the House at that particular time, I do not question the sincerity of many members who were genuinely convinced by the promise of a new drinking culture and also were promised that there would be a rigorous enforcement of the new age of purchase in terms of lowering the age of purchase from 20 to 18.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that lowering the alcohol purchasing age, combined with the other rules affecting liquor retailing in our society, has meant that the negative outcome predicted by opponents of that 1999 bill has come to sad fruition. The evidence from around the country is an indictment of the fact that the legislation lowering the age of purchase has clearly not worked and has been very detrimental in our country. Professor Langley, of Otago University, and a team of international researchers concluded that there were significantly more alcohol-involved crashes among 15 to 19-year-olds than would have occurred had the purchase age not been reduced to age 18.

There were some very positive submissions, but one of the most thought-provoking, researched, and concise submissions came from Professor John Langley, director of the injury prevention research unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago and his team. As members will be aware, they were engaged in an exercise for the American Journal of Public Health and indeed, I want to express my gratitude for the comprehensiveness of their research and also their submissions to the select committee. They concluded that lowering the purchase age has had large trickle-down negative health effects for 15 to 17-year-olds. Their research estimates that if the purchase age were returned to 20 years, an annual saving of over 400 injury hospitalisations and 12 fatalities among 15 to 19-year-olds from road traffic crashes alone could be expected. I am very grateful for the comprehensive evidence that they presented.

In terms of the significant problem of off-licence sales to under 18-year-olds, I certainly note—indeed, I think my Waikato colleagues do—the sting operation in Hamilton last year that found nearly 70 percent of licensed premises in the city sold alcohol to underage people during the weekend operation. Police and Hamilton council staff sent two volunteers aged 16 and 17 into 32 licensed premises during Operation Scramble and they successfully bought alcohol in 22 of the licensed premises. Sting operations in Ōpōtiki, Dunedin, Taupō, Hutt Valley, and, more recently, I believe, even in Te Awamutu, near my town, and elsewhere have found similar findings.

Speaking very personally, I think as a society we want to teach our 15, 16, and 17-year-olds how to drink alcohol in a happy, social, and safe setting, if that is their choice and their families’ choice. Let me acknowledge right now that there are a number of families in this country who, very clearly, make a very conscious choice not to consume alcohol full stop. Having a beer with dad, or wine with mum—or the other way around—at the dinner table is a great way to learn about alcohol and maybe to bring around drink cultural change.

However, the lowering of the purchasing age of alcohol has had a large trickle-down negative health effect for our 14 to 17-year-olds by them either directly buying or getting supply via their 18-year-old mates from alcohol purchased at the local licensed dairy, supermarket, or wherever. Indeed, when, in 1999, Parliament voted by a narrow margin to lower the minimum age for the purchasing of alcohol to 18, the New Zealand Drug Foundation, the Ministry of Health, the Alcohol Advisory Council, and other public health organisations opposed at the time the lowering of the drinking age. It is my best understanding, certainly in terms of the submissions that were read to the select committee, that the views of those organisations have not changed since then.

Indeed, as previously noted by the Hon Matt Robson in his first reading of the bill in 2005, police have strongly stated: “Alcohol is increasingly available in today’s New Zealand. As well as the 1999 lowering of the minimum legal age for purchasing alcohol, which has legally allowed a whole new group of 18 to 19-year-olds to buy liquor and to drink on licensed premises, there have never been as many places where you can get hold of alcohol as there are today. As the policing task has got bigger and bigger, more and more pressure is placed on already stretched resources.” I note the New Zealand Police Association survey of front-line officers. If members have one reason, and one reason alone, to give this bill a second reading and to discuss it in great depth at the Committee of the whole House, please listen to front-line police officers in our country, the majority of whom favoured raising the age of purchase from 18 to 20.

I also acknowledge, in terms of Dr Mapp and Gordon Copeland’s proposed amendments, that they were more split on the issue of off-licensed premises and on-licensed premises. But for that reason, and for that reason alone, I ask my colleagues and members of this House to please, please send this bill to the Committee of the whole House so that we can look at some of those issues in depth. Indeed, there is much talk about 18 being the magic age, for example, and I have heard this statement: “If you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to drink.” I think that statement is seriously flawed, and I suspect that Ron Mark, as the acting chair of the Law and Order Committee and a former professional soldier, will clearly state why when he speaks later in the debate. There are plenty of examples where graduated ages of entitlement apply. The graduated driver’s licence is a good example, as is the lower permissible breath-alcohol level and blood-alcohol level for all drivers aged under 20. I do not think that anyone would see 18 as being the magic age.

Finally, I pay a final tribute to the submitters to this bill, particularly to the Students Against Drunk Driving, Alcohol Healthwatch, and the New Zealand Drug and Alcohol Foundation. I would urge those members who have not read some of those submissions to read them. Those submitters have made a very excellent contribution. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I rise to make a contribution on the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill, and I begin by thanking Martin Gallagher and Ron Mark, as the chairperson and acting chairperson respectively of the Law and Order Committee. I thank, in particular, not only my fellow members of the select committee but also the officials who worked with the committee. Despite the appearance of the bill, this eight-page bill is extremely complex legislation, and the officials who spent many hours toiling over how its provisions would fit with the principal Act deserve the praise of this Parliament. It was, and it remains, a very complex and difficult matter that this bill seeks to address. But I am of the view that Parliament must pass workable and clear law—law that will not complicate the enforcement of issues such as those currently being debated.

Let me state clearly that no one wants to see young people—or to see anyone, for that matter—being harmed by alcohol. The question for this Parliament tonight is whether this bill, in its current form, can fix any problem of that nature. We did, as a committee, make the decision to progress the bill in a way that would give Parliament the opportunity to vote on the alcohol issue as if the bill was drafted in a way that raised the legal age to 20. However, the bill is still very badly flawed and it represents, in my view, very poor law.

This law will badly confuse the current law on the purchase of alcohol. It is important, when members consider their vote on this matter, that they remember this bill does nothing in terms of the supply of alcohol or the consumption of alcohol, but relates only to the purchase age and to nothing else. I welcome the opportunity provided by the Government’s announcement today that it is to look at the supply and sale of liquor to those under 18—and I see that Minister O’Connor is in the House. I have already told him this privately, but I will now say publicly that I think that announcement will be helpful to this debate.

The select committee has gone to some lengths, in its commentary on the bill, to explain the submissions it received. I know that this seems odd, but I will say it anyway. If members have not read the commentary on the bill, they should do so before they cast their vote tonight. One of the pieces of evidence that has stuck in my mind throughout the nearly 12-month period during which this bill was before the select committee was the submission from the New Zealand Police. The police gave evidence to the committee that for 18 to 20-year-old alleged offenders, in nearly 52 percent of the cases where an alcohol-related offence was committed, the last drink the alleged offender took had been taken at home.

So why, then, will I be voting against this legislation? Well, this legislation creates bad law in four or five key areas, and I will spend some time going through those now. When the committee was forced to try to make the law work, it had to introduce the, frankly, ludicrous legal concept of an exemption for those accompanied by a former guardian—not a present guardian, but a former guardian. That imposes a most bizarre set of circumstances not only on those serving alcohol—or on parents—but also on those attempting to enforce such a provision. The committee recommended a new clause to allow minors to drink alcohol in on-licensed premises when accompanied by a former guardian. That creates a huge amount of difficulty when an individual in such an establishment is put in the position of having to identify the legal status of an individual who is accompanying a minor.

More to the point, the committee was forced into the position of having to create a further exemption relating to spouses or civil union partners—in other words, for an 18-year-old who enters on-licensed premises with his or her 20-year-old civil union partner or spouse. How could any 18-year-old who is married to somebody aged 20 or over, or who is in a civil union relationship with such a person, obtain access to alcohol in on-licensed premises without proof of such a marriage, de facto relationship, or civil union registration? We can imagine the predicament that that would put the New Zealand Police into, when trying to enforce these matters.

Further, the committee was forced to deal with the issue of how to address matters relating to people between the ages of 18 and 20 who are employed in on-licensed premises. We had the ludicrous position where a person in that age group was able to carry a tray with beer and wine on it, together with a meal, to an individual in on-licensed premises, but he or she could not drink alcohol. Once the pub had closed for the night, that employee could not drink alcohol. That would create all sorts of difficulties for those seeking to enforce those provisions.

But the situation became even stranger when the committee was put in the position where, initially, the bill actually made it unlawful to provide alcohol to somebody under the age of 20 at appropriately supervised gatherings that were private social functions. I cannot conceive of circumstances where Matt Robson would have seriously wanted to legislate against that environment. In an environment where under-20-year-olds were under the supervision of a neighbour or others, and when their parents or guardians—not former guardians at that point—were present, then this legislation would not allow alcohol to be served or supplied in that situation. So the initial bill actually confused the concepts of supply and purchase, and we had to work hard as a committee in order to overcome that issue.

It is trite to say that at age 18 people in New Zealand acquire the ability to undertake certain tasks, such as to vote, serve in the military, get married, purchase tobacco, purchase age-restricted publications, enter a credit contract, and—bizarrely, in the circumstances of this legislation—hold a firearms licence. Yet the original intent of this bill was to prevent people under the age of 20 from purchasing a beer.

I go back to what I said earlier. I welcome the Government’s initiative in this area. Frankly, more work needs to be done in respect of the number of liquor licences that are presently available in the market. That very important issue needs further consideration. But I draw members’ attention back to my first comment, which is the main reason I will be opposing the legislation. Parliament must pass workable and clear law that provides the authorities with the ability to enforce it unambiguously. No one wants to see young people being harmed by alcohol or by any other matter, but this bill is badly flawed, is inconsistent, requires peculiar legal definition, and will make life more difficult. It will be harder for the police to enforce the law if this legislation is passed than if it is not passed. The harm that some say is caused by the current situation—and I do not deny that, at all—will not be remedied by legislation that makes enforcement more difficult for the police, and for that reason I oppose this legislation.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) Link to this

I start by acknowledging the work of the Law and Order Committee. I acknowledge Martin Gallagher for bringing the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill to the select committee, Ron Mark as chair of the committee, and the members of the committee for attempting to deal with a very, very difficult issue. Those members have put their very best efforts into this bill.

The issue of alcohol-related harm is a major problem for New Zealand. It is not a new problem; it is one we have confronted for many, many years. It is calculated that the impact of this problem on our economy is $4 billion a year, including $655 million for the public health sector, and $240 million in crime and related costs. I could go on and on. These are harms for our country and for our economy, but they are not harms caused by just people who are 18 and 19 years of age. Although I acknowledge the efforts of the member in introducing the bill into the House, and those of his predecessor the Hon Matt Robson, I say that the Government, in trying to reduce the harms, as it has a responsibility to do, has to make sure, as the previous speaker said, that we end up with law that is workable, logical, and truly effective.

The submissions on the bill truly reflected the public sentiment. We are told that 80 percent—or thereabouts—of the country would like to see the purchase age for alcohol increased. I say that 80 percent of the country want to see the harm from alcohol reduced. That would be, perhaps, a better reflection of public opinion. People see this bill as an opportunity to do that, but there are some dangers in supporting a bill such as this one. In spite of the select committee’s very careful consideration, the bill, like the two others that have come before the House in recent times, is a rather ad hoc approach to what is a very, very complex problem.

The last two bills that this Parliament passed in an attempt to reduce harm came before the House in 1999 and 2004. In 1999 we lowered the drinking age—a measure I opposed at that time—and allowed the sale of beer and wine in supermarkets, which is something that many people may regret at this point. Then in 2004 we changed that legislation in order to allow controlled-purchase operations to run smoothly—a good amendment that allows us to identify people who are currently not abiding by the existing legislation.

This Government is absolutely committed to reducing harm from alcohol; there are many initiatives and much work has been done—there is a huge commitment to doing that. One of our goals under the Health Strategy is to minimise the harm caused by alcohol, and illicit and other drug use, both to individuals and to the community. We have a national alcohol strategy that is aimed at minimising the alcohol-related harm caused to individuals and families. But we have a problem in this country, and the problem is that too many people binge drink and too many people accept the culture of binge drinking. In fact, the latest survey, which was conducted fewer than 2 years ago by the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand (ALAC), identified that 450,000 of us were binge drinking on our last drinking occasion. Some people might think that that figure is ridiculous, but those are the cold hard facts. Those people were not 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds; they were grandparents, parents, uncles, aunties—they were not just the children of those individuals.

We have a moral responsibility as a Government and as a Parliament, across all parties, to reduce the harm from alcohol. The vast majority of New Zealanders enjoy drinking alcohol. But for too many people, drinking alcohol becomes a problem, and we have treatment for them. Other people—450,000, on their last drinking occasion—go out with a determination to get drunk. Those are the problems we are dealing with here. In spite of the best attempts of the select committee, the bill as reported back is based on one assumption, and that is that the purchase age for alcohol will be raised to 20 years. The problem is that all the other clauses in the bill are based, in my view, on the faulty assumption that, indeed, the purchase age will be raised.

If we keep the purchase age at 18 years of age, we must do ongoing work. Today the Government announced that we will review some of the sale and supply issues around alcohol and minors—those under the age of 18 years. It is essential that we do that. If we thought that making something illegal might stop the utilisation of it, then we would wonder why young people use marijuana. That drug is illegal regardless of age, yet we still have, as we know, wide utilisation of marijuana across this country, with effects we are yet to fully determine, in my view. The idea of shifting the purchase age from 18 to 20 and hoping we will see a change in culture in this country is, in my view, rather ambitious, hopeful, and destined to fail. We have to do everything we can to change the culture here.

If people think the non-passage of this bill will leave us in a vacuum, it is important to remind those people of work that is under way. I would like to flag that ALAC has a social marketing campaign that says to each and every New Zealander that the binge drinking culture we have in this country is the responsibility of each and every one of us—as grandparents, as parents, as friends, and as peers. The programme ALAC is working through is raising awareness of that fact. The programme is no silver bullet, and it will not turn round overnight opinion on, and the culture of, drinking, but we are committed to the programme and we will continue it.

We have controlled-purchase operations, and we will enhance them. People who sell alcohol to people under 18 or to people who are intoxicated are currently conducting an illegal activity and will be prosecuted—and they should be prosecuted. It is no good shifting the purchase age up to 20 if we will still get the same level of non-compliance across the board.

I acknowledge that the bill as originally placed before the House had reference to the advertising of alcohol. I acknowledge the consideration by the select committee of splitting off that part of the bill and wait until we have completed a review of alcohol advertising, due in the middle of next year. Hopefully, that review will truly identify whether alcohol advertising influences the way young people and older people drink in this country, and whether changes are needed. We have within the industry the Hospitality Association, with its host responsibility initiatives. The members of that association know full well that if they do not address the issue of alcohol harm, then ultimately this Parliament will pass draconian law that will impact severely on their commercial operations. We in this House should lay down the challenge to the industry that unless it fully cooperates and does everything possible within its powers to reduce binge drinking, to reduce unacceptable levels of intoxication, and to improve the culture of drinking in this country, then ultimately Parliament will deliver a change in law to it.

I think this bill as reported back cannot be truly effected because there are too many exceptions. There are too many contradictions in the clauses put back before the House. In spite of the best attempts of this House, through amendments that members may put up, in my view we need a full, considered review of the Sale of Liquor Act that addresses the issue of supply and sale to minors. We must warn people that if they continue to flout the laws currently in place, then they will be prosecuted. Binge drinking and alcohol harm in this country are an issue and a concern for each and every New Zealander. We have a responsibility as a Parliament to put into place sensible laws that the vast majority of New Zealanders will comply with and abide by. We have to change the binge drinking culture in this country that encourages and condones the behaviour of too many young people in this country.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

I say to the Minister Damien O’Connor that this is another committee, another review, and, I predict, another failure. I do not doubt that members across Parliament are concerned about under-age drinking—drinking by those aged 14, 15, 16, and 17—but, in truth, another committee will not solve the problem. When the Government puts out a press release on the eve of this debate, I believe that it is misleading the public and, I would say—for those members of Parliament who are thinking about that option—misleading members of this Parliament.

In truth, to change the culture we have to change the law. We have seen that in many other areas of our lives: changing the law changes the culture and our acceptance of the way people behave. That is why I have proposed an amendment that I believe will make a difference. But to consider that amendment, members will have to vote for the second reading tonight, because that is a matter for the Committee stage. So if members want to make a sensible change to the law, they should vote for the second reading tonight.

In 1999 I was on the select committee that considered the legislation, and the whole discussion in Parliament and at the select committee revolved around drinking in bars and restaurants. I remember lots of discussion about civilised drinking in bars and restaurants and how having that would change the culture. In part, that aspect has actually been successful. Virtually every person one talks to—police officers, the public at large, and, indeed, publicans—will say that, in fundamental truth, there is no real problem in bars and restaurants. So I propose that we leave the age at 18 for that situation, because it is regulated, controlled, and, in fact, quite well policed. The 18-plus card has been reasonably effective in keeping out under-age drinkers—not, obviously, in all cases, but in most cases. That is not where the problem is.

I have to say that in 1999 the select committee did not properly consider the issue of off-licence places—liquor stores and supermarkets. We were warned by submitters back then that reducing the age to 18 would lead to an increase in drinking by those aged 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. By and large, we discounted that warning, but we were, in fact, wrong to do so. We all know, as a matter of common sense—and I believe that the Minister Damien O’Connor also knows—that there has been an increase in binge drinking by that age group. There is a simple reason, when we think about it. Eighteen-year-olds are frequently in school. Their friends are frequently 16 and 17-year-olds. Yes, they might drink at home, but that is often because they have bought alcohol themselves in liquor stores and supermarkets. Where do people most frequently have their parties? At home. So the argument that drinking is all being done at home is simply not appropriate.

Reducing the off-licence age to 18 has caused problems, and those problems were, in fact, predicted. Tonight we have the chance to fix that particular problem, which is the principal source of the issues the public is concerned about. The way to do that is to increase the age from 18 to 20. It is not difficult to enforce. Everyone knows what an off-licence is. Everyone knows what an on-licence is. By and large, those terms are fixed. The public have given us a clear verdict on this matter. They want a sensible solution. Front-line police want a sensible solution. The injury prevention unit at Otago University has stated that the rate of injuries sustained by young drivers has not declined to the same extent as that of all other drivers. Why? Because of alcohol.

Tonight members have a clear choice. If they want to take a serious approach to fixing this problem, they will vote for the Law and Order Committee’s report. If they want another committee, another review, or another do-nothing approach, then they will support this Government’s review—but to do that would be wrong. I tell members to take a common-sense approach and to vote to support the bill going further. Then they can have a solution, which will make the age 18 for on-licences and 20 for off-licences.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in respect of this bill, having spent about 11 months on the Law and Order Committee and listened to the submissions to it. The point I make is that I believe that this bill should proceed through the House tonight, so I will be voting for it. I believe that the public want us to debate seriously the amendments that have been offered by Dr Mapp in respect of the split age and to consider fully whether that age should go up or stay exactly where it is.

My history in respect of dealing with young people who are the worse for alcohol goes back a long way, and it is not surprising, I suppose, that I take a conservative approach. I will be supporting Dr Mapp’s bill to split the age, and the reason is fairly simple. Eighteen-year-olds who are drinking in hotels are drinking in an environment where they are supervised not only by the bar staff, the people on the door, and the licensee in the background who runs the risk of losing his or her licence—and therefore income—if he or she stuffs it up but also by the other patrons drinking within the hotel. My experience is that there is actually very little problem with 18-year-olds drinking in hotels. They tend to remain sober—although some of them do not, and they get turfed out or are taken home. Frequently, a courtesy coach is available. If little scraps and scuffles do start, they are not as dangerous, do not last as long, and settle down pretty quickly.

If we then look at young people who drink in unsupervised areas, we find that they tend to drink with people who are younger than themselves. They drink in public or private places. They tend to get trashed quicker. They drink less reasonably—hoses on the end of funnels, boat races, and all the rest of those things that some people may have considered fun in the old days but that have led to a hell of a lot of misery over time. No one is watching and no one is making sure that people are drinking safely. I guess my experience is that I have seen too many pissed young people, raped young people, assaulted young people, drunk young people who fall off things and hurt themselves, and young people who start fights that lead to more serious events.

The comment we keep hearing time and time again is that this bill will not work. Quite honestly, I ask which single bill or which single piece of legislation actually works 100 percent of the time for 100 percent of participants in the community. The Minister of Corrections referred to the consumption of marijuana. Well, we have a law against smoking cannabis. Does it work? Some would say no. Does it dissuade some people from smoking cannabis? Yes, it probably does, but other strategies such as education about the health risks and the future risks work as much as the criminality involved in getting caught smoking cannabis. What a surprise; that is exactly what will happen with this bill.

If this legislation passes and the drinking age is put up from 18, or if Mr Mapp’s amendment goes through and people who are 18 can drink in hotels and people who are purchasing from off-licences have to wait until they are 20, will that solve all the problems? No, it will not. I wonder whether each member of this House can imagine themselves in the glare and the spotlight of public scrutiny when someone shoves a microphone in front of his or her mouth and asks: “Would you vote for something that would solve 10 percent of the problem, or 20 percent of the problem?”. If we accept that this legislation is not a one-hit wonder—that, in actual fact, to change the drinking culture in New Zealand we have to take a number of different initiatives, and this is just one—then I challenge that member to say into that microphone, under that glare of public scrutiny: “No, stuff ya. I won’t pass legislation that will fix even 10 percent of this problem.”

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I rise to speak in two capacities, not only as a New Zealand First spokesman but also as the chairman of the Law and Order Committee that heard the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I sincerely congratulate the select committee on the work the members did on this bill. The bill has been about a year in gestation and has presented us all with challenges. It was a privilege to chair a committee where people managed, despite their personal views on this legislation and what it intended to do, to put those views to one side and to try their level best to agree to produce workable legislation that, if enacted, would be able to be implemented—because there were many consequential changes to other legislation that had to be considered—and to produce a quality report.

I also congratulate and thank sincerely the officials from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Health, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who worked with the select committee. I say to Matt Robson, if he is listening, that this is his work. He started this bill from here, and I hope that he gets the result he is seeking.

I also want to correct a mistake that I made last night. It is not quite in line with this bill, but it is in line with the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill, which was reported back by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and was debated last night. I express my apology to Tariana Turia for incorrectly representing her views. In fact, the Minister of Corrections who stood and blocked the “goon squad” inquiry was Matt Robson when he was the Minister of Corrections. I sincerely apologise for that; I got that one wrong.

But what we have not got wrong is the way in which we have handled this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. The bill has posed a number of challenges to the select committee and, at the end of the day, we come to the point where we ask what we do with this bill from this point on. My plea to the House tonight is for members to vote for the second reading, allow this bill to go before the Committee of the whole House, and allow it to be debated in full, part by part and clause by clause. In that way, the issues highlighted by Mr Power—who has made no secret of his intention to vote against this bill since the day it first arrived in Parliament—may be teased out and debated, so that the bill, where appropriate, may be amended.

We did not recommend, as a select committee, the split-age option, but we went out of our way to highlight the issues brought before us and to offer some guidance to any other member of Parliament who might see that as a compromise position to take. I note, with respect, the Supplementary Order Papers from Dr Wayne Mapp and Gordon Copeland, and their intention to take up further discussion of the split-age option.

For me there are a couple of issues that stand out clearly. [Interruption] I hope I am not interrupting these people on my right by my speaking. If members are opposed to this bill, the chances are that they oppose it on the basis that people who are 18 years of age and who have the right to vote, the right to get married, and the right to fight and die in a world war for their country should have the right to have a beer. It is a good argument, and we need to discuss that more. We need to discuss it more in the Committee stage, because evidence was produced that the research oft touted by people does not stack up.

For example, many young people have said to me: “I have the right to go and fight and die for my country.”, but when I asked them: “Well, the Army is short of people right now, so if I vote to keep the drinking age at 18, will you join the Army tomorrow and go to Afghanistan?”, I could not see them for a shower of small stones and pebbles as they disappeared off into the distance. They do not want to join the Army. They do not want to join the Air Force. They leave it to some little boy from Ruatōria to do that, or to some little boy from way down south—from Twizel, or somewhere like that.

Those educated young people who came before the select committee, like the Young Nats, are the very last people, in my humble experience, to put their money where their mouth is and sign up for the Army. [Interruption] I said “like the Young Nats”; I did not say they were the only ones. []

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) Link to this

Studies by the injury prevention research unit of the University of Otago show that hazardous alcohol consumption is the leading modifiable cause of injury in New Zealand. It accounts for 78 percent of all deaths among 15 to 19-year-olds in New Zealand. Our child and youth injury record is among the worst in the developed countries, and it has got worse since the drinking age was lowered to 18 in 1999. Is there anything about that that anyone in this House does not understand? Many argue that we need to change the culture of drinking. Of course we do; I agree with that. But in doing so we need to choose strategies that are known to have a high probability of being effective. The laws of our land are part of our culture too—firearms control, compulsory breath-testing, compulsory seatbelt wearing—and they have an important role to play in producing positive health outcomes.

We urge members—I say this on behalf of somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of New Zealanders—to make a decision that is based on that research; not on how they feel but on how they think when they read the evidence. This is a day when we are challenged to make a difference to the health and well-being of teenage New Zealanders. The single most destructive drug in New Zealand—and I speak as the Minister in charge of the Government’s drug policy—is alcohol, by a country mile. The single biggest predictor of criminal offending in New Zealand is the use and abuse of alcohol. The single biggest inflictor of harm is alcohol. Raising the age at which alcohol can be purchased will not, of course, solve all those problems, and no one has ever suggested that it will. But that is why the Government is working across the board on a wide range of harm reduction issues connected with alcohol: community alcohol and drug programmes, Community Action on Youth and Drugs, and so on.

Parliament has to back up the community as well—not with excuses, but with positive steps that make a difference. Putting up the minimum age for legally buying alcohol to 20 will make a difference. We know it will, because we know that lowering the age made a difference; we know that. Many, many countries that have lowered the age have raised it again, and it has made a big difference the other way round—absolutely. The proof of that is irrefutable. If any members have not read the Otago University studies in that regard, they should. Professor Langley from the injury prevention research unit at Otago University has found there were significantly more alcohol-involved car crashes among 15 to 19-year-olds than there would have been if the purchase age had not been reduced to 18. The research found that if the purchase age was set at 20, an annual prevention of over 400 injury hospitalisations and 12 fatalities among 15 to 19-year-olds from road traffic crashes alone would be expected. How sobering in every sense that finding is.

Imagine the 12 families a year who lose a teenager. Imagine meeting those parents, knowing we could have saved a life with our vote here tonight. It is no exaggeration to say that Parliament is making a decision tonight on which lives hang. It is making a decision for 400 hospitalised teenagers a year—eight a week. Let members go to those families at the bedsides in the hospitals and tell them that their kids should be encouraged to abuse alcohol and smash themselves up!

This country has a massive alcohol problem. According to the Ministry of Health, the social costs of alcohol misuse alone total between $1,500 million and $2,500 million a year. But economic measures alone of course do not really describe the full extent of the damage to individuals, to families, and to communities. I put it to the House tonight that every member here knows that the choice we face is not between competing facts. We know what the facts are. We know in our hearts, as well as in our heads, that lowering the minimum age for buying alcohol increased harm to young people. Many people of goodwill thought it would not; they were wrong. It has.

The proposed review to look at the supply and sale of liquor to under-18-year-olds is one review we do not need. The jury is already in on whether lowering the drinking age has been a successful measure in improving New Zealanders’ binge drinking culture. It has been a miserable failure and it is costing lives. I have to say, as an interpolation, that this is not a Government measure. I am a member of the coalition Government and I was not consulted on that review, so I am not part of it. The Labour Party part of it can say it is its review, but it is not mine. This is the kind of review we have when we want to give parliamentarians a soft option. I hear that sigh of relief in many places: “Oh gosh, we’ve got a review so we don’t have to make a hard decision.” Well, this is the place for hard decisions, and this is where the buck stops.

We do not have the luxury, as parliamentarians, of a soft option. The issue of access to alcohol by under-18-year-olds, and alcohol-related harm, has already been reviewed. It has been before a select committee of this House for 11 months. The Law and Order Committee has had Ministry of Justice reports and health reports on the impact of lowering the drinking age. It has received 180 submissions from medical researchers, non-governmental organisations, police, the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand, and many others. Raising the purchasing age to 20 years is of course not enough by itself to change New Zealand’s excessive drinking culture, but it is part of a comprehensive package. The Minister, Damien O’Connor, is right. We have to do more, regardless. It could be an important and integral step in the right direction.

I accept that 18-year-olds can vote, and join the armed forces. So the question is why they should not have the same rights of citizenship as, say, 20 or 21-year-olds, and so on. Well, it is known that brain development is not fully complete until age 20, as a matter of fact. Eighteen and 19-year-old New Zealanders certainly have the judgment to exercise the rights of citizens, but not if that judgment is badly affected by alcohol. Do members think that young people go into the Army and get on the field, and are given some drink before they do that? If they do, then surely that is not what we are proposing here.

Those most likely to consume large quantities of alcohol are overwhelmingly young. We are not talking about 18 and 19-year-olds only. Massey University found that a quarter of 14 and 15-year-olds have had at least six drinks on one occasion. The proportion of young people drinking as heavily as that has doubled in the last decade. Why would that be, do we think? Do members think that the much more widespread availability of alcohol could have anything remotely to do with that? Police and social agencies know. They drag drunken teenagers off the streets more than they used to. They clean up the mess. They pick up the bodies. That is why 84 percent of police officers, according to one survey, and 90 percent of the ones whom I have met in the regions of New Zealand where I have spoken at public alcohol and drug meetings, support putting up the purchasing age to 20. Yet the police supported lowering it to 18 when it was lowered in 1999; I know that. They did it in goodwill and they thought it would work, and now 90 percent of them say it has not worked and that we should put the age back up. We should at least be listening to the people on the front line of the streets of New Zealand whom we ask to clean up the mess.

Every parliamentarian here knows that there is no more virulent lobbyist than the liquor industry lobbyist. I have been around for a long time in this place, and this is a day when the health and well-being of young people have to come before lobbyists. The health and well-being of young people in New Zealand are tragically impaired by overindulgence in alcohol. The lowering of the drinking age—while one measure alone, either way, is not in itself the solution—is a message, a direction, and an indicator from this lawmaking body. If we started to say that it is all right at 18, why not 17, 16, 15, and 14? People would start saying “Oh, that’s rubbish.” Well, in England, they actually had no drinking age at all, and when they introduced it at 12, there was an uproar from the liquor industry.

I am just saying to members that I implore them to put themselves alongside the police officers, social workers, and families whom they must think of tonight when they vote. Putting this bill through will give hope to many, many people in New Zealand who think that this Parliament does make mistakes from time to time. The respect they would have for an institution that acknowledged a mistake and reversed that mistake when it had the opportunity would be profound. I suggest that we think that way very clearly when we come to vote this evening.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

I am pleased to stand and be here in the Parliament to vote against this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. My legal background has taught me that laws must be made on the basis of sound evidence and demonstrable efficacy. Although the issues surrounding alcohol, the harm that is caused by alcohol—which is undeniable—and the issues around youth drinking are very serious, the bill itself fails the test of being based on sound evidence and being demonstrably efficacious. It should not become law.

So let us look at some of the facts around young people and alcohol, and the way to deal with them. Parents, guardians, educators, and all those who have concerns about the impact of alcohol on adolescents have a reason to celebrate, actually. The number of under-age drinkers is decreasing. This information comes from the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC)—the most up-to-date research on young people by a truly independent body. The proportion of 14 to 17-year-olds who are non-drinkers doubled in 4 years and the trend is continuing. Education and social marketing is successfully reducing young people’s drinking entirely independent of the legal purchasing age. This is not evidence that supports the raising of the purchasing age of alcohol.

One of the main justifications for raising the age from 18 to 20 has been that lowering the age to 18 has decreased the unofficial drinking age—that is, more younger people are drinking because 18 is the legal purchasing age. But we have to remember that we have no minimum legal drinking age in this country. So for all Jim Anderton’s fury and passion, the fact is that 14-year-olds can drink legally in this country, and 12-year-olds can drink legally in this country. So if we are going to be worried and concerned about young people—very young people—drinking, we need to address that specifically. It is legal to provide minors with alcohol as long as there is parental supervision and it is a private party.

The ALAC research shows that 50 percent of under-age drinkers are supplied alcohol by their parents; not by 18-year-olds, but by their parents. Eighty-seven percent of under-age drinkers had their last drink at home—and Simon Power dealt with this issue very well—under the legal supervision of their parents and families. This bill allows, and continues to allow, adults to supply alcohol to minors at private parties. It seems timely to remind members that under-age drinking at private parties, with parental supervision, has some very serious consequences. One might want to remember the very tragic case of Julie Johnson and the death of Renee Brown that was the result of alcohol drunk at a parentally supervised party in Northland. This bill will keep that situation alive and will retain that ability to supply this alcohol to under-age drinkers.

So how exactly would raising the age from 18 to 20 fix this issue for these under-age drinkers? How would it interfere with the supply chain of alcohol when it is being supplied predominantly by parents? The Law and Order Committee recommends that 18-year-olds in a marriage, or in a civil union, should still be able to purchase alcohol, and it creates this new legal fiction called a “former guardian”. But given the existing problems with enforcement around the existing law, how on earth will this practically work? Will pubs be required to see a marriage licence or a birth certificate that names a former guardian before they supply a person with a drink? Will people have to identify themselves with photo ID to make sure they are the same person that is named on the birth certificate?

Do we really want to legislate to discriminate against de facto couples? Because even those who have lived together, perhaps for several years, but who for their own reasons have chosen not to get married will not be able to drink as their married counterparts will be able to. So on the one hand this Parliament has recognised the status of de facto couples and their ability to be responsible adults through the Property (Relationships) Act and all that that entails, yet is now prepared to draw a line around married and unmarried people just for the purposes of having a drink in a pub or buying a bottle of wine from a bottle store.

The Care of Children Act extinguishes guardianship at 18. This bill will reinstate it for just that small little purpose. It is a ridiculous piece of legislative “pretzelism”, if one likes, to try to get to a solution that is easy, but effectively without substance. I do not support the split age proposal. It is a means to create a second class of 18 and 19-year-olds, and there is no evidence that it will have any advantageous impact on the harm that having a raised age is supposed to cure. This is all about appearance. It is appearance that makes people and MPs feel that they are doing something, but in effect it has no substance.

Another argument for raising the age is the association of purchasing age and traffic incidents. There has been a lot of talk tonight about the Otago research from the injury prevention unit. But while this research argues that there is a direct correlation between purchasing age and traffic accidents, what it actually says, when one reads it carefully, is that the rate of decline in these accidents is slightly slower for 18 and 19-year-olds, and then it also goes on to say that it has not considered the impact of easy accessible alcohol. It has looked only at the age issue.

The fact is that there is considerable access to alcohol now and these rules were changed at around the same time that the age was lowered. There were many changes during the 1990s around alcohol. There was an increase in the number and the nature of alcohol outlets. In Auckland the number doubled in 5 years. Sunday trading was allowed, there were extended opening hours, and the lowering of the age.

The only research that factors in all these different aspects and all these different changes is the Ministry of Health report Young People and Alcohol: Some Statistics to 2003 and 2004 on Possible Effects of Lowering the Drinking Age. This report shows that the number of 14 to 17-year-olds prosecuted for driving with excess breath or blood alcohol has been increasing since 1997—2 years before the legal age was raised, but after the liberalisation of access to alcohol through supermarkets and dairies. The report states that the number and percentage of 15 to 19-year-old drivers involved in alcohol-related crashes decreased between 1994 and 2000. So during the period that the age was raised, and although there have been some little raises in between, we are still sitting at a level lower than was present in 1994. So we have not increased significantly during the period that the age was lowered.

So the evidence is clearly showing that the correlation between lowering the age and incidence of harm is not certain. It is not certain and it is not clear, and the other factors have to be taken into account. What is clear is that there is a failure to enforce the law. The Pseudo Patrons Project in 2004 showed that over half of the bottle stores that they went to sold alcohol to young people without asking for ID. Since the lowering of the age the number of convictions for selling alcohol to minors has decreased. So there is less enforcement now of the law than there was prior to 1999. I am surprised there are not more harms as a result given the plethora of access to alcohol and the failure to properly enforce the law. We should be looking at much worse statistics, but we are not, and we need to take that into account.

I know the Law and Order Committee worked very hard and dealt with a lot of issues, but I think this Parliament and the people of New Zealand deserved a better report with better evidence than the one we received, particularly when we are talking about stripping away the existing legal rights of adults. At 18 a person in this country is an adult. He or she can raise a mortgage, die in defence of our country, become a member of Parliament, own and use a firearm, and, like all adults, go to a bar and buy a beer or go to a bottle store and get a bottle of wine. If we are going to strip away these legal rights from adults, we need to do it on the basis of very sound evidence and proven efficacy. That is simply not the case with this bill. I urge members to vote against this legislation. [Interruption]

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

The health services research centre at Victoria University, in its 1999 study Te Iwi Maori me te Inu Waipiro, said everything we need to know about our rationale for supporting this bill. The first two sentences of that resource are definitive: “Prior to contact with Pakeha, Maori lived in one of the few parts of the world that had never developed alcoholic beverages. The Inuit people of Canada, the Trukese of Micronesia, and a number of Native American Indian tribes share with Māori the attribution of being indigenous peoples who did not develop alcoholic drinks.”

Last night this House witnessed an unusual attack on the Māori Party. That speech was the most intoxicating I have heard in my short time in this House. Indeed, we did wonder from which spirit bottle that genie escaped. The nature of the delivery was such that I also queried how one could savour the taste of the beverage of bile that was spewed in the direction of my Māori Party colleagues, along with the lessons that we should learn from the orators on the marae. What I experienced last night, masquerading as a speech in a debate, was really the type of personal attack I have never heard from any orators on the marae. But then, of course, my marae experiences may not be as extensive as the honourable member’s.

The central thrust of the attack was that one should not need to prepare or develop a position on any issue before rising in this House, but instead members should simply rise—as the spirit moves them, so to speak—to speak off the cuff. The Māori Party believes that looking to history is a valid tool for understanding an issue; that planning and preparing to respond to significant issues of State should be the solemn responsibility that all members of this House take seriously. It is a responsibility that we will continue to take up in our commitment to defending the rights of Māori in advancing the interests of Māori for the benefit of this entire nation.

It is precisely because of the state of an alcohol-free Aotearoa that we in the Māori Party know that alcohol use, and more particularly alcohol abuse, is something that was foreign to Māori. Indeed the botanist Joseph Banks wrote in 1769 that “Water is their universal drink”. He said that Māori showed great repugnance for wine, especially strong liquors. Perhaps that is why liquor is frequently referred to in te reo Māori as waipiro, or stinking water. Set against that context, fast forward 237 years later to 2006 to the grim reality that Māori report a higher incidence of alcohol-related problems, and one inevitably has to ask where it all went so wrong.

A national Māori alcohol survey undertaken in 2000, Te Ao Waipiro 2000, helps us to work it out. The survey took in some 2,000 people who identified as Māori. Out of all men surveyed, one in five indicated that alcohol was causing problems to their health. The most frequent drinkers were 18 to 19-year-olds, particularly men, who drank every 1 or 2 days. Again, out of all age groups, it was 18 to 19-year-old Māori who consumed the most alcohol on typical drinking occasions—12 to 13 drinks for men and eight to nine drinks for women. This is the exact target group affected by the bill. It is figures like these that give proof to the theme song of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC): “It’s not the drinking, it’s how we’re drinking”.

These figures are sobering in all senses of the word, but what is even more disturbing are the alcohol-related problems that emerge from such patterns. Twenty-one percent of 18 to 19-year-old Māori surveyed said that they drink and drive. Out of all age groups, it was young people aged from 14 to 16 years who were most likely to have reported experiencing problems from other people’s drinking, including sexual harassment, car crashes, physical assault, and other accidents. It was for all those reasons and more that when the membership of the Māori Party started developing our policy programme in mid-2005, special commitment was included to promote changing legislation to restrict the sale of alcohol from 18 years to 20 years or older by the entire Māori Party of 21,000 members. The research reveals that youth binge drinking has increased, and it is this binge drinking that is especially harmful. I know the argument has been put that most 18-year-olds are mature enough to consume alcohol responsibly, but the same national Māori alcohol survey I quoted earlier reported that 62 percent of 18 to 19-year-old men were consuming over 20 litres of alcohol per year. Frequently feeling drunk was highest amongst young men aged 16 to 24 years, and amongst women aged 18 to 19 years.

When the survey actually asked young people whether it was a problem for them, the answers in themselves were revealing. Twenty-two percent of 14 to 17-year-olds, and 23 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds, were concerned about their own alcohol consumption. So when nearly a quarter of our rangatahi are saying they are drinking more than they are happy with, should we not be listening to them, or do we know better? Should we ignore the New Zealand Drug Foundation, the Ministry of Health, ALAC, and other public health organisations that have advised Parliament that when Canada and the United States raised their drinking ages, alcohol-related harm decreased? Or, when we turn to the justice sector and observe the dramatic increase in the numbers of drunk, disorderly teenagers since the drinking age was lowered in 1999, should we just turn a blind eye? When the injury prevention research unit of Otago University advises us that hazardous alcohol consumption is the leading modifiable cause of injury and accounts for 78 percent of all deaths amongst 15 to 19-year-olds in New Zealand, is anybody else in this House shocked by that? When we open the pages of the American Journal of Public Health and see that earlier this year an article featuring the New Zealand law change reported that the rate of alcohol-involved crash rates after the law change was 12 percent higher for 18 to 19-year-olds, and 14 percent larger for 15 to 17-year-olds, do we just close the book and pretend we never saw it? Is ignorance really bliss when those white crosses on the roadside are increasing?

I work amongst the problems of youth drinking virtually every week. The Māori Party agrees with all those parties who have stood in this debate and said that raising the purchase age on its own will amount to nought unless it is combined with education and other targeted strategies. We are also of the view that all we are doing today is restricting the purchase age as one aspect of a strategy. We are not saying, and indeed would not say, that 19 and 18-year-olds cannot drink. The emphasis is specifically on the purchase of the drink. The issue we must turn our minds to is a broader strategy to reduce youth hazardous drinking and, indeed, New Zealand’s culture of hazardous drinking. For example, we have to address things such as the availability of liquor, the way in which we drink, adult binge drinking, and the whole culture of liquor abuse in this country. We must be open to every possibility and search for effective strategies to find ways that actually work. Maybe Dr Mapp’s amendment could be part of the solution. One such strategy has to be the active and willing participation of whānau—family involved in becoming responsible mentors, cause champions, and role models; leaders in this whole initiative, instead of, as in too many cases, actual perpetuators of the binge culture. The Māori Party supports this bill. Thank you.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

There is an old saying that the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is a similar saying in this Parliament that very often changes to the law are accompanied by the law of unintended consequences. It is quite clear now, as Dr Wayne Mapp explained in his speech, that when the drinking age was reduced in 1999, from 20 to 18, an unintended consequence flowed from that action. I refer to the fact that it was overlooked at that stage that when the drinking age was dropped to 18, for the first time in New Zealand’s history people who were within our secondary school system were included. That was the unintended consequence; that was the thing that was not picked up in 1999. It is a very, very important point to ponder, because that reality opened up for 14, 15, 16 and 17-year-olds a new route of alcohol supply.

I will explain to the House exactly how it works. This is not based on evidence that has come from the Dunedin school of medicine, and it has not come from alcohol or drug counsellors of any sort; this is evidence that has come from the thousands of parents across this country who have teenage children. If I speak to those parents who have children at secondary school, they say to me: “Gordon, this is how it works.” They tell me that kids of 14 or 15 pool their money, approach an 18-year-old they know who is in the seventh form, and say: “When you go to the supermarket to buy your booze, would you please add to your quantities some booze for us, and we will give you $5 or $10 for your trouble.” That is what is happening, that is why we have a new supply route for these young people, and that is what we need to bring to an end.

Some say that binge drinking has always occurred in New Zealand. I would like each member of Parliament tonight to think back to his or her own secondary school days to see whether that is true. When I think back to my secondary school days, I conclude that at 14, 15, 16, and 17 we basically had an alcohol-free secondary education. We started getting into booze after we had left school. Apart from private consumption with parents and family, basically when I was at secondary school we were not into binge drinking at that age. That situation has changed since we lowered the drinking age. [Interruption]

OK, then let me ask members this question individually: when each member was at school, was he or she aware of binge drinking amongst 14 and 15-year-olds—yes, or no? That is just a question members can answer on their own consciences. People who are listening to this debate can answer that question. But binge drinking did not occur before we dropped the drinking age to 18.

I want to move on, therefore, to the Supplementary Order Paper proposing the split age, which I have signalled to all members of Parliament I will be introducing to the House at the Committee stage. It is very simple in its application. It simply says that if a person is 18, he or she can purchase alcohol in a bar or restaurant, but that person cannot purchase alcohol from a supermarket or a liquor store, etc., until he or she is 20. That Supplementary Order Paper is designed to stop the supply route to young people from 18-year-olds who are in the secondary school system.

I was quite surprised today to receive a letter from the president of the Otago Polytechnic student union. In that letter, which I believe was sent to every MP, the president said: “We support the split-age proposal.” That letter was from a significant tertiary educational institution in our country, and its union says that it supports the split age as proposed. I thought about that for a moment, and I thought that it makes perfect sense. There is no 18, 19, or 20-year-old in the country who would dispute the split-age proposal. Why? Those young people know very well that their supply of alcohol will continue uninterrupted under that proposal. I urge members to think it through for a moment.

Young people can get a drink in a bar or restaurant when they are 18—status quo. Do they have a problem with supply outside of those premises? The answer is no. Why? Their mates—some of them—will be 20, or they will know people who are 20. The same supply route will be coming from 20-year-olds down to 18-year-olds, as we now have from 18-year-olds down to 16-year-olds, but the difference is that it will stop at that age. That is the really important point that I want members of this Parliament—

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

A few months ago I became aware that this bill would be coming to the House. I also became aware of the silence of the young, so I took the opportunity to survey about 2,500 Wellington adults aged between 18 and 22. Because of the responses that I received, I am not supporting the bill tonight. I received hundreds of responses to that survey and they were overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the legal purchasing age at 18. As well, some respondents said they appreciated that we had taken the time to ask them what they thought. Many of the respondents were very eloquent in putting their case for not lifting the legal purchasing age. A significant number observed that raising the legal purchasing age would result only in more illegal drinking of alcohol. Too many said that in putting up the drinking age we would be driving the activity underground. I ask why we would want to take 18 and 19-year-olds out of a public, protected, monitored environment where they can dance, drink, and eat, and put them in a garage or an old flat—with one loo, if they are lucky—with no protection or monitoring.

We know what would happen in that situation. One respondent to the survey said exactly what can happen. The woman said that she has an 8-year-old boy and has no idea who the father is. She got drunk in a garage and cannot remember a thing, but is reminded every morning of what happened that night, because she is now a mother. She has no idea who the father is. The gossip was horrible. Her peers, at the time, were taking bets on who it was, because of the activity in the garage that night. Kids can be very cruel sometimes, but I suggest not as cruel as we will be if we take those young women out of a protected drinking environment and put them into a very unprotected environment.

As another respondent noted: “If you put it in the back room you may think you’re hiding it, but you’re not solving a damn thing.” Another interesting point was made by respondents, and it has been alluded to tonight by others. Many of the respondents made it quite clear they do not know why we are having a debate about the drinking age. They think we should be having a debate about drugs, and the problem that drugs cause in their age group and in society.

Young adults have had a taste of the privilege of alcohol, and come hell or high water they will keep swigging. Anyone who says the problem of alcohol consumption is with only 18 and 20-year-olds—that they are the ones with the problem—should join me on a wander through the city streets with Winston, both early morning and at night, and they will see a hell of a lot more 30 and 40-year-old men and women who are making a drunken nuisance of themselves on the streets. So why not raise the drinking age to 40, and keep those people off the streets! Many older Kiwis just cannot handle their booze.

Parliament needs to recognise that at 18 one is an adult. There are 121,000 adults aged between 18 and 19 today and they deserve to be given respect and to be treated as responsible—but learning—New Zealanders. At the last Wellington City Council elections, an 18-year-old was elected as a city councillor. She was deemed old enough to help govern the city of Wellington but not old enough to cheer the mayor on the night the councillor took her oath.

Young people are growing up very quickly today, and the 18-year-olds of today are a very different group of 18-year-olds from how it was when we were that age. I think Parliament needs to send this clear message to the young 18-year-old adults of New Zealand: “You must be responsible. You must take personal responsibility for your actions. You must be held responsible. Get drunk, but there are no excuses if you do, and it is nothing to be proud of. You must handle the consequences of your actions.”

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

I will certainly be voting against the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill tonight, but at the outset I say that I respect all the views that have been advanced by those for and against this legislation. The only good thing that will come out of this legislation is that New Zealand again has the chance to debate its irresponsible attitude to alcohol, because we as a nation have a problem whereby too many of us do not use alcohol in a responsible manner. But to blame that problem on 120,000 young 18 and 19-year-olds is not a responsible way to treat this issue.

Many of those people got the right to vote in 1998 and I voted at that stage to lower the drinking age, and the great majority of young people have accepted that responsibility without difficulty. We are debating this issue in Parliament tonight because of the actions of a few. But I say that more important than trying to blame that particular age group, New Zealanders need to accept that we as a nation have a problem.

I am one of those people who infrequently visit the likes of Courtenay Place—my name is not Winston—but, more important, as the father of four young children, I say that when I go to occasions it gives me no satisfaction to see people of any age drunk and out of control. It is pathetic and is something that we as a society should not accept. But, again, at those functions the people who are drunk and out of control are certainly not only young. Too many people who are well over the age of 20 give a very bad example in the way they handle alcohol. So the problem is far greater.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) Link to this

Alcohol is not just a youth issue. I am not willing to give up on the majority of young people who make a positive contribution to our society in many ways. I have been disturbed about the discussions that have taken place in many fora about returning the drinking age to 20, with its implications that it is young people’s drinking that has led to social decline in New Zealand. I do not believe this is the case. The current debate targets young people unfairly and for this, and for many other reasons, I will not vote to return the drinking age to 20 years. In 1999 I did not vote to lower the legal age for purchase of alcohol to 18. I am a member of the Law and Order Committee, which heard 180 submissions. I am concerned about young people’s drinking and I have considered this bill and its implications very, very carefully.

Society seems to be united in its view that we have a very poor attitude towards alcohol consumption in New Zealand. The term binge drinking is frequently mentioned and we have heard it mentioned a lot here tonight. The actual title of the bill is Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. If we as a society are genuinely concerned about reducing harm for young people, what are we as adults—who are legally able to purchase alcohol—going to do about modifying our behaviour so that we set a good example for the young people that we purport to be so concerned about?

The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand advises us accurately that alcohol is not just a youth issue; 60 percent of heavy drinkers are over 30. A recent global study of alcohol consumption shows that women in England and Ireland are the world’s biggest binge-drinkers. The study found that the heaviest drinkers tended to be from wealthy families, with well-educated parents. Women who had consumed four or more drinks on at least one occasion in the previous 2 weeks, were classified as heavy drinkers. Are members doing a quick mental calculation about their last fortnight’s behaviour? New Zealand’s attitudes towards alcohol consumption differs very little from those in England or Ireland given that most of us are descended from British and Irish stock. But we also need to recognise that our attitudes towards alcohol have prevailed for decades. This is not a new phenomenon.

Although I do not support the bill, I genuinely hope that it leads to an honest debate in all of our communities about how we may positively influence our attitude towards binge drinking and harmful consumption of alcohol. In the ongoing debate, we may like to think about the following points. It is not the age we are drinking, it is how we are drinking. Parents, not 18-year-olds, supply half of the alcohol that children drink. About 63 percent of parents say they set very strict rules about their children drinking alcohol; however, only about 52 percent of them actually know when their children are drinking.

The whole of society needs to support and promote education programmes that encourage safe drinking habits, coupled with stronger penalties for breaking the law. In my patch earlier this month three licensed premises failed a police sting that used under-age volunteers. In some of the premises, young volunteers were allowed to enter unhindered and were served alcohol without any problems at all. Under-age drinking can be better addressed through proper enforcement of alcohol sales. Current enforcement does work to stop persons under 18 purchasing alcohol in bars or bottle stores when that enforcement actually occurs. I say that more enforcement of the current law is needed, rather than a change in the law. The vast majority of 18-year-olds are mature enough to consume alcohol responsibly and it is unfair to penalise them for the behaviours of 14 and 15-year-olds. Do not punish the 18-year-olds who are drinking legally. Changing attitudes towards drinking is everyone’s responsibility.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to take a call in this debate and I acknowledge my colleague Martin Gallagher, who took over the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill from Matt Robson. I know that Martin took that bill on from a position of wanting to prevent alcohol-related harm. Even though I do not believe that this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill is the vehicle to do that, I certainly acknowledge the intent and the hard work that he has done on this legislation.

When the drinking age was lowered at the end of the 1990s, I was the president of Young Labour and we made a submission and lobbied many MPs. We did that for many reasons. One reason was that we knew the very aggressive debate that was happening over the drinking age was bringing a lot of attention to the issue of youth drinking. We knew that if the drinking age had been kept at 20 at that stage, a great change would have happened to the permissive atmosphere that had actually existed across New Zealand prior to that. Prior to that, as anyone who grew up in the 1990s will say, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, and—yes, I say to Mr Copeland—14-year-olds were drinking when the drinking age was 20.

The difference between the situation then and now, of course, is that when attention is drawn to something, people notice it. Certainly, since the lowering of the drinking age, we have noticed the problem we have with youth drinking. No one is saying there is not a problem, but attitudes have changed, and since the lowering of the drinking age we are far less tolerant of youth drinking than we were 6 or 7 years ago. There are actually more ID checks taking place; I have been checked more in my thirties than when I was an under-ager at high school. I say to those people who say there was no real under-age drinking way back then that I do not know which kind of utopia they lived in. We started to go to parties when I was 15, and we could walk into any bottle store and buy alcohol.

I also note the irony that Parliament has, from time to time, debated the age at which young people should be locked up as criminals. Some people were saying that should be happening at 12 years of age. Apparently, at 12 years of age someone is old enough to be considered sufficiently responsible to go to jail and serve out a life sentence for the most serious of crimes, but now we are also trying to say that someone who is 18 is not responsible enough to buy a beer. Ironically, this bill is not about 18 and 19-year-olds at all. It is about 14, 15, 16, and 17-year-olds, who people say have more access to alcohol than previously, even though, as Metiria Turei has pointed out, research has shown there are fewer under-age drinkers now than there were before the lowering of the drinking age.

Putting the purchasing age back up to 20 will not change anything, because it is not illegal for 14 and 15-year-olds to drink now, and that will not be illegal even if the purchase age goes up to 20. Fourteen and 15-year-olds will still be allowed to drink legally in this country. That is why I agree with my colleague Damien O’Connor that the issue is about supply. The issue is about the fact that 18-year-olds can hand alcohol on to a 17-year-old, and unless it can be proved that they bought the alcohol with the intent of providing it for under-age friends, nothing can be done about that. All the 18-year-olds will say is that when they put the drink down in the corner at a party, other people took it, and they did not know that those people would do that. The work Damien O’Connor is going to do around supply will do far, far more than this legislation would do to improve the problem that we have with youth drinking.

But as many people have pointed out, alcohol is not just a youth issue. If members bring up any age group at all, we will be able to point to some kind of alcohol-related harm that is stereotypically attached to that age group. Most under-18-year-olds are not responsible for the majority of alcohol-related domestic violence. That is one of the biggest problems we face when it comes to alcohol, and this bill will do nothing about it. Focusing on 18 and 19-year-olds as scapegoats for everything that is wrong with drinking alcohol will do nothing about that problem.

Many people have said that enacting this legislation would be better than doing nothing, and that at least if we did that, we would be doing something about the issue. I disagree with that, because one point is that the more people are allowed to drink on licensed premises, the better it is. A worse problem may be that some people in this Parliament will think that by changing the age to 20, we will have done something. They may think that by putting the age up to 20, we will have wiped our hands of the problem, and that we will be able to go back home and say to the voters that we voted to put the age back up to 20, so Parliament has done its bit—and we all know that that is not true.

In fact, binge drinking is a problem around the world; it is not a New Zealand problem. I think that here it probably came from the 6 o’clock swill. We can look at the changes that have happened in the UK at the moment around the liberalisation of alcohol. Anyone who went to pubs when they closed at 11 o’clock in Britain would have seen how people would just throw down three, four, five, or six drinks before the pub closed. All the reports from England now, since the liberalisation of the laws allowed the pubs to stay open, are that people do not do that any more. They drink because they want to, or because they have finished their drink and they feel like another, not because they are in a race to get to the bottom of the glass.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this

I will make a contribution not about the sale of liquor and whether the age should be 18 or 20 years but about the supply—not sale—of liquor to minors under the age of 18. Contrary to popular myth, currently there is no legal restriction on the supply of liquor to minors under the age of 18 for their consumption at private social gatherings. The supply does not have to be at the private gathering, merely for one. It is lawful for any adult to so supply a minor with any amount of liquor, even if that minor is not that adult’s child or under that adult’s guardianship.

Currently, it is also legal for one minor to supply another minor with any amount of liquor for consumption at a private gathering—it can be done in a car. There is no requirement that liquor supplied to minors be consumed under supervision. This contrasts poorly with laws for adults, where obligations on those running licensed premises include a requirement not to supply intoxicated persons with liquor—there are no such restrictions in respect of supplies between two minors for private functions.

This present law, of course, has undesirable effects on the availability of liquor to minors. It also places minors at risk in circumstances where their own parent or guardian may disapprove, or not have the opportunity to approve or disapprove, of the liquor being supplied. It is widely agreed that inappropriate drinking by minors carries a risk of adverse short-term and long-term effects upon them. Intoxication increases risky behaviour by minors. Immediate risks obviously include physical injury and accidents, including car accidents, while they are intoxicated, and risks of accidental pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. Consumption of alcohol by minors is also correlated with higher rates of alcoholism for those minors in later life.

The current loophole also makes it more difficult for the police to enforce other aspects of the Sale of Liquor Act, because minors found in possession of liquor can then use the excuse that it was legally supplied to them by a friend or relative. This makes it more difficult for police to discover and prosecute those who do sell liquor to minors. The availability of liquor to minors through the current loophole is also a material factor in the incidence of intoxicated minors at both private gatherings and in public places. This loophole can be closed easily, and it was proposed to be closed in Matt Robson’s original bill.

The Law and Order Committee reversed that at the select committee stage and stated that it did not favour it, and it is now no longer in the bill. I cannot follow the logic of the select committee members when they state that there is no need to tighten up on this exemption. I just do not follow their logic. They stated that one of the reasons they did not think it was right to make illegal the supply of alcohol to minors was that, effectively, it amounts to introducing a drinking age. It does not. Let us not forget that the reason we have laws to make illegal the sale of alcohol to minors is that we think it harms them. If we think that selling it to them harms them, how is it any better to have unrestricted amounts of alcohol supplied to minors who are under the age of 18 years? So I am pleased that the Government has indicated it will look at this particular issue. I actually do not favour increasing the drinking age generally, but I do think we have to do more to protect our young people from the effects of overindulgence in alcohol.

One other issue I would like to see that review look at is the issue of alcohol consumption in cars. Cars are a means of transport, normally. They are weapons in the hands of people who are irresponsible or drunk. Cars ought to be a means of transport, not party venues. At the moment it is completely legal for people to use them as a party venue and, to be honest, I think that pissing up large in the car and rarking each other up is dangerous behaviour that we should protect young people from.

So I am voting against this legislation, but I do think there is a real problem in terms of the unrestricted supply of alcohol to minors. If I take my own situation, my 13-year-old daughter could be supplied with unlimited amounts of alcohol without my permission and against my wishes, and to her detriment—and there is nothing wrong with that at law. Changes to the law will not solve New Zealand’s alcohol problems, but some changes to the law are necessary and will take us in that direction. So I really recommend that the House gets in favour of looking at the issue as to whether we have to tighten up the supply—not the sale, but the supply—of alcohol to minors. Thank you.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) Link to this

This will be just a very quick call, because I certainly agree with the sentiments being expressed in the House tonight. This is a vexed question and here we are, all concerned, anxious, and worried. We are a bit like the worried well, looking to show that we have a hook to hang our hats on to show that we care about our kids. Well, this bill is not that hook, and I certainly will not be supporting it.

I take exception to the idea that we women should vote to raise the drinking age to 20 just to get the women’s vote. We should be taking this issue really seriously and asking what the solutions to the problems of binge drinking and the supply of alcohol to minors are. I was a mother of three teenage children and, yes, it was a challenging time when they were under the age of 18. But my husband and I took that responsibility together, as parents. We provided food at home and allowed our children to socialise at home. We made sure that they slept over when they spent nights with their friends and had a bit of alcohol. We also made sure that if they decided to go away—and they do sneak away—there was a sober driver. Those were the rules when young people came to our house, and we never had a problem. I think more parents should show that kind of responsibility. It is not the age that matters here; it is the culture of support and the responsible attitude to drinking that we inculcate in our children.

I grew up under the shadow of the intergenerational effects of the 6 o’clock swill. My father was an alcoholic, and I loathed seeing him drunk when he came home every Friday night and could not balance the peas on his fork. I resolved then that I would be more open as a parent with my own children. I would teach them to be socially responsible, to be able to handle alcohol, and to not overindulge. We managed it in our own house, under our supervision. I am astonished at this bill. Members think that putting the age up to 20 will solve this situation. There is nothing in this bill that will solve this problem.