12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) Link to this
to the Associate Minister of Health
What input, if any, will the Ministry of Health have into the proposed review of the restrictions on the supply and sale of liquor to under-18-year-olds?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Health will work together in reviewing the restrictions on the supply and sale of liquor to under-18-year-olds. The role of the Ministry of Health will include the provision of evidence-based policy advice on the health implications of the review.
If the Associate Minister believes that there should be a review of the sale of liquor, and if he does not believe that the drinking age should be raised, why did he send a letter to Denis Hampton last month stating: “I support raising the minimum legal purchase age for alcohol to 20, regardless of where the person may purchase or consume alcohol,”?
I am sorry the member has not had the opportunity to stay up to date on that issue. It was, of course, a typographical error, for which an apology has been made both publicly and privately. It is possible that the member has never made a mistake in his life, but I have, and it will never happen again—until the next time.
Ann HartleyThe terms of reference have not yet been finalised, but will include the effectiveness of the current restrictions, and the effect of changes that have taken place since 1999 when the supply of alcohol was liberalised. The review will include ways in which the current Sale of Liquor Act could be strengthened in relation to controlling the supply of alcohol to young people.
Did the Associate Minister read the letter to Denis Hampton before he signed it; if not, how many other documents has he signed without having read them?
I am not in a position to answer that question, of course, but it would seem that the member requires the Associate Minister to be word-perfect in every respect. I will say to the member that I have made a mistake every now and again, and I will never make a mistake again, until the next time.
Why, then—acknowledging that we all make mistakes—has the Associate Minister blamed the ministry for his mistake, saying it was a drafting error rather than a signing error made by none other than himself?
Because that is where the mistake originated. The Associate Minister, however, took responsibility and apologised privately and publicly some time ago. The member needs to stay up to date.
Given the replies we have had, what sort of mickey mouse ministerial office is the Associate Minister running when he signs out letters saying he wants the drinking age raised although his actual position is the opposite, and when his office is advised by officials of corruption involving Phillip Field but the Associate Minister is, supposedly, not told; with these two serious failings in his office—and I would suggest that they are more than casual mistakes—why should he continue to hold a ministerial warrant?