Labour split on minimum pricing

July 7th, 2012 at 9:40 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

There are rumbles within over MP Charles Chauvel promoting a regime for upcoming law changes as party policy.

TVNZ reported Labour had the numbers to pass the minimum pricing regime but it appears Mr Chauvel may not have all his colleagues on board, let alone the crucial votes of United Future and ACT.

That is because Labour is treating the changes as a conscience vote and several of its MPs oppose minimum pricing.

Will they vote against Chauvel’s amendment.

It is interesting that they are trying to say the amendment is a Chauvel amendment, not a Labour amendment. The problem is that Chauvel is their Justice Spokesperson, so amendments from him are not seen the same as amendments from a junior backbencher.

My challenge to every MP who votes for the minimum price amendment, is to be as courageous as Lianne Dalziel was, and state what you think the minimum price should be.

Tags: , ,

23 Responses to “Labour split on minimum pricing”

  1. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Why can’t they be honest and just say its another tax pure and simple for more election bribes.

    They have no more concern for the “victims” of alcohol than me hoping they have long lasting employment prospects

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dc (144 comments) says:

    Why are they treating it as a conscience vote when minimum pricing for alcohol was a Labour manifesto policy at the last election? Doesn’t that make it a party vote issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lazybum (259 comments) says:

    More social control from the gay dumpling.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    lol lazybum

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Don the Kiwi (1,794 comments) says:

    “More social control from the gay dumpling”

    Exactly – but not only the gay podgy one, but all the social engineering freeks on the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Unfortunately Don there are some supposedly from the right wasting Parliamentary time with this bollocks as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    It is interesting that they are trying to say the amendment is a Chauvel amendment, not a Labour amendment.

    Actually Chauvel has said it will be a Dalziel SOP.

    A number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOP) are expected to be put up from the Labour Caucus members to deal with the problems of availability, advertising and price that all the expert evidence indicated to the Select Committee contributes to our binge drinking culture.

    The minimum pricing one will go up in the name of Lianne Dalziel MP. I will put one up to give local communities a stronger say on the number, mix and opening hours of alcohol outlets in their communities. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway MP will put up others, including on advertising.

    http://yournz.org/2012/07/05/charles-chauvel-alcohol-reform-bil/

    What does the courageous Lianne Dalziel say about it now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay is right. Labour don’t give a damn about victims. This tax is just another way that they can rob people and then throw the money at the undeserving lazy, feckless masses (Labour voters).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Don the Kiwi (1,794 comments) says:

    True PEB.

    The so-called right are, in some cases, fairly well left.
    What happened to the halcyon days of conservatism (whenever that was).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (14,074 comments) says:

    Has the delicate Charlie Chauvel exposed a wide rift among the socialists? Not at all.

    The comrades will find unanimity and hike the price because they know better what’s best for the rest of us. Social engineering is their thing and they will be happy to bankrupt the country while at it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    And Labour don’t have Green support either, yet at least.

    Greens back Maori Party on minimum alcohol prices

    We support all the measures in Te Ururoa’s SOP but haven’t yet looked at what Labour proposes.

    So maybe more attention should be given to the Maori Party proposals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    How I despise those hypocritical socialist with their snouts deep in the trough. Almost as bad as the so called ‘greenies’ jet setting around the world on other people’s money and telling the proles to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Charles Chauvel and Gareth Hughes to the plebs:

    “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Yes Pete, lets wait what the New Zealand apartheid party has to say.
    They obviously have the interests of all New Zealanders at heart so it’s worthwhile listening to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Manolo (14,074 comments) says:

    So maybe more attention should be given to the Maori Party proposals.

    New Zealand needs that like a bullet in the head.
    The racists cannot and will not advance but their ilk’s causes. The rest of us do not matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Maori Party SOP details:

    · Make the proximity to a school a criteria for determining liquor licenses

    · Local committees to expand by one to accommodate a mana whenua representative

    · Limit the visibility of advertising/product in grocery stores and grocery shops (so they are not visible in the store, but they are able to be sold)

    · Eliminate advertising and sponsorship of alcohol except inside on-licence premises

    · Sinking lid policy on off-licence retailers (liquor stores) within territorial authorities (replacement of existing stores is the only exception and only if there is not another liquor store within 5km)

    · Trading hours: Changed to 10am – 10pm for off-site, 10am – 3am for on-licence premises with a one-way door restriction period from 1am – 3am

    · Minimum price per unit of alcohol sold (which will be set by Minister of Health) – this follows the model proposed in Scotland

    The minimum price proposal looks very similar to Labour’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. flipper (4,223 comments) says:

    Andy..
    The quote sounds good, but it is too much trouble to chase it down this Saturday noon time.
    For simple folk like me, a translation sil vous plait.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Dear Charles,

    Question:

    Your party agrees with the price rises of tabacco and are currently advocating hefty price rises for alcohol. On top of that you support the ETS which, when fully implemented, will cause prices for food, transport, heating and about everything else to rise. On top of that you would like to borrow even more money than National currently does and introduce another tax, the CGT.

    How do you think this will affect people on an median income of $62,853 or less?

    Answer:

    Well it won’t affect me in the slightest. I am on $141,800 and receive, on top of that, countless other free goodies so those price rises won’t keep me from indulging in a few bottles of wine a week (Could probably claim them on some expense account anyway). For those who can’t affort a few luxuries anymore, we will take some more money from other people and top up the benefits, WFF etc.. And if we run out of other peoples’ money and can’t give you more, just remember, we are doing it all for the good of the country.

    (Now, I wonder when I will get my next fat pay rise from the ‘independent’ higher salary commission? The last one was last year, $7000 dollars, backdated for half a year. Must be due for another one soon.)

    Lots of love,

    Charles XXXXX

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Flipper

    Let them eat cake!
    (Marie Antoinette)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Harriet (5,143 comments) says:

    Pete George@

    Be serious.

    Other than for alcoholics, if you give up alcohol completely, it does NOT alieviate your poverty, unemployment, under-education or general welfare.

    I live in Bundaberg QLD.Rum City.The Hepatology[liver] ward at the hospital is no busier than any other in Australia.Neither is A&E.

    Infact, the Police in Bundaberg don’t have too much of a problem with policing alcohol here either.Why would that be Pete?

    Well, because it is not the Gold Coast, Auckland or Wellington.

    In other words, where the young gather in MASS problems soon follow.Alcohol is a secondry matter.

    Take for example 1 single rugby team that is drinking at a private function, 2 people start fighting when drunk, but the fight is NEARLY ALWAYS stopped by others as soon as it is started, and no doubt, only one person may be injured.

    But start a fight between JUST 2 people on the Gold Coast or downtown Auckland and you SOON have an ‘all out brawl’ – A&E department records show this as being TRUE.

    So too do policing records – but ONLY after 50 police have turned up to a DRINKING PROBLEM ? LOL!

    Since when the f*** do police, in a standing civilian police force I might add, get to pick and choose what they police, based on their personal or collective preferances and SELECTIVE observations ? That’s not Policing!

    Rum city.Advertising is awash. I recall, Luke Malpess [although I could be wrong] from the NZ Initutive wrote a monograph on Geoffry Palmers Select Committee Inquiry into Alcohol. His findings ‘went something like this’ –

    “Total Advertising as recorded by the inquiry include every physical piece of advertising on all the sports grounds in NZ, and the public are told by the proponants for reducing alcohol drinking that ‘NZ is saturated with alcohol advertising’, yet studies show that this type of advertising only changes the brand of drink of those who already drink, if they choose too.They don’t drink more because of it, nor do others start to drink because of it.”

    Or as Tony Abbott[Leader of the Federal Opposition Liberal Party in Australia] said about ‘climate change’ at it’s hysterical height –

    “IT’S CRAP!”

    Or as with the ‘pokies inquiry’ in Canberra – and the findings by ‘just some’ in the media-

    “For those that do have a problem, and for them to be helped, first they have to admit that they have a problem.”

    Pokies don’t ‘wreck’ society Pete – and nor does alcohol!

    Who ever has the balls to take on the liars and the alarmists – gets the votes!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Harriet (5,143 comments) says:

    “….Who ever has the balls to take on the liars and the alarmists – gets the votes!…’

    Just ask Abbott.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Inky_the_Red (761 comments) says:

    I thought Labour (and National) allowed a conscience bote on each aspect of this Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wiseowl (936 comments) says:

    It would be funny if this issue wasn’t so serious.
    MP’s should not have such a thing as a conscience vote.Get rid of the dam thing.I don’t want the wishy washy lot in Wellington making decisions I can make for myself. If necessary have a referendum.
    This minimum price for anything should not see the light of day.Stupid idea, stupid policy.
    Get out of my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Inky_the_Red: Yes, Labour have said it’s a conscience vote, and I think National have too, at least on some aspects (the purchase age). Greens are all voting the same as they usually seem to. Maori are all together on their amendments at least. I don’t know what NZ First are going to do, I had one NZF response from Tracey Martin:

    “I am yet to read the full SOP and discuss with my caucus so am unable to answer your question at this time.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote