The marathon alcohol debate

October 23rd, 2012 at 1:10 pm by David Farrar

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

MPs are set to embark on a long and laboured debate to pass what critics have labelled the ” non-reform” bill.

An overhaul of liquor laws is expected back in today for its committee stage – the most detailed debate of any bill.

Some have tipped the bill could carry on being debated at the committee stage for some weeks, with about 20 amendments to be thrashed out by MPs.

The length of the debate is more about how many parts the bill has, not how many amendments have been put forward. However amendments can take a wee while to vote on and there are not 20 amendments but 20 SOPs, and each SOP can have multiple amendments.

There are 10 parts to the Alcohol Reform Bill, which means 11 debates of probably two hours each. Each vote on an amendment takes around a minute of whips case the votes but will take much longer if they do a personal vote on each amendment. MPs can give their proxies to the whips to vote on each amendment but with Labour allowing a free vote on every amendment, someone may ask the Speaker for a personal vote on each amendment.

Among the amendments proposed by Labour MPs is a ban on liquor sales from off-licences after 8pm and a minimum pricing regime.

Jesus Christ – 8 pm? Let’s bring back 6 o’clock closing also. So if you go to the supermarket at 8.30 pm to do your weekly groceries, you wouldn’t be able to buy a bottle of wine. I’ll look forward to seeing who votes for that stupidity.

Tags: ,

15 Responses to “The marathon alcohol debate”

  1. BeaB (1,944 comments) says:

    They can stuff around as much as they like, sadly at our expense. If we want a drink we’ll get one no matter how much Labour try to boss us about as though we are all children. Is there another country that spends so much time mucking round with liquor laws?

    And while the opposition all amuse themselves with meaningless amendments and points of order, the Government can get on with the important issues like the economy that really matter to us, not what a bunch of over-paid chardonnay socialists think is best for us stupid hoi polloi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (12,616 comments) says:

    The unholly alliance of the alcohol-nazis and control-freak socialists!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rightandleft (574 comments) says:

    Labour’s nanny-statism knows no bounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (6,686 comments) says:

    People love to slag the yanks for Prohibition. We’re somewhat obsessed by this issue too,all on the same continuum.

    While we’re about it,if it’s OK for evil (but legal ) tobacco,could the wowsers please take alcohol from public display and have a go at plain packaging. Goose/gander.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Quite frankly from what I saw on the weekend we could well do with a very early limit on off-license sales.

    With the amount of my tax payer money spent on lunatics at the A&E then its about time there was some very bloody serious action taken to stop over drinking.

    And quite frankly anyone who wants a few drinks at home and cant get organised by say 8pm to buy the stuff then they dont deserve the right to buy the stuff – ie: they are too stupid to be allowed to have it.
    Otherwise its only available with food in a licensed location.

    Unless of course someone introduces an amendment to make those who turn up at A&E as a result of alcohol be responsible for the costs – then no problem. And who decides – the A&E staff decide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (6,686 comments) says:

    barry

    Drunk in a public place used to be on the statute books,who dropped it? That’s what needs putting back as well as personal responsibility ,which is no longer a part of western civilized behaviour. And if the idiots you see can;t drink without causing trouble, throw them in the clink and stop molly coddling them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Grendel (873 comments) says:

    bullshit barry, driving up the country, end up in rotorua later than expected, too tired to deal with bars but want a drink in our room. So i’m too stupid to have not bought a bottle in wellington first? get your hand off it.

    fucking socialists, its not up to you how or when i choose to drink, its up to me. if i want a drink at 12am in my house and a business wants to be open so i can go and buy it, then that should be all there is to it.

    you can really see how much people love the idea of interfering in other peoples lives when alcohol or cigarettes comes up. brings out the statist in lots of people.

    thankfully you have tried to redeem yourself with the sensible suggestion that people who go to A&E should be billed for what they cost to fix. that would stop drunken lout behavior dead in its tracks.

    now just try and get the rest of the statist view point out of your head and you might be on to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. gazzmaniac (2,266 comments) says:

    I read on the “Today in Parliament” post that this bill will create an offence of being on licensed premises outside of licensed hours.

    As I commented there, a well behaved lock in is preferable to kicking everyone out onto the street to cause trouble. I fail to see what they’re addressing there.

    Personally I think it’s about time that the government took a step back and let people take responsibility for their own mistakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Grendel (677) at 3:48 pm

    Its people like you who prove my point. You were too stupid to stop in Taupo or Turangi or Taihape or in one of many places. If you couldnt have thought that one out then my point is right – you would be too stupid to be allowed to buy the stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Rightandleft (574 comments) says:

    So Hone Harawira has an SOP to force review of the alcohol purchase age every 5 years. And Maryann Street is going on about “health promotion”, a nice euphemism for nanny-state policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Just bring in full cost recovery from the drinker for alcohol related harm. Personal responsibility is simple, effective and untried.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Reid (15,505 comments) says:

    It’s the immaturity of young people that’s the problem. Normal wise people solve that through parental education in the home, but not us. No, we ban the offending substance instead.

    One hidden issue in their tilt toward communist-like enforced restrictions, a swelling evidently sweeping throughout the House infecting all manner of fools, bleeding heart self-righteous pompous arrogant moron fools who don’t understand anything although inexplicably but evidently they have passed the potty stage, making up a goodly proportion of the pool of fools who comprise this political tidal wave of total and utter mentalism in full sail running before the wind in a Force Six.

    I mean what the fuck is wrong with them? Oh that’s right, they can’t help it. They’re mental, so they have to behave and think like that. They don’t know what they’re doing, so how can one condemn? They’re victims and one should feel sorry for them, not laugh and point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Left Right and Centre (2,388 comments) says:

    I don’t like any of it and it makes my head hurt.

    I don’t drink… got no reason to… so it won’t affect me but I still don’t like it. The many suffer because of the few.

    Where do folks like ALAC and other pricks get the figure 700 000+ heavy drinkers in NZ from?

    This from Scoop *alcohol reform bill*: ‘There are at least 700,000 heavy drinkers in NZ according to scientific measurement’

    And which ‘scientific measurement’ would that be? I’ve seen some of the definitions and assumptions that go into the formulas. If you drink 5-6 standard drinks over x space of time once a week… you’re a ‘binge’ drinker, and you’re a heavy drinker for eg. It’s got to be bullshit. That aint my definition of heavy drinker. Fuck the spellchecker… I’m using ‘aint’ cos I aint the Queen.

    A rough estimate then would be that 1 in 5 or so adults/ are ‘heavy drinkers’. And 10% are underage. It’s statesticle (intended) inference and extrapolation. Just seems like way too many. It’s impossible to count the actual population members.

    And the obsession with RTD’s. Yeah, because that will change a lot by tinkering with RTDs. Not.

    The politicians might fret over detail and where to draw the line in the sand and ‘ indisputable scientific evidence’, but…

    It’s not going to change a hell of a lot. I don’t know what the answer is myself… how do you stop idiots wanting to get drunk and cause problems?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Left Right and Centre (2,388 comments) says:

    Am I reading this right? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Maori Party SOP (81) to alcohol reform bill:

    1) minimum pricing (to some horrible level?)
    2) No alcohol advertising or sponsorship (are they Islamic?)
    3) Cap liquor licences and sinking lid existing ones (until what… no-one sells the stuff anymore?)

    Help me with 4) Establishing decent trading hours as the default (Off-licence 10am-10pm, On-licence 10am-1am with an additional two-hour one-way door policy)

    So… on-licence includes nightlife- clubs and pubs. So are you telling me that these fucks want to start killing off fri/sat night at 1am? Fucking police state mate!! They can suck my right swingin wang on that one… far out!! Am I comprehending that properly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Psycho Milt (1,974 comments) says:

    ‘There are at least 700,000 heavy drinkers in NZ according to scientific measurement’

    And which ‘scientific measurement’ would that be?

    That would be the type of ‘scientific measurement’ people like you and me would more accurately describe as “measurement based on the opinion of someone employed as a university academic.”

    And quite frankly anyone who wants a few drinks at home and cant get organised by say 8pm to buy the stuff then they dont deserve the right to buy the stuff – ie: they are too stupid to be allowed to have it.

    We could apply the same principle to petrol – didn’t remember to fill up earlier? Too stupid to be allowed to drive. In fact, we used to run the whole country on this principle – didn’t think to buy enough groceries before the weekend? Too stupid to be allowed to eat. Didn’t buy all the stuff you needed during weekday work hours while you were at work? Obviously too stupid to be allowed to own shit. And yes, the country did continue to function – people who couldn’t shop during work hours had until 9pm on a Friday to buy everything they needed. Can’t say I meet many people who’d like to go back there, though. Barry’s quite unusual in that respect.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.