Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

This bill responds to persistent issues with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 that have been identified across communities across New Zealand. When the Act was introduced it aimed to ensure the safe and responsible sale and consumption of alcohol. It also aimed to minimise alcohol-related harm. It is clear that the Act isn’t working and it hasn’t been effective to reduce harm. It has not given communities the voice that was envisaged when the Act came into force nearly 10 years ago.

The bill makes targeted changes to the licensing process set out in the Act, addressing three key issues. Firstly, the bill makes changes to how local alcohol policies, or LAPs, are adopted and applied. It removes the ability for parties to appeal provisional LAPs to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority whilst retaining the avenues for judicial review. It also enables district licensing committees to decline a licence renewal application if it would be inconsistent with the policies set out in the relevant LAP. And there are a few clear reasons for making these changes. When the Act was passed in 2012, councils were given the ability to develop their own LAPs in consultation with the communities that they represent so that the alcohol regulation would reflect the unique character and circumstances of their local area. For years now, many LAPs have been held up in the appeals process, costing ratepayers millions of dollars while delaying and sometimes preventing councils from adopting LAPs at all. As of May this year, 86 percent of provisional LAPs have been appealed by supermarkets and 73 percent by bottle stores. Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of New Zealand’s population live in a council area that has not yet adopted an LAP. And so it is very clear to us that this balance needs to change. These changes to how LAPs are adopted and applied will minimise the barriers to adopting LAPs and ensure that they are more effective once they are in force, better serving as a tool for communities to reduce alcohol harm in their area.

Secondly, the bill will remove existing barriers to community participation in alcohol licensing decisions. It will allow anyone to object to a licence or renewal application. This will also make the process more accessible. To support this we are also making changes to ensure licensing committees and the licensing authority have a range of measures available to effectively manage objections and appearances at licensing hearings. The current law allows people to object if they have greater interest than the public generally. However, only a small number of those who want to object to an application actually get the chance to do so because the law has been constructed and interpreted so narrowly. For instance, those who want to object on behalf of organisations or groups that have an interest in alcohol harm reduction may only be able to object in their personal capacity, if at all. I’ve heard of school principals, addiction clinicians, and iwi that have not been able to object to applications on behalf of the communities that they serve. Only a fraction of applications for alcohol licences are refused. This demonstrates that communities are struggling to impact these local alcohol licensing decisions. In the last five years across our three largest cities nearly 7,000 alcohol licence applications were granted, with only 22 being declined. By allowing anyone to object, whether as an individual or representing a group or an organisation, the bill removes another barrier that stands in the way of community engagement and involvement.

Thirdly, the bill will change how district licensing committee hearings are conducted so that they are more accessible—they are fairer for participants. I’ve heard that these hearings are often legalistic and adversarial. The current process is incredibly formal, with some participants saying they felt intimidated and harassed while under cross-examination by incredibly experienced lawyers representing the interests of well-resourced parties. This bill will require licensing committees to set up procedures so that hearings are run without any unnecessary formality. The bill removes cross-examination and does not permit those who appear at hearings to question other parties or witnesses of other parties. We will also make changes that enable licensing committees to hold hearings remotely, increasing the accessibility for participants who will now be able to join proceedings by phone, video link, or other remote-access facilities.

It was always envisaged that people would have the opportunity to be heard when it came to how alcohol is sold locally. I’ve heard loud and clear that this part of the Act just simply is not working. By making these targeted and much-needed changes, this bill addresses three key issues that have been identified across Aotearoa, particularly those that are battling the devastating effects of alcohol-related harm.

Our intention with this reform is to correct the balance of opportunity in the alcohol licensing process. This bill will enable communities to better participate in licensing decision-making in ways that they know work best for them. It will boost their influence to reduce alcohol harm in their local areas, and it’s the first step in bringing power back to the people, where it belongs. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 was a notoriously difficult piece of legislation to get through this House. It came out of the Law Commission’s 2009 report, Alcohol in our Lives, and its supplementary report Curbing the Harm, which came out in April 2010, with over 150 recommendations for changes to our alcohol laws. And most of those recommendations, the National Government supported—some it supported in part, and others it did not support because it didn’t believe that it would actually reduce harm and improve our regulatory framework for the sale and supply of alcohol. Now, I think Ministers Power and Collins did an outstanding job in navigating through all of those recommendations and coming up with what was a very good piece of legislation. Despite the many criticisms that came of the previous Government, most of those criticisms were that it didn’t go far enough or fast enough. But it’s worth keeping in mind that that 2012 Act was the first material constraining of alcohol regulation for nearly 80 years, and there’s no doubt that it had a positive impact—the degree to which it has is open to a bit of debate, and certainly our alcohol use and misuse is quite lumpy, as was indicated in the supplementary analysis report, which I’ll come to in a minute—but it did certainly reduce the per capita consumption of alcohol in this country—that was probably happening a bit anyway.

What’s also happened over the years is that while we may be drinking less overall, there are pockets of our community that do drink hazardously and harmfully, and for some of them—particularly our young—that hasn’t been perhaps as effective as we would’ve liked. Page 7 of that supplementary analysis highlights that lumpiness: around 20 percent of New Zealanders drink hazardously; that rate remains stable over six years; males are twice as likely to drink hazardously than females; 18- to 24-year-olds; and Māori and Pacific people—Pacific people are less likely to drink, but if they do, they’re more likely to drink hazardously, so it really is a complicated picture.

Now, one of the number one principles that underpinned that legislation was the idea that communities would have more control of the nature, number, and location of alcohol outlets through these local alcohol policies. And I strongly supported that, even though I wasn’t convinced that it was going to work. Paragraph 11 of that supplementary analysis says that alcohol-related harms fall disproportionately on New Zealanders living in the poorest neighbourhoods, who are 1.3 times more likely to report drinking hazardously than those living in the wealthiest. Now, that implies that the nature and location of liquor outlets is actually driving that harmful drinking, and I wasn’t convinced by that in 2011 when we were considering the base bill.

But in actual fact, we had a small number of live laboratories around the country to test that theory—Invercargill was one of them. Invercargill has been under alcohol licensing for generations, so the licensing trust in Invercargill does just that: it controls the nature, number, and location of alcohol outlets. One cannot go and buy a bottle of wine at a supermarket in Invercargill; there are liquor stores, but they are controlled as to where they are—and, of course, the profits from those liquor stores actually are poured back into the community, and a lot of the sporting and cultural assets in Invercargill are funded by that trust. It’s a very good system, I think. But one would think that if there was control of alcohol outlets, that harm in Invercargill would be lower than the national average. Now, I haven’t looked at it recently, but I do remember in 2012 when considering this, that actually the opposite was the case. Hazardous drinking, alcohol harm, alcohol-related road accidents, and violent crime was higher than the national average. So it does not follow that by simply controlling the location of liquor outlets, harm will necessarily reduce.

All of that said, I’m a strong supporter of communities being able to choose whether or not they have a certain number or type of alcohol outlets; that’s an important principle, I think. I should say from the outset that National’s opposition to this bill—and we will oppose it at first reading—is not an indication that the local alcohol policies framework is not in need of improvement—

💬 Anna Lorck: All you’re doing is opposing—the whole time, all you do is oppose, oppose, oppose.

Pipe down, Ms Lorck, and maybe we’ll have an interesting and sensible conversation, for once, about bills we debate.

💬 Anna Lorck: You just never—you just oppose, the whole time.

That’s why they call them debates, Anna Lorck! People have different views; it’s called free speech—although we’ve just had a bit of a conversation about that as well.

So the fact that we’re not going to support this bill at first reading is not an indication that the local alcohol policy (LAP) framework is not in need of improvement; it’s an indication that this is not the solution. This is not the way we should go, and essentially what this bill is doing is picking favourable and unfavourable submitters on a local alcohol policy, and I don’t think that’s right. Actually, in the explanatory note of the bill, on page 2 it says—and this is really interesting—“DLCs” (district licensing committees) and the “ARLA” (Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority)—under this bill—“[will] have [the] provisions available to manage the volume of objections and appearances before licensing hearings”. That’s picking winners, but that’s consistent with a Government that, when the number of submissions on bills and things gets a bit unwieldy for them, they just ignore them—they try and control the ability of people to submit. Now, I accept, without question, that competitors have overly slowed down the process of getting LAPs through, but the solution is not to prevent that; the solution is to expedite it in a more timely fashion, and we have a considerable problem in this country with civil delay, and it’s gotten worse in the last five years. The solution to civil delay is not to curtail people’s democratic right to make a submission on a bill or a policy; it’s to streamline that process and make those voices heard but not get bogged down in it. So we understand the problem—we don’t believe this is the right solution.

Now, there are many good elements, I think, in this bill, and I look forward to the select committee process actually fleshing them out, and it may well be that there is a place we can get to where National can support this bill—but curtailing people’s ability to contribute is not the answer. Now, the Minister in her first reading speech actually made a comment that I wanted to touch on in my conclusion, and that is the number of councils that haven’t actually adopted a local alcohol policy. That concerns me greatly, because what we’re trying to solve is a problem where the policies are being usurped, but, actually, councils have it within their power to work with their communities to create the local alcohol policies that are appropriate to them, and that has not happened in many cases.

💬 Arena Williams: No, they’re being repealed.

Perhaps—well, no, that’s not what the Minister said. That is happening, that’s true, but there was a separate comment which they hadn’t even got going in the first place, and I think it behoves those councils to work harder. In my own home city of Dunedin, we had the opposite problem, where the alcohol policy—according to the mayor of the time, the late Sir Dave Cull—was not sufficiently robust to stop a liquor outlet going in on the corner of Princes Street and Moray Place, right in the heart of where hazardous drinking occurs, particularly by our young; and he threw his hands up and said, “Oh, well, we couldn’t do anything about it”. That is wrong—he had the power, through the local alcohol policy, for him and his council and the licensing authorities to do something different. So I think we need to make sure that the councils use the powers that they do have, and then support them with a more expeditious process for finalising that does not involve curtailing the right of people to have a say on those policies.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, in my days when I worked in Parliament, I was taught a really important lesson: you shouldn’t go to a Minister with a problem unless you had a solution.

The National Party, at points of time like this, resembles a children’s birthday party, where they chase each other around without actually knowing what the outcome is going to be. So I weep for the National Party today, for simply bleating about community issues that cause pain and suffering, without having any tangible outcomes or solutions. That is the epitome of the National Party to me.

Communities are battling with the effects of alcohol-related harm, which was introduced by National in 2012 and contributed to the silencing of our communities’ voices and favoured the interests of those in the alcohol industry, who made money at the expense of the wellbeing of our people.

I commend this bill to the House. It is a current appeal process that is failing and is costing our councils and ratepayers millions in legal fees, as alcohol companies and supermarkets thwarted the effects of local councils to limit the sale and the harm that puts upon our people. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is strongly taking a stance to make this work better, and I’m ashamed of those opposite who can’t stand up and back an outcome.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the chance to have a contribution to this, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. As the Hon Michael Woodhouse has already said on behalf of the National Party, we don’t support the bill in its current form; therefore, we won’t be supporting it at the first reading. But we do look forward to a discussion and a debate at the select committee process. We’ll hear from submitters, no doubt, on various different sides of the issue, and we’ll see if there’s a shape that the bill can be worked into that will make it worth supporting.

Of course, the starting point is that we acknowledge that alcohol is a dangerous drug—or at least it’s a drug that’s used dangerously by some in our society; of course, it’s capable of being used in a way that’s not dangerous, it’s capable of being consumed—

💬 Simon Court: For hand sanitiser, for example.

—in moderation. Our colleague and friend from the ACT Party points out that hand sanitiser contains alcohol.

But if we’re talking about sale and supply and, actually, I’d add “consumption” of alcohol—that’s word’s not in the title of the legislation—we can distinguish this from some other drugs that are not capable of being consumed in moderation. So that’s the starting point: an acknowledgment that there is harm caused in our community by the way that some of our fellow Kiwis consume alcohol. If you doubt that, there’s the press gallery party tonight, and anyone who wishes to head along and gain any content for their submissions at the select committee process—you know, if they’ve received an invite—would be able to do so.

But, actually, this isn’t really a bill about alcohol; this is a bill about civil procedure. This is a bill about processes that currently allow participation by various different groups, community and otherwise, in terms of the way that local area plans are made by territorial authorities—aka, councils—in relation to local ways of allowing outlets to operate, and so forth. It’s actually really important, lest anyone should think that this is merely a bureaucratic or a technocratic matter to ensure that there is a robust process by which these plans are made, because, if an enduring solution is to be reached that will provide, for the long term, a community with a plan and a set of processes—for example, as to the location of liquor outlets—then, actually, there needs to be a process that is respected and respectable in terms of the way that is made.

Now, it might be the case—indeed, I don’t dispute that it is the case—that, at the moment, the process is capable of abuse by those who have a vested interest of a commercial nature. But the solution, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse has pointed out, is actually to enable and facilitate, indeed provide a process that people can have their say much more quickly and effectively than is currently the case so that communities can have in place plans that are appropriate for them, rather than to say, “Well, the way that we achieve such a process is by saying that half the evidence won’t be brought out.” If we doubt the basic nature of what’s happening here, we should look at all the other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in this country also beset by delays, heartbreak, and, frankly, the ruin of many lives, as across the Family Court, the District Court, the High Court, the Supreme Court, the coroner’s court, various authorities and tribunals—absolutely disgraceful delays.

Yes, there are some longstanding fundamental problems, but, yes, they have got worse in the last five years. Yes, they have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 response. But, no, there hasn’t been enough imagination, there hasn’t been enough technological ingenuity, even to the point of providing a reasonable level of facilities of audiovisual links, for example. And so there—

💬 Arena Williams: Don’t blame the courts. These appeals are brought to delay the courts.

Well, we hear that it shouldn’t be the court that should be blamed. I’m not blaming the court; I’m blaming the Government that presides over a system that doesn’t provide the leadership and—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! Go ahead, Chris Penk.

—thank you, Madam Speaker—a forum in which voices can be heard. How ironic that the other side of the House is shouting down these points that are being made. We have a major problem with access to justice in this country. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we have, in this case, the notion that the communities are denied justice in the sense of having the plans put in place that they need to have because of the systems being overly slow, legalistic, we’ve heard—well, it’s a legal environment. I mean, we do need to have an environment where we have a robust process where everyone can be heard and then an enduring solution can be reached.

So, if we look, for example, at what exactly is proposed—and, as I say, I look forward genuinely to hearing the ways in which this is going to operate, at select committee—we hear that there’ll be the removal of ability to appeal provisions, provisional local alcohol policies—LAPs, so called—and requirements to consult on discontinued ones. Well, the requirement to consult is probably a good one. But the removal of the ability to appeal: well, unless that’s an abuse of process—and I accept, actually, the point that my colleague and friend across the House makes, sometimes it can be an abuse of process, and appeals can be made merely to delay, and that’s, again, a problem in the justice system more generally. It’s often been said that an incompetent lawyer can delay a trial for weeks, but a good one can delay it for months or years. These are things to which we should be aware and alive, but to say, then, that there shouldn’t be a right of appeal, and if we’re interested in evidence-based policy, then to preclude the evidence from the process whereby the community and those affected by these plans—if we’re precluding those voices and precluding that evidence, then, actually, as a House, we’re not interested in evidence-based policy, and that’s exactly what we should be looking to and allowing, and with the result that will apply in each individual community going forward.

So we hear, then, that the bill will have procedures that avoid unnecessary formality. Well, that’s a good thing in itself. I’ve given that a little tick, for what that’s worth.

But I put a question mark next to the next two bullet points: “do not permit those who appear at hearings to question any party or witness”. So it will be possible to put forward a view or an opinion or a feeling or a vibe or a prejudice that may or may not be backed up by evidence. Without the ability to ask questions and say, “Actually, where did that come from?”, and actually to test that and not to permit cross-examination, which is the next bullet point, which is a related point, but to not allow the discussion to be tested by either side actually asking questions of the other, such that the impartial decision-maker can come to a conclusion, it just seems absolutely extraordinary to me. I mean, they’re going about it in the wrong way.

Within my remaining time, I will simply point out the obvious, which is that that there are many good ways of reducing alcohol harm—“minimising harm”, as the phrase goes. One of these, the alcohol and other drug treatment court, for example, was established by National, it’s been extended by the current Government to various places—that’s a positive thing. There are lots of things that we can do in the communities, and it might be that there’s a better process that can be put in place—

💬 Anna Lorck: There is; it’s in the bill.

—for the local alcohol plans. The other side say, “it’s in the bill.”, and that’s fine; we can have that discussion and that debate. But in the meantime, there’s no evidence—and we’re interested in evidence in this law—that this is going to be a better process that actually enables enduring solutions to be reached. It doesn’t appear to us that’s the case. That’s why we do not support this bill.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on what is a great bill. This is an exciting day for South Auckland. I’m really proud as the member of Manurewa to stand here and say that the community of Manurewa, that has been calling for a stop to the proliferation of bottle stores, is getting that because this Minister of Justice is brave and this Government is delivering for South Aucklanders. It is a good day. It’s doing that because the continual appeals of the Auckland local alcohol policy have resulted in very light-touch regulation for the country’s most dangerous drug, that is available to everyone on every street corner in South Auckland. The neighbours don’t want it. The mums of Manurewa Playcentre don’t want it. The church leaders, the principals, the iwi leaders, the Māori wardens—they don’t want those alcohol shops, and this Government is giving them a voice. It’s giving them a voice like the Government tried to do in 2012 and failed because councils weren’t able to put in the local alcohol policies that they want. Councillors around the table have been asking Governments to do this.

We’re doing the hard thing. We’re making it possible for those local alcohol policies to be put in place. We’re making it possible, for when submitters go along to these hearings, that they’re not put under cross-examination by well-paid lawyers who are set to make it so uncomfortable for them that they won’t try again. And we’re making it possible to have a procedure within the room that is respectful of everyone. This is a great bill. I hope in select committee that we can bring our colleagues on the other side on side with it, because this is something that we should all be able to support.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.

The Green Party strongly supports this bill. It gives power back to councils and it gives power back to communities to avoid harm from alcohol. I really acknowledge the work of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who would like to be here today. As our drug reform spokesperson, she has been working alongside Māori health organisations, Alcohol Healthwatch, Hāpai Hauora, and councils around the motu to advance the need to change the law. It was her bill that was pulled from the members’ bill ballot earlier this year, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, which has helped inspire Government to put this bill in place because it responds to the concerns of councils around the country. In Ōtautahi, Christchurch, the Christchurch City Council has spent a million dollars and seven years seeking to develop a local alcohol policy only to abandon it in 2017 because of the aggressive work of the industry in seeking to stymie it through the appeals process.

So this bill is a good bill because it means that organisations and individuals can no longer appeal provisional provisions in those local alcohol policies, which the councils have been trying to develop to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. Those appeals were fundamentally by supermarkets and bottle stores and the alcohol industry seeking to prevent councils expressing the wishes of their communities to control the proliferation of bottle stores and the proliferation of alcohol. So we also support the widening of the discretion to the district licensing committee so that they can more easily decline applications for licences—they can decline them if they’re inconsistent with the local alcohol policy. Previously, that discretion was quite restrictive.

The justice Minister commented on the intention to widen the scope for individuals and organisations to participate in the licensing process because, at the moment, the law refers to people with a greater interest than the public generally being able to make submissions, and that that had been structured and interpreted narrowly. I was really interested in that because that same phraseology, with a greater interest than the public generally, is in the Natural and Built Environment Bill. If in the alcohol area it’s been used to restrict public participation, then there’s a very real risk that if it’s similarly interpreted by the courts, it could be used to restrict participation on natural environment issues. So I hope that that and the experience with this bill is something that the Environment Committee will look at.

Mr Woodhouse, I think, was objecting to issues around trade competition and the inability to appeal on those grounds, but that has also been a key part of the Resource Management Act for a long time: supermarkets cannot object on the basis of trade competition. Despite that, we’ve still seen the supermarket laws, so the provisions in the bill which put constraints around supermarkets, bottle stores, and others objecting solely on the grounds of trade competition are useful.

Alcohol harm, like all drug harm, isn’t inevitable, but we are experiencing it on an enormous scale in Aotearoa. When we’ve got evidence-based regulation, that can make a difference. This bill is responding to the evidence about the difficulties that councils have had in expressing the wishes of their communities through local alcohol policies, removing some of the barriers to councils getting those local alcohol policies completed, enabling greater participation, and enabling a much less legalistic, less adversarial process.

Now, Mr Penk objected to the restraints on cross-examination in those hearings. If individuals are being cross-examined by lawyers in suits representing big companies, that is extremely intimidating. I’m hopeful that the panels, the licensing committees, will be asking questions using more of a mode of inquiry so that all of the information can be surfaced, but it does prevent the community being harassed by well-paid lawyers.

So we support this bill. We would strongly encourage the Government to pursue the commitment the Minister has made to looking at marketing, sponsorship, and pricing, because the second part of Chlöe Swarbrick’s harm minimisation bill is about winding down alcohol advertising and its sponsorship of sports in the broadcast industry to reduce the harm that alcohol does. This bill is a good first step. We encourage the Government to take that second step in this term. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to oppose the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill in its first reading. It’s been quite a robust debate across the House—I think mainly because Labour on the other side are not taking their 10-minute calls but rather doing 30-second ones, so perhaps that’s why there’s so much yelling across the way.

I think when you actually take the time to listen to some of the debates that are coming about from the Opposition, you might understand the concern. Because while the Government believes that they are fixing a problem with this piece of legislation, there are concerns about what the legislation actually does. That’s why Opposition parties are opposing it, not actually potentially opposing the entire concept of the bill but aspects of the bill. And that’s why we have debates in the House in a robust way.

So if we start off by looking at what these changes will actually achieve—because it’s going to amend the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and we’re told it’s going to improve the community’s ability to be able to influence alcohol regulation—the Government says that the reason why they’re putting this bill through is because what we currently have is not working. Aspects that members have highlighted include going into court and having people in suits going up against individuals because the individual is trying to come against big business and they can’t afford to be able to get lawyers in to debate their cause as well. So this is seen as being unfair and something that is needed to be amended.

I point out, though, this is not the only piece of legislation where individuals find themselves in that situation. The coroner’s court is a really good example of where individuals who appear before the court end up having industries or lawyers for Government agencies actually fighting against what the individual has to say. They also find that intimidating.

It doesn’t mean that we can introduce a law that takes away certain rights for people to be able to have robust debate, but it also means that we do have to introduce some laws where we make sure that there is fairness, that the individual that comes along has a fair hearing without feeling like they’re being intimidated by a bunch of lawyers in suits representing big business. We just don’t agree with the way that this law is going to go about achieving that.

We acknowledge that there is potential harm in alcohol abuse. We see it, especially when we look at young kids with foetal alcohol syndrome, kids being born to alcoholic mothers. This is a problem that this bill isn’t going to fix. We need to have a look at how we can address some of the issues from alcohol abuse, but this may not necessarily do it. However, we are looking forward to that robust discussion and debate—and, of course, submissions that come in from all sides—because that’s the fair process and the fair way to ensure that we come out with good legislation.

The problem that we have—and I hope I get this correct—is we have territorial authorities who draft local alcohol policies (LAPs), and they go through a special consultation process. The Government keeps saying, “Well, this isn’t working because that consultation process is being held up with debates and with reviews and it’s causing delays and, as a result, we’re not getting those local alcohol policies actually going through the system. So we have some councils that don’t even have any because they’re getting tied up with the debates and the reviews around them.”

So that’s preventing the territorial authorities from introducing what the communities want as part of their local alcohol policies. The district licensing committees approve those LAPs and they also approve the new and renewed licence applications.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Nude or renewed?

Both. The new and renewed alcohol licence applications. But the district licensing committee process cannot account for any inconsistencies in the local alcohol policies if they have not yet been approved. So there’s a bit of a conflict going on there. You’ve got this intent to ensure that the process is aligning with what the community wants, but the community voice isn’t being heard because they can’t get through the process because of all the hold-ups. So we do have to look at how we can make sure that everybody gets a fair hearing, the processes go through quickly, and the community is heard.

The problem, though, is that the bill that’s introduced here removes a particular voice, and that’s the voice of the business owner. So when the business owner then has a conflict with what a policy may introduce—wants to have an argument, I guess, or a debate about what the community perceives—they’re being restricted in their ability to do it because they are being blamed for holding up the process.

So while we say, “Let’s have a look at the process, then, to make sure it moves a bit quicker,” actually denying somebody the voice—especially when it comes down to their business—I don’t think, and neither does ACT, that that is the way to work through a situation where we have such major conflict.

The other party, the Labour Party across the way, are being very vocal about this. We get that; we do understand that. But there’s this other side, the other influence on this bill. And that means those people that are going to be affected, and that is the people who own businesses.

How can they know from year to year whether or not they’re going to have a viable business every time they go to renew their licence? They don’t. So what does that mean for the staff that work for them? What does it mean for the families of those that work in the industry? What does it mean? It means that they don’t have any certainty around employment. In this day and age, where we have a cost of living crisis, we need to make sure that they do.

So ensuring this also means looking at the evidence, and it was really hard for me to try and garner what the evidence was because there was so much of it missing. When we look at policy framework and whether or not we’re going to make sure that pieces of legislation are able to be implemented and implemented well, we have to make sure the ducks are all in a row.

The regulatory impact statement for this bill has not been prepared in time, and the reason why is because it’s been done under urgency. How can we make sure good laws go through when it’s done under urgency? In the departmental disclosure statement on page 4 in the sub note, it actually says it was done under urgency—page 4, paragraph 2.3: it was done urgency and then we don’t have the regulatory impact statement. A Supplementary Analysis Report was produced to go to Cabinet because they could not do the regulatory impact statement.

When you look at some of the stats as well, we’re seeing that we’re actually reducing our alcohol intake in New Zealand. Stats New Zealand tells us this. They tell us how much people drink every year; they measure the alcohol consumption. For example, a 150-millilitre glass of wine at 12 percent alcohol by volume is 18 millilitres of alcohol. A 330-millilitre bottle of beer at 5 percent is 16.5 millilitres of alcohol. It’s in the Stats New Zealand evidence.

In 1986, the average Kiwi aged over 18 years old drank 12.2 litres of alcohol per annum—that’s about 1.85 drinks per day. The figure today is 9.2 litres per annum, which is 1.4 drinks per day. So the alcohol consumption in New Zealand is falling. We can do better with this, but it is falling.

What we also need to look at is whether or not we are going to allow businesses such as our bottle stores to continue to offer low- or no-alcohol products, which is also on the rise. Not everybody is drinking, but everyone should have the ability to make the choice. And everyone should have the ability to be able to conduct their business, or at least debate the reason why their business has been taken away from them.

So in this first instance, we will oppose this bill and hope we can sort out a resolution through select committee stage. Thank you.

I have never heard so much nonsense from the National Party and the ACT Party as I’ve heard now. National says it wants to back councils. This bill backs councils. Councils want to be able to have a say on the liquor stores that are built and run in their communities.

I speak on behalf of Henare O’Keefe, who has fought tooth and nail in Flaxmere against a proliferation of alcohol stores. He wasn’t able to get anywhere. This bill—this bill—puts the power in communities’ hands to have a say.

National has no local in them. Everything they’re opposing is just for politics. But this time, National has got it so, so wrong. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is a split call. I call Simon Watts—five minutes.

Eleven days to Christmas and my true love gave to me the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. Well—eleven days to go. And after listening to the contribution from the member for Tukituki, you can understand why this Government is looking forward to Christmas and getting out of this place. This is another bill in a trilogy, in a litany, in a long, long line of bills that are not going to deliver better outcomes for hard-working Kiwis.

We’re getting a lot of jib from the other side, a lot of comment coming across, and I’m going to use the opportunity to say—I can tell you what, I can see who’s driving a lot of people to drink in this country at the moment, and that is this Government. The way in which they are making such dismal decisions no doubt is driving a lot of people to despair and a lot of people to drink, and that is, obviously, not appropriate, but I can give hope to those people that next year things will change.

This bill is not based on any evidence, and if only this was the only bill that I could say that about. But we know, time and time again, bills come to this House, on to this Order Paper, rammed through under urgency by a Government that’s using its majority, that are not based on evidence. The regulatory impact statement, as I heard from one of my colleagues before, hasn’t even been done, and so, irrespective of where we are, this is rushed legislation that is not going to deliver the outcomes for hard-working Kiwis. That is a great shame, but it is reflective of a desperate Government that is on the ropes.

National absolutely acknowledges the impact that alcohol and misuse has and the serious harms that alcohol has within our communities, but we also believe in the premise around personal responsibility. We need to ensure that we empower those elements within our community, particularly our business areas and our local government, to be able to play their role in regards to the implementation of laws in this space. This law takes away an appeals process, which, in effect, precludes the ability for parties that are impacted by this decision to provide evidence in regard to the decision. If this was the only bill that’s taking away rights and responsibilities from hard-working Kiwis—but, again, this adds to a long line of legislation that is following this ideological bent by this Government.

This appeal process and mechanisms to ensure that councils have the ability to implement or play a part in that conversation are being taken out. That’s inconsistent with how this type of process operates in other areas, and it also, I think, as outlined by a colleague and friend, Chris Penk, really goes to the heart of weakening an overall process to ensure that appropriate debate is had on what are important conversations within our neighbourhoods and our communities.

National absolutely support the practical harm reduction initiatives that work alongside those within our community institutions, and, really, the answer to these solutions is very much at a neighbourhood and community level. My role as a volunteer ambulance officer and registered paramedic—I see the impacts face-on in terms of alcohol and drugs, and what impact that has on individuals and family. And in those instances, the challenge, really, is ensuring that we have the appropriate support at both a family and whānau level to support those individuals which have an underlying general addiction to alcohol. The restriction in terms of this process will not deal with the underlying aspects, which will actually provide solutions for those individuals, and that’s a great shame.

National will be opposing this legislation. We will be following its progress through to the select committee process, but I really do wish that the members on the other side of the House use the opportunity over the summer break to reflect on what has occurred this year, and come back in the new year with a little bit more ambition and positivity. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve never heard such controversy in one single speech. From the other side of the House, we heard that they were “for harm minimisation from alcohol”, then we heard that they “supported local communities”, but what does their deed actually say? They’re against all of that, they don’t listen to their local communities, they don’t actually go out on the streets to the communities that are the most affected by alcohol to hear what will actually help them. This bill is one that was driven through our grassroots organisations. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my maiden speech, I stood in this House and I said the community knows what the community needs. This bill absolutely acknowledges what the community needs. Case in point, Dr Grant Hewison, who is representing Communities Against Alcohol Harm, spent 10 years in South Auckland—10 years in South Auckland—advocating for such a bill.

Now, Porirua is one of the few communities that has a local alcohol policy. It took them five years to get to the point where they could actually have a ratified local alcohol policy, and what that has meant is that advocates like Aiga Caroline Mareko and Sose Annandale, from Porirua East, and Liz Kelly, the CEO of the Porirua Whānau Centre, they were able to support their community and use the local alcohol policy plus the current framework to be able to stand there and stop alcohol stores opening across the road from their local school. That is why this bill is in the House, because the community has asked us for it, the advocates like Dr Grant Hewison have asked us to do this, and I’m proud to stand on this side of the House and commend this bill to the House.

We have heard some great speeches from the Government, haven’t we, but in all they’ve lasted for 10 minutes of the last hour and a half. They must be absolutely convinced that this is the right way to go about it or they’d have spoken for longer. Anyway, sorry, Madam Speaker, I’ll get back to the bill.

Anyone would imagine, having been involved in local government, local alcohol plans, applications for licence, and applying for licence to dispense or sell alcohol, or having watched every second vacant store in their community turn up as a bottle store—one could imagine that you’d want to change the law and you’d want to do something about it. And I dispute the comments from the other side of the House that the National Party are opposed to local communities making decisions for local communities. We’re absolutely not. What we’re opposed to is the manner in which they’re going about it in this bill, and I’ll explain myself as we go along.

Having been a part of this process myself for quite a bit of my life, far too much of my life actually, and having seen the challenges that communities have with every plan that council makes—and you’ve got to remember that every plan that council makes originates in this place here. We cause all these plans to be made; the councils don’t. We cause the costs on ratepayers; the councils don’t. All of this stuff comes and originates in the Parliament, and so the problem that they’re trying to resolve in this bill doesn’t solely relate to alcohol; it relates to every single piece of planning that a council does.

With every piece of planning a council does, you end up, to quote Eugenie Sage—and fortunately for us, not all lawyers wear suits; there are other sorts of lawyers as well, but she doesn’t seem to think so. There are always going to be lawyers involved in legal discussions in the planning that councils do, irrespective of where it comes from and how it works. So the challenge for communities and for us is to find a more equitable way for councils to arrange all of their planning activities, because in almost every aspect you find, whether it’s property development or whether it’s poker machines—and I’ll get on to that in a minute—but whatever it is, the difficulty is always with the community because the community are always the volunteers who are leading discussion on behalf of their community against some form of business interest or professional interest or even local interest who are better funded than they are. That’s just inevitably going to happen. So the problem here isn’t fixing the alcohol law or the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012; the problem here is to find a way that councils can equitably put plans in place and involve their community in making those decisions without the community having to spend an inordinate amount of money getting there.

I want to just touch on the challenges that we found, for example, with the licensing of poker machines in local communities. What effectively happens is you have advocates for and against the poker machine locations—and this is exactly what we’re trying to do with the alcohol bill here. You then have a whole lot of poker machine operators, and they could well be the alcohol store operators, who are advocating on their behalf in retaining the number of poker machines. So when a council puts a cap on the number of poker machines, they, effectively, create cartels because, effectively, you’ve got a group of people who have got control of those poker machines, and the tighter you make it, the more money those people make. Simple as that. The point I’m going to make is that making legislation and regulation to drop consumption and use of things doesn’t work.

I’ll go to the cigarette industry right now to quote that. When I was young, you could buy a pack of cigarettes for 50c; they now cost $37 for the same packet of cigarettes. And do you know who buys them? The people who can’t afford them generally, not the people who can. The people who can’t afford them are the people who buy cigarettes. And so we’re doing the same in that industry: we restrict the number of outlets for cigarettes; it doesn’t make any difference to the people who buy them because they’ll still go to the outlet that sells them. The difference is that they’ll have to travel to get them. So my point is that the only thing that I think has created a huge opportunity in respect of the tobacco industry is education and the fact that we’re now able to, I guess, quantify the harm they do, as well as stop people from smoking. My argument is the same thing would apply to alcohol.

Having said all that, I just want to go back to a point that was raised earlier in respect of the way this legislation is structured. Because if you have a local alcohol plan, and if you change the law in the manner this bill is proposing to do so, you’ll end up with the potential for a perfectly legitimate business—you could look at something like the Hokowhitu Village wines and spirits, who have been there for probably 50-odd years or 45 years in Hokowhitu Village in Palmerston North. They could easily find that, as part of the local alcohol plan, they suddenly are not a legitimate part of that plan. That business that’s operated for years and years could suddenly find that, the next time they reapply for their licence, they’ve lost their licence simply because the local alcohol plan contains content that precludes them from operating in that manner.

I want to just go to something else that was raised in the course of this, and I’m reading it quite modern now. [Member reads from mobile phone] I’ve never done this in the House before, but I want to read a little piece out of a district alcohol plan, and it’s talking—

💬 Andrew Bayly: You’re a quite techno grandfather.

Yes, I know. It talks about who can object to an application for an alcohol licence: “A person may object to the grant of a licence only if he or she has a greater interest in the application [for it] than the public generally. You would be considered to have a greater interest if you lived close to the proposed premises, operated a business or organisation close to the premises, or had some other close connection with the proposed premises.” When you read that, it’s quite clear that the current licensing system allows an equitable group of people to contest that licence. I don’t see any reason why someone who lives in Taumarunui, for example, should be able to oppose a licence for someone who lives in Ōhākune, which is 100 kilometres away. So this this bill, in my view, is just replicating what is already legitimate in the law.

I go back to the point I raised earlier about the fact that almost all council plans, from the annual plan to whatever plan we’ve got, have inequity in them that the Government are trying to fix. And this particular bill in respect of alcohol, which they’ve also tried to fix in recent days in respect of other issues—it needs to be generally reviewed and the whole collective way we go about these plans and giving communities voices in them needs to be changed.

So having said all that, we basically oppose the bill for some of the reasons I’ve outlined. I think it was said earlier by one of the Government members that they hope they can put it in order so that we might support it at the second reading. Well, I hope they can, too, but they certainly won’t be able to if it’s got the content that’s in it at the moment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the final speaker on this side of the House, I want to say some very short, quick comments. I thank all the members, specifically the members on this side of the House, who are very clear, in terms of this bill.

This bill will deliver to the people of our community, specifically to have community participation; there is a lot of evidence in the community—Madam Speaker, just if you could indulge me just for a couple of seconds. I came from the community where we had a very difficult time in trying to go through the process that the legislation enacted by the previous Government said that we had the tools to challenge in the proceedings.

I just want to acknowledge our colleague Grant Hewison who is up there in gallery. For a number of years, we worked very, very hard in the community. For the community, as you’ve heard, the speakers in Porirua, in Lower Hutt, in Flaxmere, in Howick in Auckland—the community and Auckland Council across Tāmaki-makau-rau, we had a very difficult time to challenge the district licensing panels.

This bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, will deliver the outcomes. I invite our members across the other side to come to South Auckland, come to my garage, I’ll show you that evidence, loud and clear. It will show you that community participation to challenge in the process of district licensing is required.

On that note, we will get the consistency through this bill, through the process, when it goes to select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is,

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.