Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

It’s a privilege to again attempt to usher a member’s bill through the House; my first was picked up by Minister Little: the Sentencing (Livestock Rustling) Amendment Bill, and passed as part of a broader Government bill—survived an election as well. My second bill that passed related to the Dog Control Act, and this the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill is my third—so we’ll soon know how it goes.

This bill originated from a Winston Peters’ download on the police and alcohol laws, where typically he blamed both for the downturn and on-course turnover and attendance of race meetings. The very quick Chris Bishop drafted a bill in his sleep, and by the next morning he had the bill in the ballot, which he allowed me to pick up. At the time, he was a prodigious producer of members’ bills and didn’t want this one; he wants it now!

The bill seeks to allow racegoers to take their family picnics and include a bottle of wine or beer in the hamper to the races where those racing clubs concerned wish this to occur.

A day out at the races was, in the past, very much part of the New Zealand way of life, as it still is in Australia. It is comparatively recent changes to alcohol laws in this country that’s contributed to the stopping of this practice, and a subsequent drop in attendance at race meetings. Our country is very different than what in the days when John Clarke, alias Fred Dagg, made more famous the Rod Derrett song, “Rugby, Racing and Beer”—I’d sing it if I could!

💬 Andrew Bayly: Have a go, Ian—have a go!

What about you, Bayly? However, there’s still very much a place for a day out with the family, enjoying the last two in moderation.

Currently, licensing laws make it difficult for racing clubs who wish to allow car boot picnics to occur at their meetings to do so, if they wish to, without considerable difficulty. Many of our race meetings were founded on the backs of families taking their picnic lunch to the races, sitting in the back of their car, or, in the distant past, their dray or carriage, and, of course, if some in this House have their way, we’ll be going in the dray and carriage to the races again in the future. They had a great day out, and I believe this law will make it much more attractive for families to once again enjoy a day out with their family and friends, having the odd flutter, the odd beer, and a lot of fun, while the kids play with their friends in a safe and educational environment.

The reason it will become more attractive is that some racing clubs will endeavour to ensure this option is once again available to patrons. I must, however, make the point that this can be achieved under current legislation with considerable difficulty and a great deal of cost. This bill alleviates that problem by changing some little points in the Act, which I will refer to later.

I wrote to all racing clubs some time ago to gather support for this bill. It will surprise some members to know that it received a good amount of support; although, some of that support came from clubs that have no need for it or have satisfactory arrangements in place already, and that was to be expected. The real beneficiaries of this legislation will, however, be our small country racing clubs, many of them who run their feature race meetings at holiday times of the year and really run them as the entertainment for those holiday destinations in New Zealand. It’s a significant part and a very important part of the New Zealand racing industry; it’s also a very important part of our rural and provincial communities, particularly in the more isolated parts of New Zealand.

In that letter, I also stated that I understand this is likely to be a conscience issue, with some parties and members of Parliament having the ability to choose how to vote without their party whipping the vote in a particular direction. So I urged them to speak to their local MPs if they had any interest in this bill—and I’d have to state that a number of them did. I also stated that we’d very much appreciate their support, fully understanding that many of them make a portion of their income from the sale of alcohol, so their current licensing arrangement is quite important. But none the less, from a racing industry perspective, it’s very important that we get people through the gate and that we are able to encourage greater attendance, particularly from our younger people, and, I think, to take them to the races at a young stage in a very friendly environment where they can have a pleasant day out is very important for all of us.

Race meetings are important community events around New Zealand, largely run by volunteer committees. Many regional racing clubs lack the infrastructure to offer large amounts of organised hospitality services, simply because they don’t have, as I said, the infrastructure or the facilities that are up to standard. Allowing patrons to bring their own food and drink to a course is a major driver in attracting attendance on race days. Saddlery clubs obtain a special licence or hold an on-licence for designated areas, and this allows the rest of the course to be available for bring-your-own alcohol consumption, if, in fact, the club requires it or the local community demands it.

Recently, the police began to object to BYO alcohol during clubs’ avocation for special alcohol licence for specific areas on the course. This has been a stressful, time-consuming, and uncertain exercise for many racing clubs throughout the country. Interestingly, it affects a lot of other organisations, of course, such as A&P societies, and things like that, but, effectively, this bill only deals with racing clubs. Police have issued guidance, providing some clarity on their interpretation of section 235, which is the section that this Act makes some alteration to, but ambiguity still remains.

The bill makes it clear that racing clubs and race meetings are not the intended target of section 235 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. The bill provides an exemption from section 235 for racing clubs on days of race meetings if the consumption of alcohol takes place at a time when the clubs either hold an on-licence or an on-site special licence that applies to the race meeting. The bill, very briefly, contrary to the bill we had in the House earlier tonight as 390 pages, outlines that very clearly.

Just a little bit of history on the racing clubs, because it’s such an important industry to New Zealand. It is a very big industry in New Zealand.

💬 Andrew Bayly: It underpins rural New Zealand!

Shh! Shh! Shh! It, effectively, employs a very large number of people, some 20,000 people. Interestingly, we also produce some outstanding horses, jockeys, and trainers—and you could say the leading trainer and jockey in the world at the moment: Chris Waller from Himatangi—those of you who don’t know where that is, it’s in the Rangitīkei—and he’s the leading trainer, certainly in Australia, and probably in the world; and James McDonald from Cambridge, who’s also the leading jockey in Australia, and probably in the world. I think that’s pretty special and it shows the importance of this industry and the breeding industry, particularly, to New Zealand. It’s really important, I think, that we encourage, in every way we can, that industry to be successful.

This bill, in a very small way, contributes to the future potential success and the ability of the industry to attract more people and more young people into it. I hope the bill makes progress tonight.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s an interesting bill, and look, it’s nice to have also a debate on a conscience issue when you get to look at a bill, and really examine it in terms of where the good strengths lie and where the concerns might lie for the community. So thank you, Mr McKelvie, for bringing the bill to the House.

My main concerns with the bill—we’ll have a talk about what it does, but my two main concerns are, first of all, if an organisation has applied to their local council for a special licence and that has been declined by police, then there’s a reason for that. So the reasons in the past, I understand, would be along the lines of excessive drinking; implications in and around underage drinking; implications, particularly in rural areas, in and around driving on rural roads under the influence when there’s no police able to police those areas. So my concern would be: does this bill undermine the ability of police to do their job within rural communities, to keep young people safe, to keep our community safe, and to keep our roads safe?

The second point I would make is that, while I don’t have a racetrack in my electorate, I have talked to MPs who do have racetracks, and they get special licences, and they’re quite happy. So you’ve got a bit of a hit and miss that if you’ve got central government making a unilateral decision in and around one rule applying to every racetrack when this issue isn’t occurring in all racetracks, from what I can understand.

So the bill provides an exemption from section 235 in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, meaning that when you hold your meeting, you can have an on-licence or an on-site special licence that applies. This would allow the consumption of BYO, say, in the middle of the track or around the edges of the track. Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, the only allowance for bringing your own alcohol would be consumed on licenced premises for restaurants or holding a licence with a BYO endorsement. However, the Act also regulates the hosting of BYO events in unlicensed premises. And this is where section 235 of the Act marks the line between lawful but unlicensed gatherings and the kind of gatherings that require a licence. So under that section, it’s an offence for a person to allow for their unlicensed premises to be kept or used as a “place of resort”—as the Act refers—for the consumption of alcohol for the general public. And this is the exemption that Mr McKelvie’s Act is seeking.

So while I completely understand what the case is and I sympathise with how race meetings are a Kiwi tradition, and I think Mr McKelvie captures it very well when he says “a glass of wine or a beer in the sun with some chips and a dip is a Kiwi tradition.”, some race meets have allowed BYO for more than 135 years. The law should target the real harms and problems areas caused by alcohol rather than family-friendly events. My concern, Mr McKelvie, is that the way New Zealand drinks has changed. We drink more and we binge drink more. There are issues in and around those areas and we need our police service to be able to object when we have unhealthy or unsafe behaviours occurring.

So recently police have begun to object to BYO alcohol during clubs’ applications, and it’d be really interesting to take a look at a couple of those applications to understand specifically why. I’m sure, if this bill makes it to select committee, they’re the sorts of things that submitters will be looking at, as to why those special licences in those instances were declined. But this bill does make it clear that those racetracks are not subject to section 235. And here’s my other point where I’ve got a problem: why racetracks? What about, I don’t know, roller derbies? We could BYO a six-pack of Woodies to the Upper Hutt roller skating rink. So why is it just racetracks, we need to be specifying why this should be the case.

So the problems that have been identified by officials so far are pretty good. I think there needs to be consistency, and what this bill introduces is a lack of consistency across the same types of venues within New Zealand. I know that the racing industry have argued and also the former member of Parliament, Winston Peters, has also argued that allowing patrons to bring their own food and drink to the course is a common method used to increase attendance and get people along and get more people there. But the same thing, I think it’s kind of sad that if you’ve got to rely on alcohol to get people to a family fun day out, I think that’s—you know, what’s wrong with a bouncy castle? There’s some good fun there. It takes the power away from local government to make decisions locally.

But interestingly—I thought this was quite interesting—the Ministry of Justice said that the bill, the way it was drafted, was likely to increase alcohol-related harms and to undermine the current licensing regime. Look, there are faults with the current licensing regime. You only need to look at local alcohol policies and how they haven’t worked as well as they could have. We can do a whole lot better. We should be empowering local communities to think safer and work collectively to figure out how we combat these harms that particularly affect our young people. So I don’t think using this Act is going to address some of those.

They also consider that the proposals might require quite a substantial shift in the current licensing framework, potentially creating unintended consequences for other parts of the alcohol industry and communities. Ministry of Justice have also consulted with New Zealand Police and the Health Promotion Agency and advised that they are also likely to have considerable concerns with the bill—particularly concerning increased intoxication, as I’ve already mentioned. Most recently, some of the provisions under the BYO alcohol were included in the development for the Racing Industry Act in 2020, but they were withdrawn because the need was to look at an overarching approach. And I think this is where we’re heading, that contentious issues like alcohol, a legalised drug in our community that does cause harm, we need to have an overarching framework in the way that we look at those harms and how we mitigate those harms, and how we encourage people to make more healthy decisions around how they’re using alcohol, whether it be at the race club, a bouncy castle, or a roller skating rink.

The proposal and the bill would apply regardless of whether the gathering had a high risk of alcohol-related harm, and it prevents that ability to ascertain what that risk might be. And quite frankly, I just think it disempowers local police from being able to act responsibly. Many of the large racing events are often associated with high levels of intoxication and harm, which may be exacerbated by attendees bringing their own alcohol. In addition, for smaller rural events where attendees travel to the racecourse, there are concerns that this could increase issues around drink driving. And if you have a small police service in your rural area, it also limits police to police the roads safely after a major event, if there has been drinking going on at the racetrack.

So my view is I’m going to be voting against this bill. Police still have the ability to stop gathering under its general powers, but it’s not clear whether they would be able to retain the ability to hold someone accountable under this proposed legislation. Furthermore, it’s not clear who is responsible for the consumption of outside the licenced premises, when you have things happening outside that venue. The provisions intend to enable police and other regulatory bodies to take action when necessary and appropriate to mitigate alcohol-related harm. And the bill seeks to address the concerns that police have.

Look, I think the member has addressed an issue that’s important, however, I think on issues such as alcohol, where we have some significant harm that is ongoing in our communities, that we take an overarching and consistent harm minimisation approach in terms of how we address these issues. My concern, and the reason I won’t be voting for this bill, is it disempowers local police. It may encourage excessive drinking, and it may make our roads more dangerous than what they already are. I don’t commend the bill.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill. I want to commend the member Ian McKelvie for having this bill drawn. How great is it that we’ve got an opportunity to debate harm minimisation regarding alcohol? I wish we could be having these sorts of debates around the best fit for purpose legal framework on other substances, such as cannabis.

It’s great to have the opportunity to speak on the merits of these proposed amendments. In the case of this bill, what it is trying to achieve is an exemption to the “place of resort” offence for racing clubs on the days of race meetings if the BYO consumption of alcohol takes place at a time when the club holds either an on-licence or an on-site special licence that applies to the race meeting. What this bill would do is, basically, mean that racing clubs could advertise and promote large-scale BYO for the racing events, so long as they offered alcohol under licence somewhere in the venue.

As a former manager on duty at a hospitality venue where alcohol was sold, I got to see first-hand the importance of having really strong regulatory frameworks and, actually, the supervision that comes alongside, even in small community spaces, to ensure that our communities are being kept safe. Alcohol is a substance that, while it plays a role in our communities when it comes to social gatherings, has harms associated with it. What this bill inevitably will be doing is continuing coupling the cultural connection between alcohol and sport, and I think, when so many grassroots communities are trying to encourage us to move away from that, this bill goes in the opposite direction.

I also want to note that it’s been noted in Radio New Zealand that, actually, we do have quite a few bills relating to alcohol in the biscuit tin, and only one of them—actually, from my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick—is around harm minimisation. I do think it’s interesting that this bill tries to portray in the explanatory note that the interventions by police have been broad and really concerning when most of them seem to be emerging from the 2016 and 2017 period and there is limited evidence that the police is acting in a really unscrupulous matter when it comes to preventing licences having BYO spaces.

The Green Party continues calling for a harm minimisation approach to substances to encourage this Parliament to take the same approach, actually with other substances, not just alcohol, and we won’t be supporting this bill through the passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I really would like to congratulate the member Ian McKelvie for bringing this bill to the House. The racing industry is part of really the culture of New Zealand and it’s full of characters. I’d have to say the member who’s brought the bill to the House is one of the characters of the House, so I think it’s apt and appropriate that he has done so. I just wonder whether that member may have got his ideas about BYO from when he attended the Lord’s Cricket Ground some years ago at a cricket final with another member not far from him over there, where we discovered—and I was there—that, actually, Lord’s had a very liberal attitude towards BYO, as long as it was champagne. It was quite interesting to wander around the ground afterwards to see champagne bottles liberally scattered across the floor in a way that maybe Lion or Tui beer cans would be in New Zealand. So maybe that was where the idea was born.

I’m from a family that was deeply embedded in the racing industry. In fact, I had an uncle, Uncle Jim, who was actually a horse doper. He was a vet—he wasn’t allowed to be called a vet; he was a technician. But it was a little bit embarrassing. The preferred doping method in those days was arsenic. It was a little bit risky: you could actually get a very fast horse or a very dead horse as it came round into the back straight, but he was very proud of the fact that none of his ever died in the front straight. What happened after the meeting was another story.

But coming back to the bill, Madam Speaker—which I know that you’re always keen that we do, as speakers—I will actually be supporting this bill. Yes, we have heard some of the arguments against that. In fact, I think it’s a bit ironic that the previous speaker Ricardo Menéndez March did bring in other substances into this. One of the main arguments—and I was a supporter of legalising cannabis during the referendum last year, for the very reason that he opposes this, which is because I think it brought it out from behind the shelter sheds, if you like, and it actually gave a lot better ability to control that particular substance. In this way, too, I don’t think for a moment that without the ability for families to enjoy a drink—the bottle of wine or a couple of beers at a country race meeting—I don’t think it would stop, but what it would do would be to actually push it into the shadows, if you like, and really inhibit the ability to actually have any control over that behaviour at all.

So in bringing together the fact that this does allow a continuation of what is a big tradition—I mean, my own family gather on Boxing Day at the Westport races. It’s very much a tradition, and I have to say that many of my family—some of them actually don’t drink at all, but still go along. Some of them do, I might say. But, like many things, I think we’re generally learning to take a better and more responsible attitude towards alcohol. In fact, it’s interesting to see that alcohol consumption has gone down, particularly among younger people, and, in fact it’s older people, the statistics are showing, who are actually drinking more.

One of the worst things about gambling in this country—and I have to say that there’s not much good about pokie machines, and they don’t actually add anything to the economy. At least with racing, whatever you think of gambling or gambling harm, there is an associated industry that actually produces quite heavily for this country by way of exports and by way of reputation, and don’t we all love it when a New Zealand horse wins a significant race in Australia or elsewhere in the world? So that’s another reason.

If we’re going to keep that industry going—an industry that’s been badly affected by the ability of the betting dollar to go elsewhere—then it’s important that we do attract another generation. It’s not just another generation; it’s other cultures that are coming into this country, and I think there’s no better way to introduce them to something that was actually pretty much traditional. As the introducer of the bill said, it’s rugby, racing, and beer. It can go beyond that. This will allow it, and I think we’re slowly, generationally—the fact that our younger people are drinking a lot less than their parents and grandparents shows that this is a way to ensure that they can drink responsibly. I’ll be supporting this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what a cracking good piece of legislation, I wager anyone here in this House. I will certainly be supporting this bill. I think it’s a lovely and concise little piece of legislation. I can imagine the detractors have come up with all manner of adages and catchphrases to name this piece of legislation like “Punters at the Pub Bill”, “Booze and the Bookies Bill”, or “A Tipple at the Track Bill”, but the reality is it’s a good bit of legislation.

Now, I live in a small community not far from what was the Dargaville racetrack. We used to have a lot of attendance there. A lot of punters would come out and, as the member Mr McKelvie, who put this piece of legislation forth tonight, alluded, it was a real family event. A wicker basket, a bottle of wine, a couple of children, if you were fortunate enough to have them with you on the day, or not, depending on how the day went, and a basket full of food—what a wonderful day it was, and it literally supported the local economy. Sadly, the Dargaville racetrack is no longer there, it’s moved across the isle and has gone across to Ruakākā.

This piece of legislation is a good little piece of legislation. It’s concise, it’s not overly onerous, and I sort of find it quite disappointing that some in the Labour caucus seem to think that there has to be more parenting of everyday life in New Zealand.

New Zealand has got a fair degree of common sense. I don’t really see this as being overly onerous—I mean, the assertion seemed to be a comparison between running on race day with a bottle of wine and a whole lot of teenagers at a nightclub, and the comparison was almost just one and the same. It’s really shameful that they can’t see the good in this piece of legislation.

I like the fact it gives certainty for those that are bringing alcohol on race day to their local track. I don’t see why I need to go on any more than to share with Mr McKelvie that this is a good piece of legislation and I will certainly be supporting it.

I rise to speak on this bill, and I have to first congratulate the member Ian McKelvie for the luck of the draw. I have to also say to him that I have a very limited acquaintance with racecourses. In fact, my acquaintanceship with racecourses is limited to a brief and rather rocky love affair with a retired racehorse called Sir Tain—do you get it; “certain”—and the only thing about Sir Tain that was certain was that (a) he wasn’t going to win any races at all—nada, from nine starts, from recollection—and (b) you could never be certain what temper he was going to be in when you got on. Our relationship ended abruptly when he threw me off in a very decisive manner on a very steep and, may I say, very hard hillside, and I’m afraid that Mr McKelvie is about to find that I am probably going to return the favour to Sir Tain in my response to this bill.

Although Mr McKelvie’s description of what it should be when you go to the races with a family—the odd flutter and the odd beer was another of the descriptions that was given—my concerns are threefold. The first is that that’s not always accurate in our country, and while my colleague Mr Greg O’Connor made a heartfelt and eloquent plea for the reduction in drinking, I come from a reasonably rural place and I worry about the fact that there is still a high level of drink-driving. If we have families and young people out on the racecourse drinking after a long day, then I worry about carnage. I don’t think that is appropriate. I think what is appropriate is to leave it to the local people to make this decision—the local police and the local council. I do not believe in further tying local hands from make decisions according to local circumstances.

I guess that brings me to my next concern with this bill, which is that I don’t feel like it’s appropriate to spend large amounts of public money, as we all do, as we stand here when there isn’t a truly demonstrable problem, and I’m not yet convinced by the argument that there is. I have done a little bit of looking back and I noticed that it was the Hon Paula Bennett who seems to have first raised the hackles that resulted in this bill back in 2017, and that was because there were actual problems in racecourses. The police were bringing that to her as an issue, and that seems to have caused a bit of a panic amongst the racing fraternity, but I have to say that I am not convinced that the panic has really been well realised in actuality. I have not been able to pin down a wide swath of racecourses going out of business because they can’t be BYO. Therefore, I am afraid that for me, the bill fails the test of whether we ought to be spending our time and money on it, and I’m sorry for that.

But I think it is wrong necessarily to link people’s willingness to attend races with BYO. I am worried about binge drinking and rural drinking and that this is actually encouraging that, and that is a part of our culture which we do need to address. Alcohol is not necessary to happiness. I do firmly agree that local alcohol licensing provisions do need tightening, but, in my view, we need to give councils more power to regulate access to alcohol in their communities, not tie their hands and the hands of the police, and thus I cannot commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. I oppose this bill, but the member who brought it the House is a well-respected member with his community at heart and it’s an important issue, so it’s important to me to be able to speak about why. The purpose of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, when it was introduced, was to increase community say over alcohol licensing decisions. This bill silences the community in the particular case of race meetings, and drags this Parliament even further into the regulatory black hole of an Act which has not given communities—that’s the mums, the teachers, the principals, the other business owners, and the churchgoers who live near these venues and alcohol shops—the clout that they need in licensing decisions.

I want to thank Mr McKelvie for bringing this bill to the House. He has recognised that reform of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act is needed, and that section 235 of the Act is poorly worded and could encapsulate events and parties that don’t need to be regulated at all. I agree with him that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act needs amendment, and I want the legislation to do three things. Those are three factors that I use to assess this bill, so let me tell you what they are. First, the legislation shall allow communities to make meaningful contributions to licensing decisions. Second, it should be a piece of legislation that allows licensing bodies to take into account alcohol’s contribution to health and social issues within the community they are considering. Third, it should create a better way of regulating alcohol that leads to thriving, healthy regions, cities and towns, where those on the lowest incomes, and Māori and Pacific people, aren’t disproportionately affected by the impact of alcohol. Because the current legislation makes it far too difficult for communities to object to licences, and this bill would only make it harder, in particular circumstances.

I believe that it should not be left to communities to have to fight against licences, and yet people know they have to object to licences because of the proliferation of alcohol outlets in their communities. It’s time-consuming, it’s expensive, and sometimes it’s humiliating, but it is important for them to be a part of that, because more alcohol outlets means more alcohol-related harm, it means more noise, more smashed bottles in our playgrounds, more incidences of family violence, more drink-driving, and more serious crashes.

Let me speak to why I object to the effect of this proposed reform, and briefly comment on the reform that is needed. What does the bill do? It creates this exemption to section 235. Section 235 requires occupiers of unlicensed premises to get a special licence if that premises is going to be used to buy and sell alcohol. In practice, that means people who are doing something with a venue like managing it, putting on a concert or show at it, selling tickets to come in, or charging an entry fee at the door, or providing security are required to apply for a special licence. Then if the police have concerns about the group applying, they can object. Racing clubs can apply for special licences, and they get them. But this bill would mean that when police have the concerns, they wouldn’t be able to object, to racing clubs only. Justice Minister Kris Faafoi is working to review the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and there is work going on in this area by the Government and members—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! I’m just going to invite the member to put her script to one side, stop reading the speech, and debate the bill in the House.

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I’m very conscious of my time and I have a lot to say about this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, I might invite the member to get on with it.

I will. Let me then finally comment on how the effect of this legislation has a wider impact: that when we discourage the police from raising objections to licences, whether they are in race club meetings, whether they are in any circumstances where people who are putting on an event might apply for a special licence, we further disenfranchise those communities who are already trying to speak up against them. That further disenfranchises the people who are most affected by alcohol harm, and we around this House know that that is people in South Auckland who look like me. Māori women are the most affected by the harms of alcohol, through family violence, through abuse of alcohol. We are the most affected by driving offences with alcohol harm - related incidences. We are the most affected by crime with alcohol as a factor.

By weakening the protections that exist in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, we create more alcohol-related harm in our communities. That is not something I can tolerate, and that is why I am voting against this bill.

Well, look, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. I’ve been waiting for this day; for the bill to be drawn. Because, as Mr McKelvie, as the bill’s sponsor, made mention, I had a little bit to do with the drafting of it and I’m very happy that it’s now in his hands.

But let me give you the brief background to how this came about. In 2017, Winston Peters was the Minister for Racing and he turns up to select committee—sorry, 2018. He turns up to select committee and kind of out of nowhere, he says, “The big problem with the racing industry is these bureaucratic shiny bums down in Wellington who are stopping races and racecourses from holding their traditional BYO events.” I thought, “That’s very interesting.”

Now, knowing the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I knew he would do nothing about it. Let’s remember: he was the racing Minister. So, OK. So I gave a series of written questions to him and I asked an Official Information Act (OIA) request and said, “What are you doing about it?” What he did was, after I made the request to him, he went to the Racing Board and said, “You’d better do something about this. Can I get some advice?” Bear in mind it was after I asked him about it.

So he got the advice, and the Racing Board wrote him a really good report and it went to Winston Peters and I asked him a written question and he refused to tell me what it was, and then I OIA’d the advice and I got the advice. The advice was, “You need to sort out section 235 of the Sale and Supply of Liquor Act.” It even gave him the legislation. It gave him the bill.

So I said, “What are you going to do about it?” He said, “Oh, well, not a lot. I’m too busy stopping Auckland light rail and, you know, stuffing up the Government and jamming things up for the coalition Government.” He didn’t say that: I’m interpolating from what he actually said.

Anyway, I thought, “Well, I’m a guy who’s in Opposition. I like to make sensible changes to the law. I like a beer. I like a racecourse. Let’s put a bill on the ballot.” So I drafted up the bill based on the official Racing Board advice, chucked it in the ballot, wrote to Winston Peters and said, “Come on, mate. You should support it.” He took about five months to write back to me and he said—I’m quoting directly—“The coalition Government takes members’ bills very seriously.” He said, “You’ve got to wait for the Messara report, which has disappeared off into the bureaucratic ether, like so many reports that have been compiled into racing over the years, and nothing’s happened.” The bill’s been in the ballot and now it’s been pulled out and we’ve got an opportunity to sort it out.

Now, Arena Williams made mention of section 235. She is right: it is outdated and outmoded. It’s anachronistic. It’s basically, from my read of the law, a hangover from the old Sale of Liquor Act 1989, and basically it stops alcohol being served—or its original purpose was to stop alcohol being served—at dens of iniquity; at brothels.

That’s the original background to it, but the way it’s used now is to stop racecourses having summer picnics in the middle of the racetrack like when we used to do in the good old days at Trentham Racecourse in Upper Hutt, or at the Kumara Races, or down south—

💬 Joseph Mooney: Roxburgh.

It stops at Roxburgh—my good colleague Joseph Mooney says, Roxburgh, Winton. It stops those events from happening.

Now, Emily Henderson says, “Is there like a widespread swathe of race cancellations?” No. There isn’t. There isn’t, and I’m not going to pretend that the problem is absolutely massive.

Ginny Andersen is quite right that special licences can already be issued, and for most parts, they are. But there’s big parts of the country where they aren’t. They’re small, rural, regional racetracks run by volunteers and they can’t afford to go through the long and expensive process of getting a special licence. So what this bill says, very simply, is section 235 should not apply to race meetings, to make it explicitly crystal clear for the police, and it basically says that police can’t object to these liquor licence applications—because that’s what they’re doing.

Ginny Andersen was right about one thing, but she was wrong about how the police decline these licences. The police don’t decline licences. The district licensing committees consider the licences. What the police do is strongly object and put these race clubs through time and expense and move heaven and earth to try and just run a simple race meeting.

In terms of protections—and I do regard it as important that we don’t have people turning up and getting pissed and then driving away and, you know, long, long drives home. What it says is section 235 doesn’t apply when the race club holds an on-licence or an on-site special licence that applies to an area within the premises for the duration of the race meeting.

What does that mean? Typically what happens is you’ll have a bar—an on-licence—operating with security and very nicely run and all of the normal rules that apply. What it will also mean is that at the same time as you have the bar running with the security, you can also have a BYO.

So in terms of the police and the terms of the security guards and all the rest of it, all of that can apply as well. This is a common-sense change, I hope members support it. I’m so excited to have it in the House and I’m looking forward to Kieran McAnulty’s speech.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the member’s bill. As others have already done, I congratulate him on the luck of having his bill drawn from the biscuit tin. Some people have more luck than others when it comes to the biscuit tin, so I just want to congratulate the member.

I have given this a lot of consideration, and I do so with my background formerly as a Far North district councillor and a district licensing officer—or part of a team that was responsible for doing liquor licensing. I come to this issue with some real experience and interest in this area.

I first and foremost want to thank all of the people in our community who are working tirelessly to prevent alcohol harm, and that’s where I really want to start with my contribution this evening. I find it difficult, with what is proposed—difficult in terms of when I look at what the purpose and the objectives of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act are and what is being proposed here. I just cannot reconcile the two.

The object of the Act is that “the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly” and that harm caused by excessive and inappropriate consumption of alcohol “should be minimised”. So I cannot see why proposing an exemption for race meetings—I’m not convinced by anything that I’ve heard tonight—goes towards achieving the objectives and the purposes of the main Act which this is looking to amend. I am not convinced by the proposal this evening that it is achieving the objectives of the Act, and, in fact, we are trying to remove some of the processes that are in the legislation to achieve those objectives of the Act.

It is acknowledged in the explanatory note of the member’s bill that recently police have begun to object to BYO alcohol during clubs’ applications for special alcohol licences for specific areas of the courses. The police along with the medical officer of health are two that are required to comment on the applications for special licences, and the fact that they have started to object would suggest to me that they are concerned that the behaviour that is taking place is not achieving the objectives of the Act. That’s what they are submitting on when they are giving this opinion as part of the special application process. So if they have concerns, I do not believe that it is appropriate to bring in legislation to remove their power to object or to raise their concerns—and perhaps consideration of special conditions to be applied to licences—by purely taking out or exempting race meetings from this Act. I think it is inconsistent with—again, what I said—the objectives and the purposes of the Act. I think that it is dangerous that we consider doing this for one area, and I don’t believe the case has been made for why it should apply to only race meetings and why it should apply when we do actually have evidence of police having raised concerns and opposing applications for special licences or requiring further conditions to be met.

I support that we leave this to our councils, to our local authorities—

💬 Hon Member: To democracy.

—to democracy—who are the closest to these clubs and who are the closest to the community, to be able to make the decisions, following the processes that are set out in legislation, which has that special role for the police and the medical officer of health. It is not difficult to apply for a special licence. It is not that costly to apply for a special licence either, as was suggested on the other side of the House. According to the Ministry of Justice: $55 for one or two events covered by a small size and $180 for three to 12 events if it’s of a medium size. I think they require about 20 days’ notice for the application to give the police and the medical officer of health time to input into that process. So I would say that I support our councils in the role that they play to achieve the objectives of this Act to reduce and minimise harm caused by the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol. I do not believe that we should be exempting one small group of clubs, for the reasons that I have already outlined but particularly because police have been raising concerns about this. So I do not commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Anyone that knows me, knows that I’m a big fan of racing. I will do what I can to support the racing industry. The racing industry is very important to the New Zealand economy. It provides as much to the GDP as the fishing industry, and that’s something that’s lost on a lot of people. Because the racing industry is not just going to the clubs and having a punt. The racing industry has many aspects to it, and part of that is the export element of racing, the breeding and the exporting of horses. That part of the industry cannot happen if it wasn’t for the domestic racing industry.

So when I looked at this bill, my natural instinct was to support it. Part of that was for the fact of the member who sponsored it. Ian McKelvie is one of life’s gentlemen. Despite the fact that he’s a Tory, he’s also a decent bloke, and so I like him a lot. He cannot play cricket to save himself but I admire the fact that he tries. So when I saw this I really wanted to back it. My natural instinct was to back it.

But being a good electorate MP, I rang my local racing clubs. I’ve got three in my electorate. There’s the Tauherenīkau racing club, there’s also the Masterton Racing Club, which operates out of Tauherenīkau, there’s the Woodville, and there’s the Waipukurau. I rang them all, and they all gave a different answer. But their answer equated to the same conclusion, which is that ultimately they didn’t feel this bill was necessary. I was quite surprised by that response.

And so I’ll walk the House through how it worked out. Tauherenīkau already have a BYO licence with their council. They didn’t think this bill was necessary. They have an arrangement with the South Wairarapa District Council that on particular days they have BYO licences and on other days they don’t. Of course, they make more money out of the bar when they don’t have a BYO licence. And when they do have that situation, it is more controlled and they’re able to assess each punter as they come up to the bar as to whether or not they meet the criteria that then entitles them to purchase a drink. So I thought “OK. Fair enough. I’ll try Woodville.” Woodville don’t want it. They haven’t applied for it because they, like I said, make more money out of the bar. I was like, “OK. Fair enough.” I spoke to Waipukurau, that operates out of the Hawke’s Bay Racing Club. They have a similar situation. Some days are BYO and some days are not.

So I’m in a dilemma; I’ll be honest. I want to back racing clubs but when I speak to my own racing clubs they don’t want it. So what do I do? So what I’ve decided to do in this bill is to back it to select committee. I’m going to vote “yes” on this bill. I’m going to give the select committee the chance to actually scrutinise this bill and propose any amendments that could improve it. And actually, if we’re honest, that’s the purpose of select committees, isn’t it? That’s also the select committee—

💬 Toni Severin: Oh, yes.

I didn’t expect to be heckled on this particular bill. But anyway, thank you, Toni Severin. I appreciate that. I don’t know—some neoliberal nonsense; let’s not take any notice. But look, the point of both members’ days and select committees is to propose an idea and let’s scrutinise it. So whilst my local racing clubs say to me, for various reasons, that they don’t particularly see the need for this bill, I still want to vote for it.

This is a conscience vote on this side of the House. Those that have been watching Parliament TV tonight will see that some Labour members have spoken in favour of this bill and some Labour members, actually quite enthusiastically, have spoken against it, and that’s all good because that’s what conscience bills are all about. But for me, not only as a racing fan but also as a local MP for Wairarapa, I just want to give this bill a chance. Let’s get it to the select committee. Let’s hear it out. If it turns out that actually this bill is not needed and that each racing club can go to their local council and get a BYO licence, much like Tauherenīkau racing venue have, and it turns out that it’s not needed: fine. We gave it its fair share. We gave it a shot.

You know, I’ve got a history of working with Ian McKelvie on members’ bills. You know, I remember the cattle rustling bill that he first put up, and it didn’t quite work out. But he and I worked together. We went to the Minister. I said to Ian, “I think I’ve got a way forward here.” We proposed a way forward to the Minister, and he got it through, and it passed. That was a great example of parliamentarianism. Perhaps this might be another opportunity for that. But we won’t know that unless we get it to the select committee. So I’m going to vote for this, and I wish you all the best, Ian McKelvie. I hope this will be able to come out of a select committee in a form that the whole of Parliament will support. But I guess what I’m saying, my message, is that in its current form, I probably won’t support it past select committee. But I want to give it a shot to make it get to a point where I can. All the best.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the House to vote immediately following the conclusion of Mr McKelvie’s speech, notwithstanding that we’ll likely be five minutes to 10.

Is there any objection? There is none.

I just want to remind the last speaker, Kieran McAnulty, in case he’s got me into trouble or my brother-in-law into trouble, that my brother-in-law’s president of one of his racing clubs. And my cousin is president of another one. So I’ve got a bone to pick with them!

I really just want to reply to some of the points raised by some of the Labour members, and I respect their point of view. I think, though, that a select committee process will certainly answer some of their questions, because I think some of the questions they raise really don’t apply to what we’re trying to achieve here. And I think our main object here is, actually, to benefit the racing industry, not to benefit the liquor industry or anything else.

And I think one of the great shames or great tragedies of this Parliament in our country—and I guess every other place that makes laws in a democratic manner—is that it only takes 1 percent of the people to affect 99 percent of the rest of us. And that’s the problem we have with a lot of laws—particularly relating to alcohol, gambling, and things like that. Most people participate in those things in a perfectly normal, rational manner and cause no problem whatsoever. One or 2 percent of us do cause trouble from time to time, and I think that’s the challenge for it.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Speak for yourself.

You’re speaking from experience, Bayly; I’m not! I won’t say any more because I appreciate the point that we want to get through this tonight, but I do think that a select committee process will answer some of the questions raised by some of the members opposite who I think did make some very good points, but none the less, I think the objective of this is to benefit the racing industry and to encourage more people to participate in the racing industry at whatever level we’re at. So I hope this bill gets through its next little phase, and I hope that it gets to the select committee, and I hope, then, we can have some rational discussion on it and put some order around what otherwise, probably, is a bill that needs tidying up a little bit. That’s my lot.

The question is, That the—[Interruption] Order! Order! We’re voting. The question is, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.