Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2)

I was disappointed that the Minister, the Hon Rick Barker, misled the public and the House to believe that this bill, the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2), is in substance the same as the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3), which was discharged. The reason that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) was discharged was that one of the main provisions was to remove the monopoly trading right of licensing trusts, and that reason was very simple. That bill contained a recommendation from the Liquor Licensing Authority, which confirmed in 1997 that this monopoly trading right did not do anything to curtail drinking habits. In fact, it recommended that the monopoly trading right be discarded. But instead of doing that, the Commerce Committee, at the time of hearing the submissions on the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3), understandably found it was controversial, and the committee could not reach a decision. So instead of giving the House the opportunity to take a conscience vote or whatever to resolve this issue, the minority Labour Government chose to discharge that bill and brought in the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2), which not only retained the monopoly trading right of the licensing trusts but went ahead and stated that not only are they protected but they can also compete in other areas. The Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) was going to create a level playing field, where supermarkets and licensing trusts can all sell in each other’s area, but in the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2), if there is a licensing trust, nobody can sell in its area but it can go and sell outside it. So I am not too sure that the Minister has explained to the public why the Government wants to continue and create a very uneven playing field.

The other provision, as the Hon Rick Barker was saying, is about allowing wineries to trade on Easter Sunday. So wineries are allowed to sell drinks and trade on Easter Sunday, but we do not allow any other shops to open on that day—I find myself almost totally speechless! What is the logic of people being allowed to drink on an Easter Sunday at wineries when they are not allowed to engage in any other trading activity on that day? It defies logic. Only a minority Labour Government can work in such an illogical manner. Another provision, which is even funnier, is that 18-year-olds would not be allowed to enter licensed premises or purchase wine unless they were requested by the police to do so. I presume that this is to trick the winery operators and to check they are not selling wine to individuals under 18 years of age. I find that quite appalling. But apart from that, anyone under 18 years old who entered licensed premises, I presume, would be prosecuted under this bill. People under 18 may not drink, so they are not allowed to accompany their parents, or their friends who might be 18 or older; they are simply not allowed to enter those premises. Well, I think it is a very laughable provision.

I also want to bring up an issue about Chinese or Asian cooking wine. Last Christmas, we had a very ridiculous situation where I was approached by Chinese supermarket operators who were told they were not allowed to sell Chinese cooking wine, because of the way the sale of liquor legislation operates. I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister, but here today, we have not heard a satisfactory explanation or a solution for it. So I am extremely disappointed that this bill, the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2), managed to bring in other provisions but failed to resolve a very silly situation—everybody knows that Chinese or Asian cooking wine would not actually give a pleasant sensation, should an individual choose to consume it. So I want the Minister to explain why he would not take the opportunity to amend that situation.

When we think of it, we can see that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) is another very clear example of the minority Labour Government continuing to dictate to ordinary New Zealanders how they should live and what they are allowed to do on Easter Sunday. People are allowed to get drunk at a winery, but they are not allowed to go shopping anywhere else. Once again, this legislation demonstrates so well that the minority Labour Government simply does not trust or respect New Zealanders to be able to make up their own minds and make sensible decisions, so National Party members certainly cannot bring ourselves to support this bill. I think this bill should be voted down, and the Minister should be told to get his act together and look at the trading legislation. The Commerce Committee is examining a trading bill, and I do not see why we should rush this. I think, if we are talking about cultural appropriateness, that this minority Labour Government should explain to me why Chinese cooking wine needs some sort of inspector or licence to supervise it before people are allowed to buy such an essential ingredient for their cooking.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation.

This is alarming legislation at first glance, because as I look at, say, the new section 219L, to be inserted into the Sale of Liquor Act by clause 8 of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2), it seems to me that, with the reconstitution of licensing trusts, they could cease to sell liquor. Instead, they could carry on with any other object that comes within section 219L, “Object of community trust”, because this bill will allow a licensing trust to be reconstituted as a community trust. One then asks what the power of a community trust is. What is its object? Section 219L(1) provides: “All property vested in, or belonging to, a community trust is held on trust to be applied to charitable, cultural, philanthropic, recreational, and other purposes beneficial exclusively or principally to the community in the region of the community trust.” Section 219L(2) provides: “A community trust is authorised, but not required, to hold 1 or more licences under this Act and to carry on the business of selling or supplying liquor.” So a community trust does not have to have a liquor licence and it does not have to sell liquor.

Well, what a dreadful piece of drafting. Does this mean that the good old Waitakere Licensing Trust can give up selling liquor, and just stick to making money out of gaming? That is where licensing trusts get their main money from these days. They can continue to do gaming or do virtually anything, if they use the money for charitable, cultural, or philanthropic purposes. I wonder whether the Government has had a close look at this legislation, because, on the face of it, the Waitakere Licensing Trust in West Auckland, the Portage Licensing Trust, the good old Oamaru Licensing Trust, the Masterton Licensing Trust, and the Invercargill Licensing Trust do not have to sell liquor any more, under the terms of this legislation. They do not even have to have a liquor licence, and they do not have to get involved with liquor. I am sure that all the people in Invercargill, Masterton, and Oamaru will be staggered that this Labour Government is allowing their licensing trusts not to sell liquor. All those licensing trusts have done a great job for their areas over the years, and, while I am not really strictly in support of a State-owned type of enterprise, I cannot deny that in Invercargill, Oamaru, and such like, they have done a great job. The Government must have a closer look at section 219L, which seems to be ambiguous, at the very least, and shows that this Labour Government has tried to rush this legislation through without looking at it at all closely.

The second aspect I am concerned about in this legislation—speaking on behalf of New Zealand First—is that a licensing trust will now be permitted to carry out business outside its area without the need to hold an expansion poll. This means that all those businesses that are not allowed to carry on a liquor business within the licensing area will, however, now be faced with the licensing trust carrying out business in the other areas. To give an example from the area with which I am familiar, although other breweries cannot set up an outlet in New Lynn or Henderson, there will be nothing to stop the Waitakere or Portage licensing trusts from setting up a business in Queen Street. They could set up a bar in Queen Street, Commerce Street, or anywhere. I am not sure whether there is still a Porirua Licensing Trust here in Wellington—there used to be one once upon a time. This bill now allows the Porirua Licensing Trust to set up a bar in Lambton Quay, but breweries that own bars in Lambton Quay will not be able to set up a bar in Porirua. Surely that is grossly unfair. Clearly that is another reason why New Zealand First will not be supporting this legislation.

This one is extraordinary: this bill contains amendments that permit wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday. There are probably only 3 days in the year that have any degree of sacredness today. Good Friday and Easter Sunday must be the two most important days in any Christian calendar, and Christmas Day is possibly the third, although it is so commercialised these days. But to have businesses open on Easter Sunday, selling whatever it might be—especially selling liquor—goes totally against the grain. That is another area for opposition to this legislation. I am just guessing at this stage, but, if there is enough support for this legislation, we might hear from the small wineries in the future. I am sure that small wineries, in particular, would find it very difficult to have to open up on Easter Sunday—just because everyone else is opening up—and sell their wine. I would expect many small wineries would probably close regardless of the provision in this legislation.

It shows the way in which this minority Labour Government regards some of the basic principles of New Zealand society. I know that the Prime Minister regards this as a secular society, although just which secular type of viewpoint she supports is hard to say. Most people value a holiday, and I would have thought that a Labour Party that seems to look for the support of trade union officials and the support of workers would not want workers to work on Easter Sunday. I would have thought a Labour Party would like at least 1 day of the year to be a day when workers do not have to turn up for work at the wine shop and sell wine. Once we allow wine shops to start selling wine on Easter Sunday, clearly all the other shops that cannot open then, such as garden centres, will ask why they cannot open on a Sunday. We will have everybody opening up on a Sunday, and all the workers in New Zealand will be made to work on Easter Sunday. Surely there are some days when they could have a break. We hear the Labour Party talking about people having 4 weeks’ holiday, so let us have Easter Sunday as a holiday. It is such a simple proposition. It is an established proposition that has been around probably since the beginning of New Zealand. [Interruption]

I know that Clayton Cosgrove wants people to work every day of the year. He may want them to guzzle away, get drunk on Easter Sunday, and get drunk every day of the week. There are people in this society—although, clearly, not those in Waimakariri who support Clayton Cosgrove—who would like to see some sort of day of rest on Easter Sunday, to recognise what many billions of people in this world regard as the ultimate conception of the Christian faith—the resurrection. That is the basic concept, if one happens to have any regard for Christianity, and separates real Christians from anybody else. Selling wine on Easter Sunday is totally objectionable.

The next point is the provision of an exception, in relation to offences by minors, to allow entrapment of wineries. That really is a breach of the rule of law. We want the basis on which someone is prosecuted to be fair. We do not want people to be entrapped. That is a constitutional viewpoint. It is called the rule of law. We do not want Parliament to make this sort of arbitrary decision that traps people into committing offences. A winery might be in a hurry. The police might set up someone who is 17, but who looks 25 if he or she gets all tarted up, to go into a winery or any other liquor premises and buy alcohol, and the manager then has to pay a fine. As I recall, it would not be any of the workers as such who would have to pay out; it would be the business proprietor—usually a small-business proprietor. That is another way for Labour to have a go at small business. It is knocking the small-business proprietor running licensed premises. The proprietor will lose his or her licence or have it suspended for a considerable period of time.

This provision is one of entrapment, whereby the police set up a storekeeper. It should not be permitted. It is one of those areas where the law constantly holds to the principle that one has to commit an actual offence, not have the police set it up for one. I can imagine the Greens opposing this one just on the grounds of entrapment. It is so contrary to every constitutional principle there is, and I expect the Greens would vote against this bill entirely, on that ground alone. It would be so easy to set up people in any particular type of offence. I understand that this has been done for the cigarette-smoking bill as well, and if we do it once, we start to do it a second time and a third time, and, before we know it, the doors are wide open and the principle of the rule of law that we do not have this type of entrapment provision goes out the window.

So we oppose the bill on the grounds that it would seem, on the face of it, to allow licensing trusts not to sell liquor, and to allow licensing trusts to compete in areas other than their own licensing trust area, but with no vice versa arrangement.

I seek leave to change my advice on the report-back date for this bill. I originally advised the House that I was wanting the bill to be reported back on 12 February 2004. I want to change that advice to 26 February 2004.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. Leave is so granted.

Contrary to the good advice offered by my colleague Dail Jones, the Greens will be supporting the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). I do not intend to take up a great deal of the House’s time this evening, because I think the bill is a fairly inoffensive bill, but I just want to address quickly some of the issues that have been raised.

The first thing is the option for a licensing trust to reconstitute itself as a community trust. The Greens support that provision. We think it allows more of a focus on charitable and philanthropic aims, and we think that is a good thing. We are aware of the concerns raised by Dail Jones, but let this House remember that such a change will be made by a democratic decision. The bill clearly states that the reconstitution can be initiated in two ways: by resolution of the licensing trust members, followed by public notice, with the opportunity for electors to call for a poll on the issue; or by 15 percent or more of a licensing trust’s electors requesting the trust to hold a binding poll. So it will actually be a democratic decision and a decision made by the community, and we think that gives some safeguard.

The bill does make other reforms to licensing trusts, and we think these are useful. It requires trusts to disclose remuneration paid to trustees and senior managers, and that is essential for transparency and accountability. It also requires trusts to hold annual meetings to account to electors for the effectiveness of their performance, and we think that is a sensible and much-needed change.

There are a couple of other things I would like to quickly touch on. The bill permits wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday, and both Pansy Wong and Dail Jones have made quite a lot of reference to that. Dail Jones suggested it was part of a drive to form a more secular society. I do not accept that argument. Prior to the 1999 amendments, wineries were able to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday. There does not seem to have been a policy intention to change that; it seems to have been an omission in those amendments. So we think it is sensible, and is just putting back in place the previous arrangement.

There is provision for the staggered introduction of the requirement that general managers of licensed premises hold a prescribed qualification. We understand that that is in response to submissions on the previous Supplementary Order Paper. It is good to see legislation being responsive to the concerns of those directly affected by those decisions.

The last thing I will touch on before I finish is the exemption to the offence of minors purchasing liquor. Persons who are under 18 years may purchase liquor at licensed premises at the request of a member of the police acting in the course of his or her duty. As Dail Jones correctly said, that provision clearly is to allow sting operations to take place. There are already such provisions in tobacco legislation. There are concerns about entrapment, and I think we need to look at those carefully. The select committee should pay attention to that.

But, at the same time, New Zealand First is one party in this House that makes a point of talking about the problems of under-age drinking, youth drunkenness, and such things. Clearly, if we are going to address the question of under-age drinking, there has to be an ability to police the age-limit. In fact, since the lowering of the age-limit on alcohol consumption, we have seen an increase both in the age at which people start drinking—more people are starting young—and in how much young people drink in a session. I think we are all concerned about those things. The question is what we do we do about it. We have heard the typical knee-jerk reaction that we must put the age-limit back up. Well, to Green Party members it seems that, before we amend the legislation again, the first thing we should do is actually properly police the age-limit we have. We believe that if we properly policed the age-limit of 18 years, we could begin actually to address those problems.

If we are going to police the age-limit, there has to be some way for the police to test whether places are selling to under-age people. We do not see any way, other than this provision, that we can come at this problem. So we support this provision, but we are interested to see what the select committee makes of it and what kinds of concerns are expressed in the public submissions.

I welcomed the point of order from Hon Rick Barker earlier to say that the report-back date was extended somewhat, to make sure there is provision to allow the select committee to hear oral submissions, if there is such a call from submitters. We welcome that, because the select committee is an important part of the democratic process, and we think we should go out of our way to make sure it is able to fulfil its job.

The Green Party is supporting this Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). We look forward to seeing where it goes from here.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this bill and inform members in the House that the ACT party will definitely not be supporting it any further. With any sort of luck, the rest of the members will come to their senses and throw this bit of nonsense out.

This bill is totally different from what it was when I sat on the Commerce Committee a few years ago, along with Pansy Wong. The fundamental plank of that committee was to open up competition to allow trusts to compete outside their designated areas, and to allow those outside designated areas to come in and compete with trusts. That was regarded as an entirely sensible situation. The trusts would still be there—they would not be dissolved or got rid off—but they would have to sharpen up their act in order to survive.

It is worth reflecting on the explanatory note. It states: “In a recent Auditor-General report, 7 of the existing 23 licensing trusts were identified as having liability to asset ratios indicating ‘ongoing solvency issues’,”—in other words, they were virtually broke. Only five of those trusts were identified as having what we would call sound financial positions—only five of the 23, notwithstanding the fact that those were monopolies. They had a licence to print money, and only five of the 23 managed to break even or be in some sound situation.

I want to pick up on another point that Mr Jones made—well, I am not sure he made it totally. Those trusts are no longer making money out of the sale of liquor; it is the pokies they are making money out of. Of course, they are distributing what profits they do make into the community, which is fair and reasonable, but I just want to bring members back to the original purpose of those trusts.

They were, of course, a throwback to the days of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. I think the movement is still around, but I am not sure whether that is the case. I understand that there are still one or two people in that particular organisation. Those trusts were set up in order to ensure that communities actually got some payback, if one likes, from what they saw as the beer barons—the Speights and Kelleher—

Hon Phil Goff:Henry.

Sir Henry Kelleher, and those sorts of folks who wanted to get a little bit out of their pockets and put it back into the community. That was probably, I suspect, to fight the so-called evils of alcohol. I cannot find one instance where any trust now provides one red cent to any temperance group or union, so the entire purpose of a trust is now gone. They are obsolete, and they are an anachronism in this day and age.

I refer to the Invercargill Licensing Trust and give some examples that I think the Minister and the Government should be interested in, showing how well those trusts in the south served people in their region. The trusts in the south all owned shares in the Washdyke Brewery, owned by Dominion Breweries. One could not buy a bottle of Speights in the south.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Why would you?

I do not expect Mr Clayton Cosgrove to; he has no taste whatsoever. I would expect him to drink West Coast beer or Christchurch stuff.

In fact, the trust was not providing a service for the people of its region. It said: “We have a monopoly, we will exercise that monopoly to the nth degree.” One virtually could not buy Lion Breweries’ or Speights’ products in those areas.

That is totally contrary to what the trust really should be about. It is about the ability of a patron to walk into a bar or hotel and buy a beer, or whatever, of his or her choice, without the barman or the general manager of the trust saying: “You will drink DB when you are at the Invercargill Licensing Trust—take it or leave it.” Well, one could not; one had to stay there.

It is not that long ago since I stayed in a small motel just across the road from the Ascot Park Hotel complex. That unit—and there are a number of them down there—is struggling to compete. These private individuals who are providing a fantastic service are struggling to compete against the loss-making enterprise across the road; that huge complex called Ascot Park. It should never have been built, because it has been built on the back of a monopoly situation—almost extortion, one might say, of the people of Invercargill, who probably still want to keep the trust but do not fully understand the benefits and costs there have been. So I ask members of this House: “Please, don’t ever believe that trusts are there to provide for their patrons.” This is a monopoly situation, and they are going to cling to it.

There is also provision in this bill for community trusts. What licensing trust in its right mind would break its monopoly by becoming a community trust so that some outsider—an independent merchant, or bottle store owner, or whatever—could come into its region and compete on quality and on price? Trusts will not do it. Some might, but they will not do it—they are not financially strong enough, as I said earlier. It is not the sale of liquor that is now keeping these institutions afloat; it is, in fact, the pokie machines.

I think many people in this House will be well aware of the appalling influence of pokie machines right throughout this country. One can no longer go to a hotel, sit down, and have a nice drink of beer or wine, because those damn pokie machines are everywhere. I cannot stand them, and I guess I am showing a little bit of prejudice against them. Nevertheless, that is the reality. They are the money-making machines within these organisations today, and there is absolutely no justification for the licensing trusts to continue on.

There is one aspect that I am pleased to see in the bill—that is, wineries will be allowed to sell their own product on Easter Sunday. Well, is that not an outrageous event? People will be able to drive into the countryside, down into Central Otago, the home of the greatest Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, and Riesling, go into a winery there on a Sunday afternoon—perhaps they have been to church in the morning—and enjoy a glass of wine with a meal in our region, and, indeed, in every region in this country. That is important and proper.

But I would lament one aspect. I would have thought the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) might also include in it somewhere the requirement for younger people to take responsibility for their actions. When we get the huge amount of drunkenness, the related car accidents, and the rest of it, it is society that gets the blame, or the wine seller, or the winery—it is never the kids. I believe that is wrong. The kids should be to blame, instead of the poor old staff member who sells the bottle of wine, or whatever it might be, being whacked with the blame. That responsibility is now gone. The younger people do not understand and do not fully relate to the fact that they are being mollycoddled by a Government that does not seem to understand that it is personal responsibility that ensures good outcomes, not being cosseted and blaming everybody else all the time. I do not see that in this bill, either. It would have been a great opportunity to include something entirely responsible in the bill, but it is not there, and that is a cause for some real disdain and lament.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: What would the member do?

If it were me and I caught a person selling alcohol—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Shame!

Well, Mr Cosgrove can come and talk to me and I will tell him.

I move, That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Commerce Committee, and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 26 February 2004.

Motion agreed to.