Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2)

There are several things that I would like to draw to members’ attention. The first is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that seeks to deal with the sale of Chinese rice wine or cooking condiments. It has been accepted for quite some time that these types of wines are undrinkable. They have not attracted excise duty, because, in customs terms, they are denatured, which means that they have had substantial amounts of salt added to them that therefore renders them undrinkable. Because they are undrinkable, they are not excisable, and because they are not excisable, people did not think that they were covered by the Sale of Liquor Act. However, investigations by some others have determined that they are covered by the Sale of Liquor Act. They are not a medicine, and cannot be considered a medicine, so the Sale of Liquor Act has to deal with them.

In Supplementary Order Paper 198, I propose that these condiments can be sold as part of an off-licence under section 37(3), and that they can be sold in the likes of supermarkets. This is a similar amendment to that which Pansy Wong also foreshadowed, and therefore we are talking along similar lines. I recommend my Supplementary Order Paper to members.

The second amendment in the name of Pansy Wong seeks to extend the sale of these condiments to a broader range of shops. This falls foul of a second problem for us, concerning the Lopdell v Deli Holdings Ltd decision. I recommend to the Committee that we oppose this amendment. There is some confusion in the Sale of Liquor Act about people having the ability to sell liquor. In the past, people have been granted liquor licences when their principal business is food but their shops are not supermarkets. This is an issue, and the court has ruled that where the principal business is food and the place is not a supermarket, people cannot sell liquor. There are some complex issues at the back of this that I do not want to go into at this stage, but I signal to members that it is my intention to come back some time later with a bill that will deal with those issues. I do not wish to deal with them today. Because the second amendment in Pansy Wong’s name goes into this area, I propose that we vote against it.

There is another amendment in the name of Brian Connell. He is seeking to knock out the provision that will deal with controlled purchase operations. I have heard that the basis of the amendment is the ACT party’s view that this is entrapment. But in my view, the ACT party does not quite appreciate that Parliament has already passed legislation that has a similar arrangement in it—the smoking legislation. For a long time, police have sent people who are underage into liquor establishments to see whether liquor would be sold to them, as a means of testing whether the law is being complied with.

Similar things have been happening with regard to smoking, but in the case of smoking, it is provided for in legislation. When one of these cases came before the court, it was argued that by the police using—without the authority of the law—someone underage, they were aiding and abetting the breaking of the law. The court said that that was wrong. This change in the law seeks to give police the ability to have a controlled purchase operation to ensure that people are selling liquor correctly to those who are aged 18 years and over. Let us be clear that if people vote for Brian Connell’s amendment, they will take from the police a very powerful tool for enforcing Parliament’s wish. I say to members unequivocally that I am totally opposed to Brian Connell’s amendment, and I support the bill as it stands.

There are a couple of other issues. The first is that there are two other minor amendments that seek to change some of the dates on which these provisions come into effect. One will be the date on which the bill receives the royal assent, changed to 1 April, principally to enable the provision that will allow wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday, from this Easter. I think that that is a good idea. This amendment will give effect to that.

The other amendment in the name of Mr Catchpole is to delete “15 percent”, and reduce it to “7.5 percent”. I recommend to members that we vote against that amendment, for two reasons. Firstly, the current competition poll is set at 15 percent, and I see no logic to have one poll at 7.5 percent, and the other at 15 percent. Secondly, in the very next new section, 219F, there is another threshold whereby the number of electors requesting a poll has to pass 15 percent, and it is remaining unaltered. If we change one threshold to 7.5 percent, as recommended by Mr Catchpole, and have all the other thresholds at 15 percent, we will simply create anomalies in the legislation for no useful purpose.

I have one last point to make, in relation to the comments made by Mr Hide. He has a couple of amendments that basically set out to de-license licensing trusts. Mr Hide has argued that Parliament should not make decisions about these, that this should be simply a matter of principle, and that we should let the market decide. On this side of the Chamber—and I recommend this to the Chamber, as well—we believe that the public should decide. Licensing trusts are set up by a public ballot, and the provisions make it very easy for the public to exercise a ballot for trusts to either maintain their monopoly licence, or to lose it. On two occasions, the Waitakere Licensing Trust has gone to a ballot, and the people of Waitakere have made their decision. They want a licensing trust to be in the area, and for it to have exclusive rights. A similar thing has happened in Invercargill. My view and the Government’s view—and, I hope, the rest of the Committee’s view—is that if the public want a licensing trust to have monopoly rights, then the public should decide. Mr Hide and the ACT party should not tell the public what they can and cannot have. That is the Government’s view on that. Labour supports the legislation as it stands.

I have tabled three amendments. First of all, I welcome the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper with regard to the sale of Chinese cooking wine, even though it is very belated. I was upset because that issue occurred in November 2002, and this current legislation was introduced last year. At some time during the first reading, I alerted the Minister to the problem it was causing council officials, who knew that it was nonsense to ask Asian supermarket owners to remove all Chinese cooking wine from their shelves. Can members imagine advising customers that if they want to buy a bottle of Chinese cooking wine, they have to get it from a bottle store? Nobody thinks of going to a bottle store to get Chinese cooking wine. The Minister did not see fit to foreshadow that he would bring in an amendment, so all this time, store owners and officials have been put under undue stress.

I point out that when the New Zealand Herald ran a story on Chinese cooking wine in February this year, it concluded the article by stating: “Police and council staff in greater Auckland were unable to give examples of underaged drinkers being caught with Chinese cooking wine.” I was also interviewed by BBC Radio wondering what was happening in New Zealand that there was such a crackdown on the sale of Chinese cooking wine. Imagine stir-fried beef without Chinese cooking wine! I welcome the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198, but I wish he had shadowed it a lot earlier so that it would not have caused that stress—and that would have saved me tabling an amendment, as well.

I want to take issue with the Minister about the amendment to clause 13 that I proposed. It was not to do with extending the privilege to other operators. Nowadays, we have corporate gift operators and ethnic stores that make up gift baskets for festivals, etc., that include a bottle of alcohol. In the past, that has been handled by those operators getting an off-licence; that is, if the Liquor Licensing Authority sees fit, it can grant them that licence. But that practice can no longer happen, because of a court decision. The court reckoned that the last amendment to the legislation that Parliament passed provided that supermarkets etc. cannot get an exemption to sell alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer.

I do not think those other corporate gift operators have that in mind. That is why I proposed the amendment. It was basically to inject back some common sense into the Liquor Licensing Authority—to give it that discretion to allow those small ethnic stores and corporate gift operators to do that.

My third amendment, to clause 21, which I hope the Committee will see fit to support, relates to training. The bill repeals section 117A of the principal Act and substitutes new section 117A, “General manager must hold prescribed qualification”. Members of the industry informed the Commerce Committee that there was no consultation, and the training manual that is now imposed on the industry is draconian. I have tabled an amendment stating that that particular requirement should not come into effect until the content of the qualification has been consulted on fully with the industry. It should also include only the unit standards 4646 and 16705.

It is time for Parliament to support the industry in trusting it to be able to come up with common-sense solutions. After all, we have demonstrated in the last amendments to the legislation that we passed that we did not do a good job with regard to the fiasco over Chinese cooking wine, and we have removed a lot of the common-sense discretion given to the Liquor Licensing Authority. I certainly think that the industry as a whole has come to more maturity in terms of knowing what type of qualification and what sort of training is appropriate for it. I hope the Committee will support all my amendments.

I say good on Pansy Wong for moving those changes, especially the changes relating to the transition to the training programmes. But why have the training programmes? That question has not been asked. Let me go through, if I may, the changes that I will be recommending through my amendments. There are three major ones. I have proposed a change to clause 13, because there is an anomaly whereby if one is giving a corporate gift basket and one puts a wee bottle of sherry or something in it, that is actually against the law. I have tabled an amendment to allow that to occur. How sensible is that? It is a good amendment, and I look forward to Mr Barker and his colleagues reading it and supporting it.

I am pleased to see that the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, has decided to allow Chinese cooking wine to be bought and sold in minimarts. I have an amendment here to do the same, but he has obviously foreshadowed my move. I hope the Minister’s drafting is as good as mine, because the officials advised the Commerce Committee it was not possible to draft such an amendment. That is what they told the committee. But suddenly, after Pansy Wong and Rodney Hide both did it, the honourable Minister Rick Barker said it would not be very hard to do so, and has done it himself. I just worry that his amendment is not as good as Ms Wong’s and mine.

I come to another amendment that must concern the Minister. Heaven knows how he keeps a straight face when he is paid each fortnight, because what has he done? He has come along with a bureaucratic nightmare for the training programme for managers. It is loopy. Most liquor licensees and outlets are small businesses. The Minister is putting a requirement on them to get a different form of training, which will cost $250 or $300 or so for the qualification. The Minister has not established a case that it is needed. There are thousands of managers of liquor outlets in New Zealand. They have all been trained; they all have certificates. What is the problem? Those required to hand their licences in are 0.1 percent. But oh no, the Minister has come along with a high-cost, bureaucratic process for giving out those certificates that, I have to say, favours some trainers over all the rest. I can only look at that Minister and wonder why that should be the case. He says he has consulted with the industry. Quite frankly, he has not. He might have talked to his mates who like this bill, but he has not spoken to the industry.

I say to the Minister that he should imagine how dumb it is that someone who is out there successfully managing a liquor outlet, and who has his or her manager’s certificate, has to retrain because of this legislation. That person has to get another certificate at an estimated cost of $150. It is a money grab by the private trainers. That is the problem. Those are the people who have been talking to the Minister and helping him, rather than the Minister talking to the industry.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Ha, ha!

Rick Barker likes to laugh, but he has not got off his chuff and gone and talked to the industry, as the ACT party, the National Party, and New Zealand First have. They know what is going on. They know that there is no problem that needs to be fixed by making that change.

I beg the National Party, New Zealand First, the Greens, United Future—and I look across to Labour Party members—to support my amendments and vote against excessive bureaucracy. I ask them to vote against a grab by private trainers for money, with the help of that lazy Minister, and to vote against legislation that is before the Committee for no good purpose. I would love the Minister to get up and explain the problem.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Brent Catchpole.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Don’t shout!

The useless Minister of Corrections too, while we’re at it.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Stop shouting.

Hopeless Minister! $1.3 million down the tubes.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Where’s that electorate office money?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That shows exactly what the trouble is in this Chamber with regard to order. Ministers can call out, and there is no problem.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Come to your point of order, Mr Hide.

I am coming to it. When members of the Opposition respond to Ministers who call out, the Chair jumps on them. The Chair called “Order!” twice—we all heard him—the Minister carried on interjecting, and the Chair did nothing. We ask you to protect every member in this Chamber—

I ask members to desist from calling out. Chaos may be the parent of creation, but in this Chamber I will have order. I recognise what Mr Hide said, but I did call the Minister to order. I asked him to desist from calling out, and it was my understanding that he did desist.

I would just like to express my disappointment in Rick Barker for suggesting that the House vote against my amendment. New Zealand First feels that the threshold for a poll should have been lowered. It should have been made easier to call for a poll. I take the point that there are several different figures within this bill, and we note that yes, when a licensing trust has decided, through its board of trustees, to reconstitute, it does have to tell the public. The bill is quite clear that the trust must notify the public and its trustees. But the bill then opens up a situation whereby the trustees and the public have to call for a poll themselves, in order to be able to overturn the ruling of the board of trustees. We believe the threshold for that is too high, and therefore we requested a lowering of that figure. I do express my disappointment that the Minister, without allowing the debate to go forward, has already signalled that he would like to see that amendment thrown out. I am disappointed in that.

It all comes down to the basis of a licensing trust converting to a community trust. This bill allows that process to happen. The licensing trusts were set up with a definite restricted area in which they controlled every aspect of the sale of liquor, excluding liquor sold by any supermarkets that moved into those areas. There was a case in Auckland during the last election where the supermarket chains set out to try to overturn the licensing trust. They regarded the financial disclosure requirements of the trusts as inadequate, because they could not identify exactly what was the financial part of the liquor sales. So they wanted to separate that out. I am pleased the Minister did not allow that to happen, because it would have set up a process whereby the supermarket chains would target trusts where they saw there were substantial gains to be made in liquor sales. That is an area we feel was important.

I would now like to touch on the subject of wine being sold by wineries on a Sunday. This measure is just a means of bringing the situation back into line with what was the case prior to the 1999 amendment of the principal Act. We are in favour of that measure. It is to do with tourism. A large body of tourists moves around the country and has the opportunity to try our world-class wines. If tourists are in the country from a cruise ship for just a day or two, they do not get that opportunity, and it would be a sad moment to realise that New Zealand had lost a golden opportunity to promote its world-class wines. I would like to highlight a survey that was done by New Zealand Winegrowers. It surveyed 459 of its members, from which it received 149 replies, which is quite a high percentage when we consider that other surveys consider 1 or 2 percent to be a pretty good response rate. This was a very high response rate, and of those wineries, 138 agreed with allowing wineries to open on Easter Sunday. That is a clear indication that the wineries want that measure.

I want to take just a brief call, because I know the Committee is keen to make progress on this measure. The United Future members will be voting in favour of the Minister’s amendments to clause 14, regarding Easter Sunday wine sales, and also relating to the issues he raised in relation to Chinese cooking wines.

I want to speak briefly to my own proposed amendment to clause 14, which makes some changes to section 37 of the principal Act, regarding off-licence sales at clubs. The best way I can illustrate what I am seeking to do is by an example. I see my friend the Minister of Labour is standing in the lobby, and I will just use “Swainy” as an example. If I were to go to the Johnsonville Club with “Swainy”, who was a member of the Petone club, we could both consume alcohol on site with our meal. But when we were going back to “Swainy’s” house to watch the rugby, if I decided we should buy some supplies to take with us, I could buy off-licence from the club but “Swainy” could not, even though he is a member of a reciprocal club.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member will use the member’s proper name.

I am referring to a mythical colleague.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No. I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 26/7 and 26/8. A member’s proper name is to be used.

I accept your ruling. I would simply say that the Minister and I have been friends for years longer than I care to remember, and I hope this does not alter that greatly.

The point I am making is simply that my amendment extends a provision that currently relates to on-site consumption to the off-licence situation. It is simply a logical move, and I would commend it to the attention of members of the Committee. It does not actually change the situation very significantly, because of the reciprocity issue that is at the heart of the club movement. I think that is probably the only explanation I should give. I suspect I now need to go and talk to the Minister of Labour, but I do hope that members will support the amendment when it comes up later on.

On the table are two amendments in my name that call for the deletion of clauses 25 and 26 of this bill. I raise these concerns because I simply believe that these are entrapment clauses and they are fundamentally unfair. The hypocrisy of the argument that says we can break the law to enforce the law is not lost on me. I do not believe there would a publican in the country who will not be trapped by these clauses if the police are determined to trap him or her. That is my major concern. I ask the Minister in the chair to reflect on the following situation. A 17-year-old female who has the whole 9 yards of make-up on and is dressed to kill goes into a busy bar. She is shoulder to shoulder with other punters. The person behind the bar, who is stressed, tired, and has others waiting to be served, simply asks what she wants and then does it.

💬 Brent Catchpole: ID please.

That is true, technically. But the reality is that it just will not happen like that. We are going to turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers. Is that what the Minister really intends? I do not think that is what he intends, but that is what will happen. It is fundamentally unfair, which is why I have proposed the amendments, and why I ask members of the Committee to consider these amendments. We will be turning law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers.

I know publicans, licensees, and bar managers across the country who sit down with their employees and say, “Look, be careful. Be careful that you don’t serve people who are under age.” But the reality is that it just does not happen like that. People come into a bar and I know what has happened. I know that situations have arisen where the police have had orchestrated “stings”, and they have got their person. They have kept going back, despite the fact they know the publicans concerned have sat down with their staff and said: “Look, make sure you are careful.” Most of the people behind bar counters are just children themselves. They are 18, 19, 20-year-olds, with their first job. They do not really care whether the publican or licensee gets hit for a $10,000 fine, but that is what will happen. Instead of those young individuals having any responsibility, it falls on the shoulders of the licensee or publican.

That is why I ask members to reflect on that. They must look into their hearts and ask whether that is fair and whether that is enforceable? The answer is no. The law is stupid law if we cannot easily enforce it. If we really want to deal with the issue, we should at least have a discussion or debate about increasing the drinking age, or say that if anyone wants to buy booze, then proof of age and identity are compulsory, regardless. We should put the emphasis back on the purchaser and not on the seller. If the Minister were to move such an amendment, then this legislation would have wide support right across the nation. I ask him to reflect on that. I ask him to think about how this legislation, if it goes through in this guise, will be accepted across the nation. He will do his party immeasurable harm, because the law will not be enforceable.

Damien O’Connor from the West Coast must be having kittens when thinking about this legislation. Someone in a bar down on the West Coast will walk in and say: “I want a beer.” The question will come: “How old are you?”. Well, I cannot repeat the type of exchange that would take place, because it would probably be very unparliamentary, but I can tell members that this legislation is just not going to be enforced. So I repeat my request to the Minister that he thinks about this legislation. Essentially, it is not common sense.

The other issue I want to address while I am on my feet concerns the regulations. I must say Mr Hide summarised that pretty well when he said the majority of people in the industry describe the legislation, with regard to the regulations, as a waste of time and money. It is repetitive, because we already have two units that are reasonably well respected in the industry. This legislation simply loads that responsibility on to the publicans, etc., when hitherto it was carried out by police and liquor licensing inspectors. It is simply not wanted.

It is argued that the legislation requires a person to learn to deal with drunks, assess when people have had too much booze, and therefore refuse to serve them. But the training will take place in sterile environments. It is easy to assess someone else, when sitting in an office, where a makeshift bar has been created. Someone from the bar staff walks in and says: “Oh, by the way, my script says: ‘Are you drunk?’,” and the other person says: “Oh, yes. I’ve had a few.” The staff person says: “I’m sorry, I can’t serve you.” “That’s OK.”, says the other person and walks out. That is role play. It will not happen in reality, will it?

I used the example before of a busy bar. Would members imagine this situation? The music is blaring, the bar is going off, there are people shoulder to shoulder at the bar, and someone stands there and says: “I want a drink.” The judgment call by the bar staff is: “Are you drunk? Are you too drunk for me to serve?”. Most of the time they will not even be able to hear the patrons, let alone use judgment as to whether they are drunk.

There is no better example of the impracticality of this issue than a Target programme shown on TV3 last May. An actor walked into 10 bars, and nine out of 10 served him liquor when he was acting drunk. When asked why he was served, bar staff answered that they thought he was clowning around—and that is the reality of it. No one will be able to determine whether someone is clowning around drunk, too drunk, or not drunk enough. It probably suggests that the actor involved was not too flash, either.

Another area concerns me, and it is really an issue I should address to Rick Barker, the Minister in the chair, because I have a letter he sent back to some constituents. The paragraph in question is this: “I understand that the Hospitality Standards Institute undertook a wide consultation process to formulate the qualification, and that key stakeholders included members of the liquor industry, the Sale of Liquor Act national trainers, the Hospitality Association of New Zealand, the Alcohol Advisory Council, the Liquor Licensing Authority, some district licensing agencies, and the police.” I point out to the Minister that when I contacted those people they said that no one had spoken to them, at all.

I spoke to Swain and Associates, who are major corporate trainers in this field, and they told me they have large corporate clients, including a supermarket chain. Many of them have up to 30 or more certified managers. According to their research, none of those groups had been consulted.

The Hospitality Association of New Zealand, formerly known as the Hotel Association of New Zealand, had this to say: “Our information is that the association has about 1,800 members. If they claim the Restaurant Association has another 250 members, it gives them a total of about 4,300 members.” I tell the Minister that the total number of current licences operating in New Zealand is 15,435.

There are several matters I want to raise. Firstly, I should have mentioned earlier the third amendment put forward by Pansy Wong, which makes specific reference to course numbers. She thought the numbers needed to be in the legislation to ensure the industry was consulted. I agree with the intention of her amendment, but I do not agree with its form. The Government’s intention is that once the legislation is passed, regulations will be drawn up; and of course those regulations will go before the Regulations Review Committee.

One of the requirements of regulations is that industry must be consulted. It may be that the hospitality industry training organisation will change the course numbers, or make other changes. If we were to put course numbers in legislation, it would be impossible to have the law comply. It would be complicated to get a law change in order to alter course numbers in an Act of Parliament. It is much better to have that dealt with by regulation.

I have talked to the Hotel Association, to the Beer, Wine and Spirits Council, and to others about it, and explained how the process will work. It will be done in consultation with the industry so we agree on what the standards are and how the designations will be made. It will then be done by regulation. So if the course content and other circumstances change, we can update the regulations, which is much easier than getting an amendment to the Sale of Liquor Act. So although I agree with the intent of Pansy Wong’s amendment, I think the process should be by way of regulation. I have given the industry my assurance that we will consult to make sure that that is what happens.

Mr Connell claims there has been no consultation with industry over that training. I say to him that is not true.

💬 Brian Connell: That’s not what they’re saying to me, Minister.

Well, I say to the member that, as one example, I have personally talked about this matter, on three occasions that I can recall, with the Hospitality Association. If that is not consultation, I do not know what is. If the association is saying it has not had consultation, I would be surprised about that.

The second matter I want to raise concerns the need for regulations. This is not being done to duplicate anything. The law was changed before to make manager’s certificates appropriate, but we do not have a transitional process. This legislation will allow us to transit to the circumstances we have all agreed to. I think we do have to have some industry training. Mr Hide says “No”, but I think we do. I do not have as dismal a view—

💬 Brian Connell: We have two units now.

We are going to have those two units. I do not have as dismal a view as the member about industry training. I think that people are well trained and this provision will be well supported.

The third matter is about gift baskets, which Mr Hide referred to. He makes it sound very simple—a gift basket with some alcohol put in, and that can be sold everywhere. But that is not the case. What people are looking at in the industry is to be able to sell other sorts of food with beer: slabs of pizzas with beer, and so on, to order as takeaways. If that is the case, it is well beyond what Parliament intended with the change in the Sale of Liquor Act. That is what is at the heart of the Lopdell decision and it is the issue that I want to come back to, so that we can have a clear steer on what the options are for dealing with those anomalies.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Before we put the questions, I understand the whips have agreed that instead of having personal votes they wish to have split votes. I seek leave that on the question of the amendments in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14, and the amendment in my name, that notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b) the votes to be cast by a party on a party vote are to include votes cast, Ayes, Noes, and recorded abstentions, so we have split votes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

I came back rather late and I am not fully conversant with exactly what is happening, but I do want to take a call on this bill. It seems to me that it is just more ill-conceived and bad legislation that will affect a large number of people.

The bill allows for the retention of licensing trusts. The real question is why. If we are going to reform this industry, as it has been reformed, why are we allowing the retention of monopoly rights—to be more correct—for licensing trusts? If a community wishes to have some sort of trust running, whether it be a liquor store, a hotel, or indeed a grocer’s shop, then I have no real problem with that. What I, and I am sure my party, have real problems with is the monopoly provision that no one can set up in opposition to this publicly owned entity. The real question is why. Is the trust such a fantastic commercial model that it is the only option or measure of success we can look at?

I am led to believe that the return on capital of an institution such as the Invercargill Licensing Trust, which has been around for yonks and has had total monopoly rights in that area, is a return of just 1 or 2 percent on its capital. Most industries would go broke on that return, yet that trust can charge its patrons in Invercargill whatever it likes, and there is no option if one lives within its boundary. It is an outrageous situation. The Invercargill Licensing Trust will not become a community trust and lose its monopoly power—that will just not happen.

There is another rather insidious aspect to some of these monopoly trusts. The reality is simply that much of the money these trusts disperse to charities comes from gambling—from one-armed bandits and slot machines, etc. The money they make from their liquor sales and so on is because in many cases those hotels are saying to the clubs—the cricket club, the bowling club, the chess club, or whatever it might be—that they will disperse the moneys to the clubs as long as the clubs buy their alcoholic requirements from them. That is well established and anybody in the industry knows that it occurs. If somebody else, perhaps the local bowling club, buys its product from somebody else it is told in no uncertain terms by the trust: “OK, you’re buying your liquor from the Jeff Connell liquor store in mid-Canterbury, so we will disperse our charitable funds to another club because you no longer support us.” Essentially that is blackmail, and that is what this bill allows. It allows for continuous—

💬 Rodney Hide: It’s like what Paul Swain does in corrections.

It is pretty much like it. In the limited time I have left I turn my attention to the question of entrapment, which I am sure many speakers have spoken about already. I ask the Committee to imagine the situation where three young people walk into a bottle store—two are 17 and one is 18. They put $10 each into the kitty, walk up to the bottle store person, and say they want to buy $30 of liquor—a couple of dozen cans, or whatever it is. Who then is the purchaser?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: The person who hands over the cash.

Absolutely; I would agree entirely with that. But if the police had been watching those two 17-year-olds handing over the money, it seems to me that there is a really grey area there that this bill has not addressed at all. If there were a rugby match at Carisbrook and those young people were in the bottle store 5 minutes after the game when there was a huge rush, then the poor old bottle store owner would get whacked. He would be fined very substantial sums of money because the staff were rushed off their feet. That is wrong and it is inappropriate in every aspect.

If we are really looking at society and its alcohol problem, we have to address the issue of the fivefold increase in the number of outlets. That is the single biggest reason why we are having this problem today. We should not blame the guy who is rushed off his feet in a hotel bottle store, or the bottle store owner who makes a mistake because a 17-year-old comes who looks 25. If the youth is asked for his identity card he says that he does not have it but that it must be there somewhere. He looks near enough in age, and behind him the next person is clamouring to get his or her supplies and be away. Why are we blaming that bar person, bar owner, or whoever it might be, for the problems we face in our society? It is not their fault, and I am totally and utterly opposed to that concept.

Another issue that Pansy Wong and my colleague Rodney Hide have introduced is the problem of the Chinese wine and cooking condiments. What is sherry if it is not a cooking condiment? When a ham is roasting in the oven with a bit of sherry poured over it, or a trifle, for goodness’ sake, has a bit of sherry in it, is sherry not a cooking condiment? Members might think that these sorts of arguments are quite trivial, but I am illustrating these points because, as my colleague Rodney Hide pointed out, the principle behind the whole concept is fundamentally flawed. It is wrong, and that is why we start to get all those anomalies about Chinese cooking wine and sherries when we get into the ridiculous situation of trying to license and control the sale of liquor. It is wrong.

We made a major mistake in this House just recently by imposing a “sherry tax” on the elderly. That was never the intention of this Parliament, yet the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, rammed that through and we got a major problem out of that. That is all I have to say at this time, but I regret deeply the thrust of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): In accordance with leave of the House a separate vote is to be taken on the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales. In accordance with leave also granted this will be a split party vote.

The question is that the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wines sales be agreed to.

The amendments to clauses 22, 23, and 27(1) in the name of Rodney Hide are out of order as the amendment to clause 21 was not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brian Connell to clause 25 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

I thank members of the Committee for their perseverance and patience.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading