Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

We have now reached not the most party-based politically contentious part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill but the bit that is actually contentious among members. I indicate that on Part 5, and on the amendments that will follow, Labour will be having a conscience vote, because this part concerns liquor licensing, which has traditionally been subject to a conscience vote for Labour members of Parliament. There will be the ability, of course, for Labour members to table amendments to this part, on which there will be a range of views. It is fair to say that my younger—half my age—colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and I have some views on this part that differ.

My view is that, overall, between the work of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the work of the Government Administration Committee, a pretty sensible regime has been put together. There is not much doubt that the intention of this part is to liberalise a set of rules and to make it easier to get liquor licences, and, in my opinion, it will be easier to get a more coherent system for dealing with liquor licences on a temporary basis within particular areas, to get some logical planning and some flow around not the big fan zones but the smaller areas, and to ensure that that happens all around the country, not only in places where matches are being played—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Even in the South Island.

Even in Temuka, or wherever it is that the member comes from. Applications for those licences will be made under this part.

Further to that, although I do not have the expertise of the Attorney-General on the definition of “extraterritorial”, this legislation will affect ships at sea, certainly ships within New Zealand’s territorial waters. Those ships will be able to have liquor licences under clause 57, “Interpretation”, and the new interpretation of “ship”. I say to the Rugby World Cup people that although I myself was not there for the presentation, I believe that Therese Walsh gave a cogent presentation on behalf of Rugby World Cup 2011. She made an argument for cruise ships to be able to have liquor licences issued under Part 5. What surprised me is that it became clear to members of the committee that there is a theoretical ruling—I am pretty certain it does not actually happen—that cruise ships while in New Zealand waters cannot have their bars open. It is a really interesting concept, but we need to consider wider legal change if we want to make New Zealand an attractive place for cruise ships. Those of us who have cruised know about the consumption of alcohol on cruise ships—[Interruption] I make absolutely clear to my younger colleagues who have different interpretations of that word that I was quite surprised to learn that, generally, cruise ships within New Zealand waters do not have liquor licences. Clearly, the ferries and some of the ships that ply the coast do, and that is important.

I thank John Hayes, as he and I worked together pretty well on subclause 59(3) to make sure that clubs with permanent charters would not be adversely affected and would be allowed to apply for this sort of special licence. I am sure that the Pētone Working Men’s Club, which is the biggest chartered club in the Wellington region and one of the biggest in the country, will be pleased about this.

But we also recognised that in granting these applications there was an element of risk; there was a danger to the community from the less than scrupulous. [Interruption] I do not want to comment on what I am looking at, Mr Chairman, but I am not sure it is entirely appropriate for you to be addressed in that manner by that member! To return to the bill, the question is what we do with people who breach their special licences made under the Rugby World Cup legislation. We have made clear that if they lose that licence they lose their general licence. They cannot just revert back to one of their old licences if they have a breach. And it is easier for a licensee to lose a licence under this legislation than would normally be the case, so I sound a warning to people out there who will be running bars under this legislation. People do not have to do that. If they want to they can continue operating under their current licences, with one exception, and that is venues. If you are a venue with a current licence, you will be required under this legislation to apply for a Rugby World Cup licence. That requirement was introduced at the request of the Rugby World Cup company in order to make sure there was consistency.

I also know that my colleagues, as members opposite do, have different views about the containers in which liquor should be delivered. I am relatively old-fashioned in these matters and I just hate drinking beer out of paper cups. I know that the Chairman has a different view; the Chairman has drunk quite a lot of beer out of paper cups—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that it is not appropriate to bring the Chair into the debate. What the Chair has or has not done is immaterial. I am here merely to facilitate the debate. The member sets high standards on the rules in the Chamber and I want to make sure he maintains his own standard. By the way, I am not a venue. You said “you are a venue”; the Chair is not a venue.

That could be interpreted in a number of ways. I think some pretty exciting games have been played there.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): There has been a ruling. The member cannot go back to comment on it. The matter is closed.

If it was, it would have been even more exciting!

I thank the Chair for that intervention. The point I am making is that experienced members of this House have been to a number of American football matches and they have been discussing them with me recently. There have been large paper cups of beer there and they have consumed them. I am relatively old-fashioned. I do not mind a tinny, but I prefer—[Interruption] Not a tinny house; the can. The generation gap here is awful. I do not mind drinking beer out of a can; that is the point I am making. I prefer to have it from a glass, but I certainly disagree with those members, including Judith Collins, who wanted to force people to carry around paper cups of flat beer provided from pourers. I think that would make us look like a pretty Mickey Mouse operation. I say well done to Murray McCully, because he stood up to Judith Collins. Not many people have done that. Not many people have stood up in that way.

I now refer especially to clause 73, “Other conditions of licences”. Clause 73(1)(a) makes it clear that the licences must specify the days on which liquor can be sold—that is important—the hours, and conditions relating to the sale and supply of low-alcohol beverages and the provision of food for consumption. But there is something missing here and it is one of the few things Iain Lees-Galloway and I agree on. It is the question of transportation—notices around transportation, and the importance of that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the next speaker I want to make an amendment to the vote. There was a mistake in the addition of the voting on the question that Part 4 stand part. The vote should have been announced as 68 for the Ayes, 48 for the Noes. The record will be corrected.

I have been positioned by a number of members this evening, and now I am even being positioned by a member on my own side, which is a little bit concerning. I suspect that there is a generation gap between the Hon Trevor Mallard—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Or two.

Yeah, maybe, but I suspect that Mr Mallard and I may end up finding that we agree on more; there will be more that binds us than separates us on this matter.

It is fair to say that in my role as the Opposition’s associate health spokesperson working in the drug and alcohol treatment area, a number of the people whom I work with and discuss policy with have expressed their concerns to me about Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because it liberalises liquor licences and, superficially at least, makes it easier to acquire a licence for the period of time that the tournament is occurring. It could cause a proliferation of liquor outlets, and that would be occurring alongside a massive influx of people who are looking for entertainment, looking to go out and drink, and will be out in the cities that are hosting test matches across the country. That is a potential cocktail—pun intended; the member should not look at me like that—for trouble and will be a lot of work for the police, hospitals, emergency departments, and community organisations.

There is a lot of potential for damage, harm, and mess—in all senses and all definitions of the word “mess”—during the world cup. Yes, out there amongst certain sectors of the public, there are some concerns about what Part 5 actually sets out to achieve. However, having looked reasonably closely at Part 5, I think it does a fairly good job of recognising the fact that we need to respond to a large number of people who will be seeking entertainment at entertainment venues.

Some of the points raised in the previous speech were interesting. I have heard bodies referred to as temples; I have even heard one former Prime Minister refer to his body as a warehouse. But to refer to someone’s body as an entertainment venue is a whole new area that perhaps we should not traverse too much tonight.

This bill responds to the fact that a number of people will be looking for entertainment and that our cities will need to be able to respond to that. It does so in, I think, a reasonably responsible way. One of the best provisions in the bill is that those who have acquired a licence under this legislation—they have applied to the Rugby World Cup Authority rather than having a standard Sale of Liquor Act licence—will be required in law to provide free water. That is a significant advance, and perhaps it is leading the way in terms of changes that we might be able to make to our regular legislation. It is a very sensible provision within the bill; I think it makes a lot of sense.

I am concerned about the liberalising and opening up of alcohol consumption on cruise ships. My colleague seems quite excited about this, but the concept of a booze cruise and people conglomerating on a cruise ship with the one purpose in mind of becoming intoxicated is concerning, not least because they are on water and one can fall off a ship. The potential consequences of that are somewhat more dramatic than losing one’s balance in a bar. It is concerning also because of the fact that people are concentrated in an area, and there are few options, especially once the ship is offshore. Once people are out there, they are out there, and their options in terms of walking away from the situation are minimised.

I think it is fair that we discuss this matter a little further. I am certainly open-minded to other members’ opinions on it, and I will be in the Chamber to listen to them. I think it is important in a conscience vote that—

I move, That the question be now put.

It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which I have not had an opportunity to speak on. I think the comments made by my colleagues reflect the importance that this part has within the bill. It refers specifically to liquor licences. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, who has specific responsibility for alcohol matters for the Labour Party, has outlined some of our specific views, but I will touch on a couple of elements that may not have been raised in the debate thus far.

Clause 56 makes a reference in subclause (1)(a) to “the significance of the Rugby World Cup 2011 … the scale of the hospitality that is needed,”. It is unusual to have such language in a bill, but I think it demonstrates the different situation that we are dealing with when it comes to the provision of hospitality specifically for the Rugby World Cup. I wish to outline two concerns. We are expecting anywhere between 70,000 and 85,000 visitors as a consequence of the Rugby World Cup. It is a considerable ask for our existing providers of hospitality, particularly within our city centres like Auckland central, to cover the demands of that huge influx of people. Although, as required under our contract as hosts for the Rugby World Cup, fan zones will be specifically set up to deal with this huge influx, we are also expecting existing hospitality providers to cope. From the conversations I have had with business owners in, for instance, the Ponsonby area, which is very close to central Auckland, they are telling me that they are booked out via corporate functions and corporate hospitality by domestic fans already. Their services are already in demand to the extent that they have no capacity to deal with the additional international guests that we will be hosting.

I guess for me that has highlighted a separate issue when it comes to hospitality, which is that we really need to make sure that the city council and the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is established by this legislation, work really closely with our business associations, and not just the Ponsonby association, Heart of the City, and the loosely formed West Lynn business association, but also the association out in Mount Albert, as well. Not only does the city council need to liaise with them in a more coherent way—because my understanding is that the transition to the super-city has really acted as a barrier to that happening—but also the authority needs to, as well. The businesses will be our interface with our international guests. Although we may put in place all that is necessary to allow additional licences to be granted, we will be asking existing licence holders to deal with this huge event. I do not believe that we have included them in our planning enough to date. That is just a request, if anything, to involve them, and perhaps a word of caution, as well.

I am pleased to see that under clause 56, the purpose clause in this part of the bill, we have highlighted that priority is to be given to “matters of public health and safety”, and also to “the minimisation of harm to persons and property.”

I wonder about the Minister currently in the chair, the Hon David Carter. I think this is the third call in which I have asked the Minister to respond during the Committee stage. I do not think that a response has happened once, and it has been quite a lengthy Committee stage, so that is unfortunate. The request that I make is for the Government to perhaps outline whether it has any expectations about how harm minimisation will occur. Helpfully, Iain Lees-Galloway has pointed out that an unprecedented requirement will now be that some of the suppliers—those who hold licences—will need to provide water. That may seem to be very simple, but people who have been to a very large event will know that they have to hand over their first-born to buy one bottle of water, and will know what a significant change that will be. I wonder whether the Government could outline its other expectations in that area.

I am pleased, as well, that scattered through this part, and also through other parts of the bill, we have significant references to public health. I find that to be ironic, given that in every other aspect of health care generally, the Government has slashed and burned.

I will pick up where I was cut off just before. I am looking for clauses in Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that can give me some reassurance about this part. I was looking at clause 60(6), which says that when “the administrative secretariat forwards an application to the Authority, the administrative secretariat must provide a copy of each application to—(a) the constable in charge of the Police station nearest to the premises or area in respect of which the licence is sought; and (b) the Medical Officer of Health of the district within which those premises or that area is situated; and (c) an inspector; and (d) the chief executive of the New Zealand Fire Service.” It is extremely reassuring that all of those organisations and individuals will be consulted about, and will be aware of, liquor licences that have been applied for under this legislation. Again, I think this clause is another example of how this part does a reasonable job of balancing the need to make venues and alcoholic beverages available with the need to have a focus on public health, and public safety as well.

As Jacinda Ardern picked up on, it is somewhat unusual that this legislation has a fairly good public health focus. That leads me back to the comments made earlier in the debate about which vessels should be used as containers for alcoholic beverages. I believe that the Government should have been a bit bolder, resisted the influence of the liquor industry, and actually said yes, it was OK to have alcoholic beverages in paper cups or in something other than bottles and cans. There are numerous examples of fans having become intoxicated in a group, and of a pack mentality starting to set in. People do things that they would not ordinarily do, and they probably feel quite ashamed about them the next day. Those vessels quickly become missiles, and they can become dangerous, not just to the other people who are watching the matches but also to the players themselves, and potentially to people out in the streets, as well.

I think that the Government should have taken a tougher line on that. It is not unusual for this Government to—I think I should be careful with the words I use, given the warnings that I was given earlier in the night, but when it comes to corporations, especially multinational corporations, this Government is not inclined to stand up to them. It certainly does not say we have a Kiwi way of doing things, and that is the way we will do things in this country. It pretty much just says yes to anything that any corporation says.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: It’s not unparliamentary language.

My colleague Jacinda Ardern is assisting me by saying that the phrase that I used earlier was not unparliamentary. That is true, but I do not really want to trifle with the Chairperson any more than I did. I certainly would not want to see Jacqui Dean need to take any more points of order because I offend her in some way.

I would like to move on to the amendment that is in my name. It is to make a small amendment to Subpart 3. Subpart 3, specifically subclause 72(1)(a), deals with the signage that licensees are required to place in their venues. I saw this as a practical opportunity to improve health and safety for partygoers and people who are at the venues, by requiring the signage to include details of transport options that are available near the premises for patrons, to encourage them to choose safe transportation. There is a reason why I chose that particular method of mitigating the harms related to alcohol: because a lot of the other ones are already well and truly on display and available to patrons. Low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages will be clearly visible in the premises. The food that will be required will be clearly visible on the premises, as well. Even though venues will be required to make available to patrons transport options to assist them and ensure their safety, there is no requirement—

With regard to Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which provides for the temporary process for licensing the sale and supply of liquor in the context of the particular hosting responsibilities related to the Rugby World Cup, I would also like to mention what a number of my colleagues have talked about regarding the vessels, the containers, or the receptacles that contain the liquor. Although my colleague Trevor Mallard expressed his pickiness about the receptacles, I would like to say I am not particularly picky about the receptacles in which the liquor is held; personally, I am more picky about the liquor itself and the quality of that liquor.

I think, on a more serious note, that this is an important issue. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has pointed out, a number of issues are associated with that, as we know from past experience. Some of these issues I have witnessed myself, where people have had liquor sold to them, they became inebriated, and they got into such a state of excitability that they used the receptacles as missiles. This is an important issue, and it is certainly something that needs to be taken into account.

I also note what my colleague Trevor Mallard said about the liquor issue being subject to a conscience vote, and certainly that is important. The whole of New Zealand is having a lot of discussion at the moment on the wider issues of liquor and its effects on our society.

I will comment about two particular aspects. One aspect is the venues, which I do not think have been talked about very much—the kinds of venues in which liquor will be sold, and for which licences will be sought to sell liquor during the Rugby World Cup. I make particular mention of some of the discussion that has been happening in Dunedin around where the rugby fans could be watching the games—and this is an issue not just in Dunedin but right around the country, in centres where games are not being held. The issue is about the venues in which people will be watching games and for which liquor licences will be sought. There is quite an interesting discussion about the possibility that Dunedin rugby fans could be watching the Rugby World Cup final in 3-D on a big screen at the new Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin, from the comfort of a cinema seat. I note also that there is discussion about cinema lines around the country looking to screen some of the matches in cinemas. Members have to ask whether liquor will be sold in those venues. Presumably it will be.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.