Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill deals with Rugby World Cup liquor licences. I will ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, to address a couple of issues.

The first point I make is to agree that there was a need to make some changes to liquor licence laws. One reason was the decision from some branch of the liquor licensing authorities stating that where an event is to be held outside of the normal terms and conditions of liquor licences—a situation that is the subject of a special licence application at the moment—and where the grounds for that application are to replay or play contemporaneously in another venue televised coverage of a match that is on elsewhere, it is not within the jurisdiction of the authority to grant the application. That may well be a fair rule normally, but the view of the Government—and the Opposition agrees—is that in respect of the Rugby World Cup, when there will be a lot of people in town who, for some matches, will not be able to get a ticket, and who will want to go along and watch the game somewhere else, those people should be able to do that on licensed premises. Those licensed premises should be able to get a variation of their licence to enable that to happen, and this bill enables it to happen.

The other question I would like the Minister to answer is whether he is willing to express an opinion, based on the experiences that we had at Eden Park over the weekend, about whether we need to take a bit of care here. People getting too tanked up, booing during the Australian national anthem, and throwing bottles on to Eden Park is not a good look. I am sure that none of us in this Chamber want to see that repeated in the Rugby World Cup. Given that the authorities said that the rugby league match on the weekend was a bit of a dress rehearsal for what will happen at the Rugby World Cup, there might be a need to look at some of those licensing conditions as they apply to Eden Park.

Personally, I have always thought that it is a nonsense that in New Zealand we can buy cans and bottles at such venues. They cannot in America. Why not? Because personal injury cases were taken in America, and won when the relevant counsel took out of a paper bag the simple solution of a paper or plastic cup, which, of course, avoids injury to people. It is pretty hard to throw a paper cup very far—the liquid falls out—compared with a full bottle, which can hurt someone. I hope that consideration is given to moving to that sort of a regime in New Zealand, where we consider, at least—and I am not sure what the right answer is—whether under liquor licensing conditions we can protect the public from injury by making sure that liquor is served in a vessel that cannot be thrown. It is a pretty simple advance that seems to have been made in other Western democracies, including the United States, and I hope that through this legislation we can achieve something similar.

I ask the Minister in the chair whether the provisions of Part 5 on Rugby World Cup liquor licences can be used to impose reasonable conditions that are better for members of the public. It would also mean that someone cannot walk back with a dozen secreted around different parts of his or her body, because it is pretty hard to carry a dozen open vessels of beer. I ask that the Minister in the chair address that issue, which arose out of the experience that we had in Eden Park over the weekend.

Following on from David Parker’s speech, I think the question of liquor licences and the containers used for liquor is very important. I was present at the rugby league test between New Zealand and Australia on Saturday night, so I had a very good on-the-spot experience of what went on. Thankfully, I bought a $5 programme prior to the event, which I could put over my head to protect myself from any falling missiles.

I read that for the Rugby World Cup itself, Heineken will be one of the official sponsors, and Heineken is demanding that there be cans of beer for sale, no doubt because it wants to advertise its products. What is happening is that we are being driven by multinational sponsors to sell the beer in cans. The sponsors demand that in return for their sponsorship and the millions of dollars or whatever the amount may be that they are paying for it, even though the cans will potentially injure people at those games. We are losing control over the situation. It is a bit like the old Hobbit furore, when we were driven by Warner Bros; now we are being driven by Heineken. The cans will, no doubt, be even more dangerous than the plastic bottles were last Saturday night, particularly if the cans still have a bit of beer left in them.

That is one of the problems with the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill as a whole, and with this particular part. The power given to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup is a bit like the power given to John Key to negotiate with Warner Bros. The decision will come out on the side of the stronger party, which will be the multinational company, backed up by the International Rugby Board and all of its official sponsors. We will have to have cans, even if there is a risk of injury. I agree totally with what David Parker said when he asked why we cannot serve the liquor in paper cups or whatever. We will never overcome completely the problem of drunkenness. When I was walking to the game on Saturday night, every bar in the Mount Eden area was packed to the gunnels with people tanking themselves up prior to the game. We cannot really control the fact that there will be drunken people at the games, so we will have to handle the situation in the best way that we can.

The other thing that David Parker mentioned was the booing that went on. I put the prime responsibility for that—and I have been along to watch Warriors games at Mount Smart Stadium—on the organisers of those contests. The thing I notice at rugby league games, as compared with some other codes, is the great partisanship on the part of the person on the loudspeaker, the MC, who rarks people up to support the Warriors and, in effect, encourages people to boo the team playing the Warriors. That behaviour carries over to the tests. Responsibility is not on “rugby league louts”; the responsibility is on the people who organise the loudspeaker system at Mount Smart Stadium.

Really, what happened on Saturday night was more of an issue of crowd behaviour. The first Mexican wave went round, and a few people threw plastic bottles in the air. Then the more that it went round, the more people understood that that was the thing to do, and threw things up in the air, wrongly failing to take into account the danger to people. The situation should not be seen completely out of proportion. Crowd behaviour can be controlled with proper control of the loudspeaker system, and that was lacking in the first two or three Mexican waves last Saturday night, as well. If the people who were running the show had intervened on the loudspeaker to tell people to calm down, and that Mexican waves were all right but that people should not throw their stuff into the air, that could have controlled the crowd’s behaviour, as it was controlled at a later point by interventions on the loudspeakers.

It is important not to give the powers available under this legislation to Ministers, and particularly not to give them to the Minister concerned, because the Rugby World Cup will be driven by multinational sponsors at the expense of the safety of the people who are participating. Thanks.

I rise to speak to Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I note that when the international media covers images of football fans rioting in the streets of a city somewhere in the UK, the international community takes a very strong view of it. It certainly does not reflect well on that particular country. Although it might be a very isolated event in France and other parts of Europe, those things happen, and those of us who are watching from New Zealand think it is a pretty bad thing to happen. We wonder whether we really want to go there. We do not want that sort of occurrence happening in New Zealand.

I think this bill addresses the concerns that I have expressed, and that have been expressed by other members in the Chamber. I do not know whether I necessarily agree with the contribution of the previous speaker, Keith Locke; I am not sure that the commentator at the park has as much influence as that in inflaming or controlling a crowd. But certainly the Rugby World Cup liquor licensing regime aims to do that. It is certainly not the only aspect that will maintain good crowd-control, and I acknowledge that the person on the end of the loudspeaker might have a slight effect.

I think we need to take note of what happened at Eden Park in the rugby league game last week, and do whatever it takes to make sure that kind of behaviour is not repeated at the Rugby World Cup next year, and that we do not have those images broadcast around the globe on which people may base their decisions on whether New Zealand is a good place to come to. Obviously, one of the good side effects of the Rugby World Cup will be the promotion of New Zealand as a desirable destination.

I will address the issues of liquor licensing. This bill does not change the criteria of liquor licensing; in other words, it certainly does not make it any easier to get a liquor licence just because we have a large sporting event and want to provide some hospitality to New Zealanders and visitors. What it does is speed up the process for getting liquor licences and ensures that the significant volume of applications that we expect will be processed in time.

I do not think it would be true to say that this bill goes soft on liquor licences. In fact, the bill provides for some additional requirements, which traverse things like providing food and having free drinking water available. It also gives police more powers to remove licences if conditions are breached. If members turn to clause 59, they will see that the suspension of a Sale of Liquor Act licence will continue for the duration of the Rugby World Cup. So if a Rugby World Cup liquor licence has been suspended for non-compliance, the operator cannot then turn to the licence provisions under the Sale of Liquor Act and continue to trade. I would have thought that was a strong incentive to maintain good host responsibility and compliance.

It is disappointing that we have had events at Eden Park such as those on Saturday night. We simply cannot tolerate—

💬 Paul Quinn: Rugby league.

Whatever—it was a game of sport. We simply cannot tolerate that kind of behaviour. The stakes are too high for us in New Zealand. Next year’s Rugby World Cup needs to be different. The management needs to be stricter and there needs to be more proactive alcohol management planning. I note that in Wellington when people go to the Sevens, as I have on several occasions, the rules on—

💬 Grant Robertson: How did you dress?

I was stunning. In fact, I will give you a rundown. I was a potted plant one year, and another year—well, never mind. I particularly enjoyed the occasion but was not able to buy bottles of liquor. The liquor licensing requirements are already tight for some events in New Zealand. Many, many people flock to Wellington for the whole Sevens weekend, and the event is run successfully. I hope that kind of liquor licensing regime will prevail throughout New Zealand for the Rugby World Cup.

I would like to pick up from where the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, left off on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. She brought up the Rugby Sevens—

💬 Jacqui Dean: The potted plant was it?

—and potted plants as well.

💬 Craig Foss: What did you go as?

I have never actually been to the Sevens, sadly enough. It is something I would like to fix.

💬 Paul Quinn: As a Bucket Head!

I have never been to a Turbos match as a Bucket Head, either. Moving on, the question was raised about the Sevens, and I think that was a really good point. At the Sevens, the entertainment that goes on around the rugby is often really more of the event than the rugby itself. Whereas I hope that people who are heading along to the Rugby World Cup would want to make the rugby on the field itself the centre of entertainment. Perhaps the alcohol is more of a side issue. It is something that goes with the rugby, rather than the other way around, with the rugby going alongside the alcohol. The Associate Minister Turia is making some interjections; maybe she will take a call and we can hear her views on this.

But the point I am getting at is a point I was talking about a couple of weeks ago on this bill when we were debating about what sorts of vessels we should have the beer and whatever else in. I am absolutely of the view that a paper cup would be absolutely fine. People are not there to focus on the drinking and they are not there to brand Heineken; they are there to watch the rugby. Maybe just for a couple of hours they could put up with drinking out of a probably inappropriately sized paper cup while they watch the rugby, and then we could overcome some of the issues we saw at the weekend.

Mr Quinn suggested those issues were because it was rugby league crowd. I am not quite so divisive; I am a bit more inclusive. I think it does not really matter what sport one is watching, that sort of mixture of alcohol and crowd mentality can make good people do things that the next day they wake up and think they probably should not have done, and do not feel too flash about. But in that environment, cans, whether or not they brand Heineken, or bottles can turn into missiles and they can do a lot of damage. What the Government is saying by saying no to paper cups is basically that corporate sponsorship comes ahead of public health and safety. That is really the sum total of that message.

I think that is something that would be good, given the incident over the weekend, which occurred in the middle of the reading of this bill, for the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to get up and talk about. It would be good for him to talk about how those sorts of situations will be mitigated and minimised by the bill or any of the amendments that the Minister might want to put up to the bill at this stage. That leads me to the amendment in my name. It is an amendment to clause 72(1)(a) in subpart 3 that would require the signage in a licensed venue to carry information about the transportation options available nearby the premise for patrons, which would encourage them to choose safe transportation.

I was listening to the radio this morning and I heard a Mount Albert resident, someone who lives close to Eden Park, complaining not only about what happened in Eden Park but what happened when everybody poured out across their lawn and did things on their lawn that probably were more appropriate for a public toilet. That upset that resident, who felt that things should be put in place to ensure that that does not happen. If we have information in public venues about transportation options that are available, then people might not be walking blind drunk along the streets, annoying the local residents, getting into trouble, and perhaps doing something they will not be so proud of the next morning. They can get themselves into a cab, they can get dial-a-driver, they can get on to a shuttle, and whatever options are available they can take that option—

💬 Jacqui Dean: The train.

The member opposite mentioned the train—a good option. I would be very pleased if more people took the train in Auckland getting from Eden Park back to their homes or back to the central business district—that would be fantastic. My amendment suggests that that information should be a requirement for venues to have available for their patrons. All the other stuff is there. The free water is a requirement under this bill, which is a fantastic measure, and food and low-alcoholic drinks are available. Those things are right there in front of those patrons and they can see the options that are available to them. Transportation is not right in front of them. It is not an option that is immediately obvious and available to them. So we should take the opportunity, seeing as a sign has to be there anyway, to add this information to the sign in order to improve public health and safety. Seeing as we have parked health and safety for Heineken when it comes to the vessels inside the park, when we are outside maybe we could bring this little measure in to improve public health and safety.

I want to mention that for the last couple of days I have been speaking to a number of constituents in my electorate of Mt Albert who have been very, very concerned about what has happened in and around the Sandringham area. Obviously that concern is largely due, as other speakers have said, to the excessive presence of alcohol. So I have real concerns about Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which in many ways speeds up the process of opening new outlets and makes alcohol much more available and easier to get. This legislation will increase the number of outlets, and that will make alcohol more available.

What I do not like about Part 5 is that the time in which one can protest or object to an outlet being opened is a matter of only 5 days. The process is very ad hoc and moves very quickly. Yes, the legislation does keep in place the same rules and regulations that would apply under any other system, but the fact that the process is to be sped up, I believe, is probably not necessary. The period of the Rugby World Cup is really from 9 September through to 31 October. If we cannot plan for the number of liquor outlets that we think we will need before that time, then it really is hard for me to understand why we will suddenly come up with the idea that we need to have an ad hoc liquor outlet here or there, or a licence here or there for other purposes.

I was appalled, like many other people, to watch the scenes on television during the test match. The point has been made that it was a rugby league test. I have been to many, many rugby league test matches at Mt Smart Stadium, etc., and I have never seen anything like that, so I really hope that it is a one-off incident. The overwhelming conclusion was not only that what happened inside the stadium was bad enough—people throwing things, and people have talked about glasses and softer containers for beer—but also that what happened outside the stadium was of concern to my constituents: bottles thrown all over the road, fighting, and loutish behaviour.

Those people live in an area where they know there is a stadium. They bought property in the area, knowing that Eden Park was there. Most of them did not know that Eden Park would be expanded to the extent that it has been. I do think that although the Rugby World Cup is incredibly important to us and is very important to the surrounding businesses in the area, the rights of the residents need to be protected. I am not sure whether this part of the legislation does anything to give those residents comfort that they will be better served by having more outlets than they already have and by having a process that speeds up the granting of liquor licences.

I have some concerns about this part. I have looked at the comments made by the police. The police at first voiced some concern about this part. They then relooked at it and decided not to protest against it. Certainly, the St John Ambulance service said it did not support this part. In fact, it believed that it would be to the detriment of the game, and certainly to the image of New Zealanders, if people needed to drink in order to watch sport. I want to see a Rugby World Cup where everybody enjoys themselves, and where people can have a drink—and I certainly will be drinking—but I do not think we want to see a repeat of what we saw at the test match the other night. I have some concerns about this part of the legislation. In particular, my concern is that there will be an increased number of liquor outlets in an area that already has a huge number of outlets, and that the process of approving new outlets is likely to be sped up so that they are pushed through. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I agree with the member Jacqui Dean that the stakes are high here in terms of alcohol and the Rugby World Cup. We need to strike the right balance to make sure that our image as a country that can go to sports games and not get carried away with alcohol is intact. But we cannot be prudes because alcohol, like it or not, is a big part of the whole tourism deal. A lot of rugby supporters will be coming here next year for the Rugby World Cup and drinking will be part of that. We have to find the right balance between having a great time and getting carried away with the drinking.

I suggest that amongst all the hysteria of what happened at Eden Park on Saturday, there was a bit of a perfect storm in terms of the conditions. One of those conditions was the lack of policing of people who brought alcohol to the park. We saw the news reports of people carrying boxes of bottles of beer and preloading on the way in. I suggest that the phenomenon of preloading that we see now, whereby people drink cheap alcohol before going to events, could possibly have occurred because of the cost of the alcohol being sold at Eden Park. I have also heard—and I do not know whether this is true—that because of the queues, people had to buy a minimum of four containers of alcohol at one time. I have been told that we could not afford to have one person buying one bottle of beer, so people had to buy a minimum of four containers of alcohol to take back for their mates to reduce the queuing time.

I go back to the perfect storm. Two games were being played, which will not happen at the Rugby World Cup. To be honest, most people would not have been going to Eden Park to watch the first game, which was the curtain-raiser between Papua New Guinea and England. They would not have cared about the result; they knew that England would give Papua New Guinea a hiding. They would have been sitting there drinking and enjoying the occasion—again, to excess, filling up before the main game. Then, of course, with the main game everyone was hyped up and ready for a great contest, and, quite frankly, it was a dud. The Kiwis were shocking. The frustration in the crowd built, so they were drinking and getting amped up. When crowds are frustrated and bored they start the Mexican wave, which was part of the condition when we saw plastic beer bottles, chips, and the like being thrown. It was a bit of a perfect storm, and that storm will not occur at the Rugby World Cup. There will be one game at a time a venue, and, as a colleague has already mentioned, people will be there for the rugby and not for the drinking, per se.

I want to touch on the fact that Heineken wants its product to be sold in cans. I think that is ridiculous, and it brings me to clause 62. Clause 62(1)(b) states: “(ii) any conditions that he or she considers should be imposed on the licence.” Also, clause 62(1) states that when: “… the persons referred to in section 60(6) receive an application from the administrative secretariat, each must—(a) inquire into the application; and (b) report to the Authority in the form and manner prescribed by regulations”—just moving on quickly—“…(i) whether there is any matter on which he or she opposes the application: (ii) any conditions that he or she considers should be imposed on the licence.” I think that if conditions are imposed on the licence, such as that alcohol should not be served in cans, it is important that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup does not have the right to override that. We have been arguing from the start of the consideration of this bill that it gives the Minister unfettered powers to override decisions of the Rugby World Cup Authority. If a company came in and insisted that its product be sold in a certain way and the authority believes that that is inappropriate, this bill should not give the Minister the right to override that decision.

Again, we need to make sure that we are not prudes. We do not want people to come here and say that there are too many restrictions on the drinking of alcohol, but we have to strike a balance so we do not have people getting carried away.

I want to pick up where my colleague Kelvin Davis left off. On this side of the Chamber we have been making the point throughout this debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that we are greatly concerned about the ability of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Murray McCully, in consultation with Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith, to override the decisions of the Rugby World Cup Authority.

On this side of the Chamber we have been quite comfortable with the idea of the authority existing and being there for urgent approvals, but setting up a process whereby the authority’s decisions can be ignored by the Minister is one that we believe is dangerous, in particular, in relation to Part 5. As my colleague Kelvin Davis has just mentioned, clause 77 refers to “Variation, suspension, or cancellation of licence”. All of those things fall into the authority’s ability to look after and therefore, in turn, put in place a situation where the Minister could undermine a decision of the authority in relation to a liquor licence. I think that is a great example of why we are concerned about the undermining of the Rugby World Cup Authority’s powers by, effectively, giving the Minister the right of veto. Clause 77 is quite interesting because it allows an inspector or police constable to, at any time, apply to the authority for an order to vary or revoke a condition of a Rugby World Cup licence, or impose a new condition. Obviously that is something someone would do only if he or she were seriously concerned about a licence, yet the authority’s power to consider that is automatically undermined by giving the Minister the ability to veto what it says. On this side of the Chamber we think that Part 5 includes a number of examples of where the clause that was unfortunately passed in Part 4 allowing the Minister to veto things is wrong.

I say to the Government Administration Committee that I think it made some good changes in Part 5 relating to liquor licences. There has been some clarification to ensure, for instance, that we now know these licences are very much limited to the time of the Rugby World Cup, and that is important. That change also puts in place the ability to clarify that the suspension of a Sale of Liquor Act licence will be just for the duration of a Rugby World Cup licence. A new clause 60A has been inserted to provide the authority the ability to grant licences concurrently, so that we know that all of the venues will be operating under similar arrangements. That is important. I draw the distinction here between the Rugby World Cup arrangements and what happened on Saturday night at Eden Park. The Rugby World Cup is a bigger and greater event. It will be one where people will be moving from ground to ground. Visitors from overseas will be getting used to consistent conditions, and I think it is unlikely that we will see a repeat of what happened at Eden Park. But that does not mean that we should not set in place cautious measures, because we need to do that to protect our reputation.

I return to the question of whether a legacy investment from the Rugby World Cup in the form of wet-pour facilities at Eden Park is justifiable. We saw on Saturday night the dangers in a situation where alcohol is being sold in bottles or cans. We know from papers that have been previously discussed during this debate that the police recommended that wet-pour facilities be provided at Eden Park, and we know that Rugby World Cup Ltd and the Government have opposed that. The police are reflecting the health and safety concerns that we saw at Eden Park on Saturday. Having wet-pour facilities means that beer is provided in cups. It reduces the danger of the kinds of missiles and projectiles that bottles can become.

Wet-pour facilities are quite slow. Kelvin Davis has just mentioned that if people have to go up and take cups of beer away, that is much slower than carrying bottles and cans, but that has to be balanced against the safety concerns that the police have been raising. We have heard from a number of residents around Eden Park and from people who attended the game that serious consideration should be given to the installation of wet-pour facilities at Eden Park. Gerry Brownlee dismissed those things when the police came to him three times to ask him to reconsider that, and I think the Government now needs to seriously reconsider whether a legacy investment is possible for Eden Park. It is a facility that no doubt will be used in the future for major events and it needs to provide a safe environment for everybody who goes there. Although I think that some things in Part 5 are good and useful, the Government needs to consider its options for Eden Park and how it serves alcohol in future.

I was one of those who began this debate with some real concern about whether the provisions in this bill relating to liquor licensing would open the door to a liberalisation of the availability of liquor at the very time our community is showing great concern about the drinking culture in this country and is discussing, debating, and coming to grips with the recommendations of the Law Commission on alcohol in our society. I expressed some of those concerns in the first reading debate. Since then they have been part of many of the discussions at the Government Administration Committee, and I have to say that I have changed my view on this issue.

I am generally of the view now that the provisions in this bill for liquor licensing for the Rugby World Cup are reasonable, comprehensive, and appropriate, and I support them. Other speakers have pointed out that the provisions in this bill are largely lifted from the Sale of Liquor Act, that they are primarily designed to expedite the granting of licences, and that the fundamentals of the regulatory framework for liquor licensing are reproduced in this bill and, in fact, there are one or two improvements. Whether these provisions amount to a liberalisation is an interesting question. I guess one could make the case that the intent of this legislation is to allow a faster licensing process and, arguably, a much greater volume of liquor outlets being licensed for this very defined period of time.

My colleague Trevor Mallard makes the argument that not one extra person will get a drink because of this legislation, because there will be plenty of liquor outlets, anyway. I am not sure that I entirely go along with that. I think that with 70,000 visitors to Auckland during the Rugby World Cup and with many New Zealanders flooding into the city for the big games, the sheer volume of people in Auckland going to the big games, many of whom will want to have a drink before and after the games, will mean a pretty dramatic expansion in the number of liquor outlets and the number of drinks being sold.

The question is whether, if we accept that that amounts to a liberalisation, it is reasonable in the context of the fact that we are putting on this event, and whether it is reasonable when we balance it against the huge benefits that we hope New Zealand and our communities will get from hosting the Rugby World Cup. Given what I said before about the fact that this legislation has been carefully thought through with regard to liquor licensing, and the fact that there are a number of controls and safeguards in place, my view is that a reasonable balance is being struck and I do not think we have too much to be concerned about.

I am pleased, for instance, that outlets with a Rugby World Cup liquor licence are required to provide water free of cost for the punters. A number of conditions are set out in clause 73 that will give members of the authority the tools to require tailored licensing for particular times and places, and I think that is a good thing. Some of those conditions relate to the hours and the days that liquor can be sold, the supply of low-alcohol beverages, the provision of food, and the maximum number of patrons. Those are all useful provisions. Under this bill the police will have extra enforcement powers that are not available to them under the Sale of Liquor Act. That is useful.

In finishing, I will echo Grant Robertson’s comments. Again, members on this side of the Chamber are concerned about the urgency powers.

I intend to vote in favour of this particular part, Part 5, of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill although I still have reservations about the bill overall, consistent with the concerns that Labour members have raised during earlier stages of this debate. I followed the debate over the weekend’s events at Eden Park with some interest. It would be fair to say that I have mixed views on these matters, because although there are clearly some issues with our current laws on the sale and supply of alcohol, I believe that a great amount of personal responsibility is involved. Although a small minority made a mess, caused disruption, and so on, the vast majority of people who go to these events and have a few drinks there behave very responsibly. We should not punish the vast majority, who behave very responsibly, because of the actions of a small minority. I think that Parliament has always faced this dilemma when it is dealing with issues like the sale and supply of alcohol. That is the perspective I bring overall to the question of whether the new powers in this bill are appropriate for the sale and supply of liquor during the Rugby World Cup.

One thing we need to be very clear on is that these provisions do not apply just to stadia; they actually apply across the board to any liquor licences associated with Rugby World Cup events. It is not just stadia we are talking about, and that is an important distinction to make. The provisions can apply to pubs and they can apply to temporary venues that are established specifically for the Rugby World Cup, and so on. They will all be covered by these licensing requirements. One change, however, that the select committee made, which I think is important to understand, is that all stadia will be required to have Rugby World Cup liquor licences, even if they already have an existing liquor licence. The select committee wanted to ensure that there was consistency in the licensing at stadia throughout the country, and that police had access to those extra powers they have under a Rugby World Cup liquor licence. Basically, we have effectively said that if there is a liquor licence already in existence for a stadium and that stadium is hosting a Rugby World Cup match, a Rugby World Cup liquor licence will still be needed. I think that is really important. It will allow the Rugby World Cup Authority to impose a standard set of conditions, for example, around the drinking vessels to be used, such as plastic cups.

I am a regular attendee at the Westpac Stadium in Wellington, and it already has a policy of having only plastic cups. Bottles cannot be taken into the stadium, and I think that works fine. I see no reason why it cannot work at other stadia around the country. We have to recognise that cans and glass bottles, and even heavy plastic bottles, can be really dangerous if they are hurled through the air and they hit somebody on the head. Plastic cups can cause a limited amount of damage—at most, people will get a bit wet if somebody decides to start throwing around plastic cups full of alcohol. But we are limiting the risk of innocent people who are behaving responsibly having what would otherwise be a perfectly enjoyable event spoiled by a very small minority who behave irresponsibly at these events. I come back to the comment I made at the beginning. The vast majority of people who want to watch a Rugby World Cup match will behave responsibly, and we should not punish them because of the irresponsible actions of a small minority.

One of the other provisions in this bill that differs from the Sale of Liquor Act is that anyone holding a Rugby World Cup liquor licence will be required to have water freely available for people who are drinking at those venues. I think that is a huge advance. Parliament may well have the opportunity to consider this, when we look further down the track at wider amendments to the laws pertaining to the sale and supply of liquor. At the moment there is no obligation on those selling liquor in a pub or a bar to supply water free of charge, and there are some extreme examples of establishments going out of their way to prevent people from getting water out of taps, so that they can extract a significant amount of money out of the sale of bottled water. Maybe it should be a requirement overall for pubs to have a free and ready supply of water. That is something that Parliament may have the chance to consider further down the track.

This will be my last call on Part 5. In my first call I suggested that I was looking around for arguments to decide where I would come down on this part, so let me state for the record that I am in favour of this part.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Was it my speech that clinched it?

Well, I think it was Mr Hipkins’ speech that clinched it, to be fair. But there were a number of excellent contributions from a number of members that I listened to closely.

I would like to advance the debate a little towards clause 79, “Suspension of licence for public health or fire precaution requirements”. The reason I draw the Committee’s attention to this clause and its various subclauses is that this is a fundamental part of the health and safety regulations. If a venue is deemed to be unsafe in terms of public health, especially with regard to fire precautions, then the medical officer of health or a member of the New Zealand Fire Service has to apply to the authority for immediate suspension or cancellation of the licence, or immediate variation of the conditions of the licence. This is, of course, the authority that is established by this bill but which Part 4 states may as well not exist because the Minister can override every single decision made by that authority.

This is a particularly dangerous little part of the bill. If, in the opinion of the medical officer of health or a member of the Fire Service, a venue needs to be shut down, but that is contrary to the Minister’s opinion, and the Minister decides to step in and halt that process, we have a potential disaster zone. A venue that is unsafe could be allowed to remain open because of the power that is vested in the individual Minister, who may be lobbied or may be contacted through processes other than the authority—people who choose to circumvent the process of the authority and go directly to the Minister. He—and I say “he” advisedly, as I suspect we know who it will be—may not have the information available to him that the medical officer of health or the New Zealand Fire Service may have available to them.

Clause 79A refers to the suspension or cancellation of a manager’s certificate. In this case an inspector or constable may, at any time, apply to the authority for an order to suspend or cancel a manager’s certificate. The grounds on which this may be sought are where a manager has failed to manage the premises or area subject to a Rugby World Cup liquor licence in a proper manner in accordance with the provisions of Part 5 and the conditions of the licence. Again, this is where the authority must use its processes. It is required to make a decision within 24 hours. It is required to cross-examine witnesses, and time must be given to the inspector, the constable, or the manager, or, if appropriate, to the licensee, and, I have no doubt, to any witness or anybody who is available to give evidence. But the entire process that the authority is allowed to undertake could again be completely undermined, thanks to Part 4.

It is Part 4 that the Labour Opposition has problems with, and we have been pointing this out throughout this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 5.

Part 4 affects Part 5, because these provisions in Part 5 are completely undermined by Part 4. Although I suspect there will be a personal vote on Part 5, as far as the Opposition is concerned, I personally am in support of Part 5. I cannot agree with the bill as a whole, as long as Part 4 stays there. Although Part 5 has some excellent clauses, places some excellent requirements on the authority, and sets up a fantastic process for the authority to maintain public order, public safety, and public health, they are completely undermined by the provisions included in Part 4.

In my previous contribution I was interjected upon by Minister Tariana Turia. I do not want to misrepresent her, but I believe she said that alcohol should not be part of rugby fixtures whatsoever. I would be interested if she could rise and make a contribution on this part, because if that is a misrepresentation, then she needs to clarify it. If it is not a misrepresentation, and that opinion is held by a Minister of the Government, when we consider what is in this bill I think it would be quite important if the Minister could rise and give a contribution on Part 5, because it is all about making sure that liquor is safely and appropriately available during Rugby World Cup matches. If the Minister holds a contrary point of view, then I think it would be important if she could rise and make a contribution.

This is all about balance. It is not about taking the fun out of the games.

I move, That the question be now put.