Alcohol Reform Bill

We are just going back now to where I was before—Part 3. This is debate on clauses 12 to 284. The procedure we are going to follow is that the debate and voting on amendments to Part 3 will be grouped as follows: licensing requirements and conditions, Subpart 1, other than minimum pricing proposals—so we will have the amendments related to that, and then we will have the vote on those. The next one is minimum pricing, Subpart 1. The third is local alcohol policies, Subpart 2. The fourth is licensing process and licensing bodies, Subparts 3 to 7. The fifth is offences and enforcement, Subparts 8 and 9. So we now move to licensing requirements and conditions, Subpart 1, clauses 12 to 74.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking to clarify. I understood that all of the votes for this part would be taken in one go, so it would be debated as one part.

As I explained earlier we are actually splitting this into five separate debates within Part 3. So we are going to deal with those topics that I mentioned. Once we have completed that, the amendments under those headings will be put—the questions will be put—and we will deal with those. Then we will move on to the next provision. Does the member wish to say something? Are we all comfortable—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could I just ask your indulgence? I think we have understood the manner in which the debate and the voting will occur. Would you mind just reading the subparts out one more time?

Sure. This is what the Business Committee has agreed to. The debate and voting on amendments to Part 3 will be grouped as follows: first, licensing requirements and conditions, Subpart 1, other than minimum pricing proposals. Once we have dealt with that we will then put the amendments related to that section. Then we will move on, and the second one is minimum pricing, Subpart 1. The third is local alcohol policies, Subpart 2. The fourth is licensing process and licensing bodies, Subparts 3 to 7, and, finally, offences and enforcement, Subparts 8 and 9.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members—[Interruption] I stand corrected, members. It is one debate on Part 3, but we are going to be dealing with those separate areas for separate votes in that order. All right? So it is a debate on Part 3—[Interruption]—on the whole of Part 3. So the question is—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The reason I just want to have some clarity around this is because my understanding is that we were going to group them into these different areas for the purposes of the debate and the voting, so I did not think it was going to be separated off. The reason that I mention this is that I do have an interest in it, because the Supplementary Order Paper that is in my name is on minimum pricing, which ends up being one of these five different areas of debate. But my amendment would be in Part 6 otherwise, except that it is being brought into this part. If that was then to be part of just a single debate for the whole of Part 3, then I would be restricted to four calls, when I would have had four calls on my Supplementary Order Paper, had it been dealt with in its own part. It has been brought out of Part 6 and brought forward in order to group it with another one for the purposes of debate. No one would have agreed to give up debating time on an important issue in order to move something. For the ease of the Committee, I think we have all been agreeable to having the different votes, but I never understood that that would actually mean that there would be a restriction to four calls over the five very separate debates that we have agreed to have. Otherwise we would never have agreed to have my Supplementary Order Paper brought forward into the largest part of the bill and removed from Part 6, where it properly sits.

I hear what you say—

💬 Kevin Hague: Speaking to the point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am just getting some clarification.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Point of order, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just one moment. I will get back to you.

I want to support the point of order raised by my colleague Lianne Dalziel. We are in a similar but different situation in that I am the spokesperson for my party on all of the issues associated with this bill, so if we were to be confined to four calls per member for this entire part, that would restrict us to just four calls, and the span of this part is much greater than four calls would suffice for. I know that other parties, perhaps New Zealand First, would be in a similar position.

We are in the hands of the determinations of the Business Committee, and I will just read what it says: “Part 3, sale and supply of alcohol generally, including minimum pricing, new clauses 43A, 230A, and amendments proposed to clauses 267 and 382(1), will be one question.” I understand that the member’s amendments relate to subclause 382(1), and the issue is that if this is taken as one part the maximum number of calls would be four—and this is the point that the member Kevin Hague also made—so you are affected by that. We are governed, however, by the determination of the Business Committee, and the only way, I think, to deal with that once a debate starts and you have had your four calls would possibly be to seek leave to go beyond the number of four calls. I cannot make rules here to change what the Business Committee has determined, so I am actually guided very much by this.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Would it possibly be a solution if I were to apply for the leave of the Committee for spokespeople only to not be affected by the four call limitation, in respect of this subpart? If so, I so apply.

It is appropriate to seek leave for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This has certainly come as a bit of a surprise, I think, to a number of us, and I accept that I was not involved in that decision. It simply has come as a bit of a shock, so I am trying to see whether we can get our shadow Leader of the House to assist in the matter. But I wondered whether, even though obviously we are governed by the decision of the Business Committee, there was some opportunity for the Committee to take leave to make any changes to that, or are you saying that that cannot be changed even by leave of the Committee?

I did put leave on the point of order that Charles Chauvel made. I put leave that the spokespeople would be given extra calls. That leave was denied, so I have actually done that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Business Committee has spent a significant amount of time working through the logistics of this bill and the Committee stage. I believe we should proceed on that basis, given that it has had the agreement of all parties in the House.

I seek leave that Supplementary Order Paper 113 in my name, which amends clause 382 in Part 6 of the bill, be debated under Part 6 of the bill.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

First of all, I wish to register the Green Party’s objection to the Government’s position on this. But I want to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot comment on the decision I have made. I am reflecting the Business Committee’s determination. The Business Committee made it, and I am here to ensure that that is what we follow.

Mr Chair, if I could just clarify. I was not objecting to anything about your conduct. I was stating my disappointment that the Government has taken the position that it has.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is well known that the Business Committee operates on near unanimity. As I have said before, there have been lengthy discussions in the Business Committee. It has reached near unanimity on this decision, and so I object to that kind of point.

Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear Charles Chauvel.

My colleague from the Green Party was not disputing what the junior Government whip has just said. What I took him to be objecting to was the fact that Government members chose to decline leave to a proposal that sought to get around the problem that had been identified—that is, that spokespeople under this determination of the Business Committee are restricted to—

I am sorry to interrupt the member. I am sure the member was just expressing his disappointment about the way that it had gone. That is the end of the matter. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.