Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill

The presiding officers have had some inquiries as to whether the vote on this bill will be a conscience issue determined by a personal vote. Normally the sale of alcohol is treated as a conscience issue by parties, and that fact is known generally well in advance of the first reading of a bill. In the case of this bill, which was introduced by leave today, there has not been the opportunity to gauge whether in fact parties have positions on it. Therefore, people in the Chair will determine during the course of the debate whether parties have positions on the bill or whether they are treating it as a conscience issue, and the obvious things will flow from that.

I am pleased to take a call in support of the first reading of Mr Seymour’s Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. Just noting your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, can I begin by indicating that the National Government will be supporting the bill at first reading. That is the decision of our caucus, and I am very pleased to be able to indicate that support to Mr Seymour.

There is no doubt in this House, I think, that we have a very unique situation here, which deserves a unique response. We have a tournament being played on the other side of the world, representing not only the third-largest sporting event in the world but also, more important for most New Zealanders, the game that I think New Zealand really considers its national game and that is featuring our own very much beloved All Blacks. Not everyone in this country is sports mad, but a vast majority of us are absolute, diehard All Blacks fans—and the sensible ones are also Crusaders fans; but that is another debate, which we will not get into—and watching the All Blacks is something that I think New Zealanders really do regard as a critical part of being a New Zealander. Certainly, the Rugby World Cup comes around once every 4 years, and there can be no doubt that it has a special place in New Zealand—from both the attention it gets and our focus on it to the very mood you can feel on the streets as you walk around New Zealand, depending on whether the All Blacks have played well. On the very rare occasion that that has not happened, you can certainly pick that up in the air.

In this particular case, as I mentioned, the tournament is being played on the other side of the world, and, uniquely, the way that the scheduling has worked means that almost every single game will be played in the few hours that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act deems as prohibited hours for trading for licensed premises. Although the Act certainly provides a framework for special licences to be granted—and that system works very well in the vast majority of cases—in a situation like this, when we will have a huge number of licensed premises from Cape Reinga to Bluff wanting to be able to offer their communities an alternative to get along and watch the game live in a group situation where they can feel the excitement of the crowd and they can feel not quite as if they are there but as good as it gets from this side of the world, it is not something that we would want to see affected by a process of unnecessary levels of bureaucracy. I think the intent of this bill, which is to ensure that that is not unreasonably disrupted, is a good one.

To be fair—and Mr Seymour and I have had this discussion—it is the National Party’s view that there are matters within the bill that we think we would want to look at more closely. In particular, we have a view about the games that should be covered by this blanket granting of a special licence for every facility in New Zealand. That is a very, very high threshold, and it is a unique set of circumstances that justifies it. Certainly, going into this process, our initial view is that that sort of blanket granting of special licences to licensed premises around New Zealand is certainly warranted for the All Blacks’ games and is warranted for the play-off matches, but it is hard to make the same level of argument for some of the other teams that will be playing. That is not to say that there will not be interest in them for some New Zealanders, but not to the level that would warrant an automatic blanket special licence for every game for every bar in New Zealand. That is certainly something that we will be wanting to discuss.

In addition, it is important, I think—and I am sure that many members of this House will agree—that the bill fulfils its purpose of removing unnecessary hurdles in compliance, so that New Zealanders can watch the game, but not in a way that takes away from the core host responsibility provisions that we would expect our licensed premises to comply with. I think that there are some very simple, practical changes that can be made to the bill, just to ensure that we get the right balance between facilitating New Zealanders’ enjoyment of the tournament but not seriously degrading any of those host responsibilities and, actually, neighbourhood responsibilities that licensed premises need to be mindful of.

The other issue that is worth picking up is really just one of the workability and the application of the bill. As the Minister responsible for the underlying legislation, I certainly have an interest in seeing that any amendment to the Act that is passed is workable, is clearly understood, will be easily applied, and if reference needs to be sought to it for enforcement purposes, that that can be done without any debate over what Parliament meant. I appreciate absolutely that the circumstances in which this matter arose, on a reasonably fast-moving playing field—to make a reasonably unfortunate pun—have shifted quite a lot in the last few days. Mr Seymour has worked very hard to try to navigate his way through that, but the speed of drafting and the limited resources available for a member to put up a member’s bill mean that that process is a challenging one. I think that there are certainly some drafting opportunities in the bill, which we can work on together, to improve the bill and to get it into as good a shape as possible.

The last point that I did just want to make is simply to say that, actually, the underlying framework of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act works very well. I am very comfortable that the framework is right. This is not some sort of signal that there is an issue; this is a signal of one thing and one thing only, which is that this is a unique set of circumstances that holds a particular place of importance to New Zealanders all around the country and deserves a response in this House. In the vast majority of cases when events occur at odd hours around the world, with different sporting codes and events, I think that the special licensing provisions work incredibly well, but the National Government recognises the uniqueness of this situation and the uniqueness of rugby and the All Blacks to New Zealand, and we commend this bill at first reading.

I begin by giving the indication that you sought from the Chair as to whether parties are addressing this as a conscience issue. The Labour Party is addressing the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill as a conscience issue and would like the Speaker to conduct the voting accordingly. There are a number of ironies in this bill. The first is that if you are talking about responsible drinking, then maybe you should have a provision in this bill that prohibits people from being on licensed premises when they are meant to be voting in this House. The second irony is that, actually, this would not be nearly as necessary in this country if it had not been for the fact that parties like the ACT Party have so undermined public broadcasting that you cannot see most of these matches on public television.

💬 David Seymour: Aw! Tragic, tragic.

It is also true. You know, if the member really wanted to do good in New Zealand he would have brought forward a bill here that said that the same rules should apply in New Zealand in respect of major sporting events on television as apply in Australia. Every time there is a major sporting event like this that goes up for tender in Australia—you know, the Rugby World Cup or the like—public television rights have to be in the rights that are offered. Yes, you can have Sky having all of the rights to the paid version of the game, but you have got to have, amongst those who succeed at tender, a public option. Those people compete and they have got to pay advertising and they do not get it for free—

💬 David Seymour: They should have to give you a television too, and a house to put it in, for having a television without a house.

No, the member is so ideologically blinkered that he will never agree that New Zealanders should have the right to see the major sporting events. He gets all jingoistic and says how this is the Kiwi way and we all need to be able to watch our rugby, but he does not think they should be able to do it on public broadcasting in the way that it happens in other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom. I think it is shameful that in this country we have got to the point where people, unless they can afford pay-per-view television, cannot actually watch these major events on television.

I for one will be supporting this bill to select committee. I agree that it should be a conscience issue. I am not quite sure whether we should be too broad in the application of this to all sporting events. You know, there are a lot of licensed premises that are very close to residential areas and they do have time limits. Indeed, when I am in Auckland I live 20 metres away from licensed premises, and they are loud, and that is the reason why they have time limits on when they shut because otherwise they are too disruptive to adjacent residential users. We are thankfully past the point when we used to have a few enormous taverns that were generally in commercial areas and were separated from residential areas. It is good that we have more socially responsible drinking and smaller institutions, but we do need to take care that we get the balance right between the rights of adjacent people to have a night’s sleep and the rights of those who want to have a good party. But in respect of the forthcoming Rugby World Cup, it is good that we are, through this legislation, facilitating the ability of New Zealanders to go and watch this at a public venue where they can see it on television, because they cannot see it on television at home because the current laws do not require a public option.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill, and to look forward to this bill being considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Reading the debate notes and reading the bill take me right back to the previous Rugby World Cup and the empowering legislation that this House put through to expedite some of the matters around the previous Rugby World Cup. Having done that, I remember the excitement that gripped New Zealand during that Rugby World Cup, as our All Blacks, of whom we are all so proud, did so very well. Those many, many gatherings that we had in New Zealand were of course within our time frame, so that suited us all very well. I was involved in organising quite a large series of events around North Otago and it was very satisfying to be part of that. Rugby fans and families alike certainly turned out for a number of these fanzone opportunities to see the games on the big screens, have food festivals, and all sorts of things surrounding the Rugby World Cup when we took it away last time.

Having said all that, this is not the case for this coming Rugby World Cup because, of course, the time zones are completely different and we are going to find ourselves having to get up in the very early hours of the morning to enjoy the matches if that is what we want to do, and there are many of us who will do that. Although some of us enjoy a cup of tea and a biscuit while we watch the rugby, other people like to go down to the pub and enjoy a beer, and that is what this bill, on behalf of David Seymour, is going to allow us to do, assuming it has a successful passage through the House, which indeed I hope it does.

The Justice and Electoral Committee will consider a number of matters around this bill. I think it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that if the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act does provide for special licences to be granted for this kind of event, why it is that this bill is before the House. It is to expedite those events, as this Parliament did for the previous Rugby World Cup, for people to have the opportunity to watch their beloved game of rugby.

It is worth noting that upon the passage of this bill—and I am anticipating that it will go through—it will not in any way negate the current requirements for host responsibility, which people with liquor licences have under the special licence regime at the moment. There would be the same degree of host responsibility and the same degree of criteria with those liquor licences as exist in the current legislation. What this bill is doing is expediting the opportunities for New Zealanders to go down to the pub, watch the rugby, and then, I would imagine, have a good hearty breakfast before they go off and bask in the glory of yet another glorious win on behalf of the All Blacks team—I just know it is going to happen.

There will still be those requirements around intoxication, so I think the argument that this bill may encourage binge drinking will not be borne out. Host responsibility acts against binge drinking now, and no provision in this bill will allow for or encourage binge drinking. The host of the licensed premises will still be obliged to turn away people who clearly have had too much alcohol.

The point of difference that the National Party, which supports this bill, has is around the very strong case for these provisions to apply only to All Blacks games. Why would we not be one-eyed? It is the Rugby World Cup, for goodness’ sake! Why would we not be one-eyed about the All Blacks? So I think a point of difference with the author of the bill would be around games that involve the All Blacks and games that involve the elimination rounds—perhaps the semi-finals, quarter-finals, those sorts of things. These matters will be considered by the select committee in the very fast turn-round before we return the bill on or around 26 August. The committee is prepared to work hard on this bill and to return a good result to the House.

Just before I call Kevin Hague I will remind members that, to date, this is being treated as a conscience vote. Therefore, the strict rules around the order of calling parties do not necessarily apply. Although my successor is about to come into the Chair, to date all of the people who have been speaking have been speaking generally in support of the bill, without major reservations. If people either want to speak against the bill or have major reservations about it, the normal practice is to approach the Chair quietly and inform the Chair, and that will increase a person’s chance of getting a call on a conscience vote.

Pursuant to your request, Mr Assistant Speaker, I can indicate at the beginning of this contribution that the Green Party will, as a party, vote for the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill.

Some members will be familiar with an extraordinary piece of work undertaken by the Law Commission. This is the Law Commission’s report from 2010, following a really extensive piece of work involving many public submissions and a great deal of involvement from stakeholders right across the sector. That report generated—eventually, some might say—from its recommendations a Government bill, which, in turn, went to select committee and also received very many submissions from the public and from stakeholders about alcohol law in New Zealand. It was in 2012 that this House passed that legislation, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The evidence in this Law Commission report and the precursor reports was that the consumption of alcohol in New Zealand is associated with harm. I have New Zealand Police statistics, for example, that say that one-third of all offences that the police deal with are committed by someone who has recently consumed alcohol. For some offences, like serious violence, it is one in two offences. So there is serious harm associated with alcohol, and the Law Commission concluded, on the basis of its review of evidence, that the more available alcohol was, the more would be consumed, and the more harm would be caused.

That is why the Law Commission in its recommendations to the House, and this House’s treatment of those recommendations, basically sought to strike a balance between people’s freedom of choice and the need to protect people from harm. That is why we set up a regime that provides for a local process in which premises are allocated locations and hours and conditions. It is designed to protect people from harm. If premises want to serve alcohol outside of those licensed hours, there is a regime that we set up in the law for special licences. In its report, in fact, the Law Commission uses international rugby fixtures as an example of the kind of special event that would be appropriate for the use of special licences. Those members of the House who were present for the debate in 2012 may well recall that, actually, our debate also specifically talked about the Rugby World Cup and its appropriate use for special licences. Certainly there is nothing at all in the existing law that actually would prevent special licences from being used for Rugby World Cup fixtures. That is the appropriate mechanism. So why is there a problem now? Well, it turns out that the police in some parts of New Zealand are saying that Rugby World Cup fixtures do not qualify for special licences. What that suggests to me and to the Green Party is that what we need is a review of how Parliament’s intentions around special licences have been implemented. That is how we should proceed, but we do not have time right now. What we have to do right now is actually address the fact that the Rugby World Cup is just around the corner.

We saw David Seymour’s bill for the first time yesterday morning. We denied leave for it to be introduced yesterday because we had major concerns. We are now confident as a result of the discussions we have had with David Seymour, the assurances he has given us, and also the good-faith discussions we have had with the Government, that the issues we had—issues around a bill that covered all games, in other words, most days over a 6-week period; and that covered all licensed premises, including those operated by licensees who had previously breached licences and those that were in locations that were just around the corner from a kindy—are, in fact, going to be dealt with. We still believe that this measure ought to have been dealt with not as a member’s bill but as a Government bill. We believe that that is the appropriate way of dealing with an issue of this sort, for some of the reasons, actually, that the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, discussed in her contribution.

I am sorry but the member’s time has expired—

💬 Kevin Hague: I have got more, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): About 2 minutes ago. [Interruption] No, it was 2 minutes ago. I was conferring with my colleague, so you got more time than you needed. I am going to call Clayton Mitchell.

I just wish I could swap places with Kevin Hague and have those extra minutes. I have got a lot to say—[Interruption] Yes, I hope he did not eat into my time. But before I get started I have to talk to a couple of things that Mr Hague brought up. I do commend him for supporting this bill through, and I also commend the member David Seymour for bringing this bill forward, although it is a band-aid on the bigger problem here.

We talked about harm minimisation, and I just want to reflect on that for a second. Harm minimisation is a buzzword of the 21st century, and we are living in a period of harm minimisation. If you go back to the 1990s, the 1980s, the 1970s, and the 1960s when binge-drinking on licensed premises was rife, and look at what we have today, you see that we are in a much safer environment. In fact, drinking on licensed premises today is much better than it has ever been. You have to have licensed managers, duty managers, security that has been licensed, and you have to have food available. You have to have all of these things to make sure that your licence is operational, and, of course, you are very, very heavily regulated by the police, the health department, and all other departments, if you have gaming and so forth.

When I consider that 75 percent of all alcohol consumed is consumed off licensed premises and is generally sold to people by 17-year-olds in supermarkets, there is very little being done about managing that harm. I could go off and talk on a tangent, but when 25 percent of alcohol is consumed on premises that are safe and sound and fit for purpose, it brings me to the point about the current legislation not being fit for purpose. I think of all the consultation that was put through 2 years ago to push that legislation into place, and the engagement process that was designed in order to get the communities to come up with the decisions about what they want for their community—i.e., allowing them to decide how late licensed premises can operate and what days they can operate on. Those are the sorts of things that the district licensing committee has the power to do. Yet this legislation—this clunky, not-fit-for-purpose legislation—is outdated in so far as it is very ambiguous when it comes to a special licence condition.

When we look at a special licence it says that for a special licence to apply the social gathering must involve people sharing a common interest with the principal activity of the function being other than the consumption of liquor. Yet I have been dealing recently with a liquor licence application that has gone through in Rotorua where the police have come out and said that this event is not fit for purpose. The council has signed off on this, which is the voice of the people. The health department has signed off on this and is making sure that they are complying with all the health issues, and the police are saying—and this is for Hennessy’s Irish Bar in Rotorua: “Nothing in this application is special. It is simply an extension of the trading hours to watch a televised event. With no pre-sale tickets, the applicant is allowing anyone to attend, which is by default a way of extending the hours, and this approach goes against the nature of a special licence.”

Goodness me! I could have myself a birthday party and go to a licensed premises and invite a hundred guests and get an extension of hours, yet I would suggest that rugby, netball, and many other events that we have got going on around the country are at the heart of what New Zealanders give themselves national pride about.

I want to say New Zealand First does not condone the liberalisation of liquor licensing laws. We merely want to get some clarity around those special licence applications particularly, as so many of these applications have been turned down around the country by police and yet have been supported by the councils. This is the problem that we have got. The only way to thrash this out is in the select committee stage to go through those issues. I would like to hear from submitters. A lot of people are very passionate about this. New Zealand First does not support liberalisation, but some clarity is required to get the current legislation ironed out once and for all. Thank you.

I heard the bell to end that contribution, and for someone who said he wanted an extra minute he sold himself a minute short. But anyway, I thought it was kind of interesting, actually, listening to the previous speaker, Clayton Mitchell. He talked about this being an outdated bill. Considering it is dated today, how quickly it becomes outdated.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Current legislation. You’re a bit slow on the uptake.

I think the word used was “bill”, whereas the other one we have got is an Act. But, anyway, I just thought it was kind of amusing that he was referring to his own birthday as perhaps being as nationally significant as an All Blacks game. But that is all right; we are allowed a little narcissism in the House from time to time.

I just want to talk about this briefly because there has been a lot of focus on the licensing issues, and I agree that is an important matter that we are going to need to work through. But my perspective, and the reason why I am happy to support this bill, is that it is actually about the people of New Zealand being able to witness and enjoy something that many of them hold dear, and that is rugby. I know that some people will call rugby the religion of New Zealand, and that is kind of what people are so heated up about, and it is, I guess, from time to time seen in that way. But it is something that is significant.

As has been alluded to by other speakers, we went to a lot of effort when we hosted the Rugby World Cup here to ensure that people could have access to seeing it, and that, to me, is what this legislation is primarily about: ensuring that New Zealanders can have access to seeing these games. Mr Parker, when he spoke earlier, said, somewhat cynically, that if Mr Seymour was interested in New Zealanders being able to view this game he would be moving legislation to have it publicly broadcasted. I thought: “Of all the years that Mr Parker’s been in Parliament, I’ve yet to see him propose any legislation to do that.” So it seemed a little bit rich to be laying that solely at the feet of Mr Seymour today.

If it was not for the fact that it is only licensed premises in New Zealand, as far as I am aware, that are set up and equipped for people to be able to gather around in large numbers to view these kinds of games, I may have been less sympathetic to this bill. Actually, there are not the opportunities in any other settings that I am aware of particularly for New Zealanders to gather in large numbers to watch the All Blacks and to watch the Rugby World Cup in action. So I am quite happy with this.

We are going to have to do a little bit of work. I would say that if the bill turned up for its third reading in the state it is currently in for its first reading it would not get the same level of support that it is having at its first reading. But, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I have confidence in our committee. It is a fine committee, actually. There are really good sorts of people working hard there for us to be able to iron out some of these things. There have already been some conversations, as Mr Hague referred to. Conversations have already been going on to iron out the kinks in this legislation so that we can bring it back to the House in a reasonably short space of time in a shape that actually achieves the outcome that we are really looking for, which is for New Zealanders to be able to see and witness firsthand the Rugby World Cup.

Not every New Zealander can afford Sky. Not everybody is going to be able to get to their friend’s house to watch it. Indeed, I think that many visitors to New Zealand, knowing that it is a significant sport in our country, would be hoping that while they are here they will be able to sit down and watch the game with a bunch of New Zealanders rather than sit in their own hotel rooms, or otherwise, to watch it. So this is really about including people and allowing people to be a part of the process.

I think we have got to just be careful that we do not get too hung up on this being about liberalising New Zealand’s liquor laws. This is very much a one-off occasion that we are talking about. It is very specific to this time frame. I think we can do some good work on tidying it up, as Jacqui Dean so eloquently put.

💬 Hon Member: What?

No, she did. She spoke eloquently. Host responsibility is still going to apply. We are going to be able to make sure we have the right parameters in place. I have got confidence in the select committee to do a really good job so that we can ensure that New Zealanders will get to watch the All Blacks play in the Rugby World Cup and, as we have all said, we certainly hope to see them in the quarter-finals and the semi-finals, and winning the final again.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I am really looking forward to participating in this debate about the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. I want to begin by highlighting my colleague Kevin Hague’s focus on Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm, the Law Commission report that actually had over 3,000 submissions to that report. It is true there is a negative correlation between alcohol consumption and some of our sporting events and, in fact, a challenge by the ministerial group around the link between alcohol sponsorship and sport and its detrimental consequences on our community. But what I would also like to highlight is that 2,036,900 Kiwis actually watched the 2011 Rugby World Cup final. So the relevance of rugby to New Zealand actually is immense.

The first game was played in Nelson in 1870, and the statistics last year were actually really interesting. We have got over 150,000 players, but there was a 12 percent increase in women playing rugby last year. We have over 600 clubs. And so for me this legislation really is about whether it should be specific to the 2015 Rugby World Cup or, actually, whether it should be generic.

As we saw in the Major Events Management Act 2007 we made it a generic piece of legislation that named specific events. So those specific events were the Rugby World Cup in 2011, the World Rowing Championships, the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup, and the Cricket World Cup that we hosted earlier this year with Australia. Within that piece of legislation there was an ability for the declaration of a major event that then qualified the legislation to a future event.

I actually think it is worth the Justice and Electoral Committee considering replicating that particular clause within that Major Events Management Act, because what we want to do is use the time of this House wisely. I think there is an opportunity to, potentially, extend what this bill is trying to achieve, which, actually, is to make it easier for those people who have existing licences, whether they be on-licences or club licences, to provide for 25 of the 48 matches that include the semi-final, the bronze final, and the final, which will be partly or completely outside the national default hours, to be able to provide New Zealanders with the opportunity to watch the Rugby World Cup.

I want to commend, actually, in the time I have got left, the Auckland Council, which has been incredibly proactive. Through the Auckland Council’s local alcohol policy development it had over 2,600 submissions. What it has done is create on its website, in the special licensing area, a 2015 Rugby World Cup special advice information sheet.

A number of the councils have taken this issue incredibly seriously and, actually, there are provisions currently for people who want to extend their hours to do so, but, essentially—and I have tried to google it and find out how many on-licences we are actually talking about. We know that there are 600 rugby clubs and, presumably, they will all want to open and provide the opportunity for rugby-loving people to watch within their premises, but how many on-licences have we got in Aotearoa New Zealand? I have got no idea, but I am presuming that there are thousands—absolutely thousands. So the other part of this legislation that I do want to highlight is in Part 2, clause 5(5)(a) and (b), which means that if you have got an existing licence, there is a responsibility, if you want to qualify under this legislation, to advise the relevant district licensing committee and the police. So there are safeguards built into this legislation, and I look forward to further debate. Kia ora tātou.

It is a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. I want to pay tribute at the start of my speech to my friend and colleague David Seymour for his foresight and wisdom in introducing this sensible and prudent measure. I also want to pay tribute to the Greens, as well, who over the last 24 to 36 hours have played quite a constructive role in working with David Seymour and members of the Government in allowing this bill to be introduced and allowing it to be read a first time and to be sent to a select committee. The Greens have legitimate concerns about the operation of some of the bill—which will, hopefully, become an Act—and they have legitimate concerns, I think, about some of the scope of what we are trying to do here. Some of those issues are going to be thrashed out at the select committee, and it may well be that the bill that emerges from the select committee will be in quite a different shape from what it is now. That is perfectly appropriate. That is the parliamentary process at play. That is why we have the select committee system, but I think that the Green Party has played quite a constructive role in facilitating this bill to take place.

The aim of this bill is quite a simple one, and I regard it as a noble one. It is to make it easier for New Zealanders to watch the Rugby World Cup. As the Minister of Justice rightly pointed out, and as I think the member in charge of the bill pointed out as well, we do have this unique situation where a lot of the games in the Rugby World Cup are being played outside the standard licensing hours. Some of the evidence that we as Government members have received—and I am sure that the member in charge of the bill has received it as well—is that the process of applying for a special licence to open is quite a cumbersome process and the process may be deterring some people from opening their licensed premises at those times. So the aim of the bill is to make it easier for New Zealanders to watch the Rugby World Cup.

The act of watching a sporting match with friends and family, or even with complete strangers, at licensed premises is something of a New Zealand tradition, and it is not so much even about the actual game. In my experience, it is certainly not about the drinking, and there have over the last 24 to 36 hours been some quite odd claims made about how this is facilitating public boozing and drunkenness, and things like that. With some of these events that you go to that we are talking about with regard to this bill, it is not really so much about the game and it is not really about the drinking at all, but it is about the collective endeavour of people coming together as a unit and as a body to express pride and to show passion and to enjoy the game of rugby. [Interruption] You know, Andrew Little may well be singing along to the Australian anthem in his licensed premises over a couple of beers at 5 in the morning. There was a slightly strange comment from him this week. My personal view is that I hope that at some point in the future we have a new New Zealand flag, so that when we all go down to the pub to watch the All Blacks play, we can raise a new New Zealand flag and not one that is not representative, in my view, of New Zealand today. But that is slightly off the main point of this bill.

That is what the bill is about. I think it is a simple objective and it is one that is a noble one, and the bill deserves to be sent to a select committee. As I think other members have noted, there are some issues around the margins of the bill that will, rightly, be considered in the select committee process. One issue that has been mentioned already in the House is whether or not the bill should apply just to the All Blacks games or whether or not it should also apply to, say, South African or Australian games.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Manu Samoa.

You know, I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides. “Manu Samoa.” says my friend and colleague Trevor Mallard, over on that side. There are legitimate arguments about that, and I think that the select committee process is the right way to thrash them out. I am conscious that I have used up most of my time and I am also very conscious that I have got a member’s bill later on tonight, which I am very keen to get to, so with those quick remarks, I want to endorse this bill to the House. I look forward to examining it in further detail on the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a short call and speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. It might interest the House to know that during the 2011 Rugby World Cup I was an employee of the Māori Television Service and I had the good fortune of commentating most of the rugby games held here in this country, of course, all the way up to the final. Although rolling down to the local pub and sharing a few beers with your good friends is not quite up close and personal—certainly not as up close and personal as my experience during the 2011 Rugby World Cup—it was one of those fantastic opportunities to see so many people come out and support the Rugby World Cup; not only just the locals but, of course, the many tourists who came to New Zealand to support it.

I do have a few numbers here that I thought might interest the House. These numbers are around the viewership of the Rugby World Cup of 2011. Over 2 million viewers tuned into the Rugby World Cup final in 2011 from here in New Zealand. That actually makes it the most watched event in the history of television in New Zealand. It is interesting to note that in the top 10 of most watched events, most of them are sport, with the exception of the tragic passing of Princess Diana. That speaks a lot about just what our people think about and how we feel about certain things. I just want to point out that most of the most watched events in the top 10 are sports-related. Of those, rugby certainly dominates. So that is the viewership locally.

I want to touch a little bit on the international viewership. The Rugby World Cup 2011 final was the most watched event in New Zealand, as I have already mentioned. In France, however, the final attracted the largest television audience for the calendar year, with an average of 13.4 million viewers, a peak of 18.1 million, and an audience share of 82 percent, despite the early kick-off in France. Seventy-three percent of France’s total population of 63 million watched at least 15 minutes of the Rugby World Cup final. Those numbers are staggering. Those numbers are absolutely staggering, and although I do not think we will quite match France’s viewership numbers, I certainly do hope that we will get along and support our team in black.

However, I do welcome this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee—the hardest-working select committee in the Parliament, I would argue. We look forward to debating some of the more technical points with regard to the bill. Some of those are around compliance and some of those are around the licences, and I think it is timely just to remind the House, as our colleague Kevin Hague did, of some of the social costs around alcohol abuse.

Although I could not quite find the numbers in respect of when alcohol abuse numbers spike—at what time of day—I think it is fair to say that a lot of those crimes that are alcohol-related do happen in the wee hours of the morning. So I do have a wee concern about those numbers. One of those numbers that members might be interested in is that the tangible social cost of harmful alcohol use was just over $3.3 billion approximately a decade ago. Those numbers are concerning.

What is also concerning in the breakdown of those numbers is the labour cost. We know from extended hours—so you can go to a pub, enjoy yourself between the hours of 4 and whatever it might be, share a beer with your colleagues and hope that you are OK to go to work—that over $1.7 billion in labour costs was lost just in relation to alcohol use. So those are some numbers that I do have a few concerns about. I do hope that that can be fleshed out and discussed robustly at the select committee, and I look forward to making this bill a bit more robust to ensure that, firstly, we enjoy the Rugby World Cup and, secondly, we do it safely. Kia ora.

I call David Seymour—5 minutes in reply.

I exercise a very short right of reply. I would like to thank the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, for his very informative speech. It is not without trepidation that I realise that the French team will likely have more than 1 million audience members per player on the field. None the less, I believe that our All Blacks will prevail. This debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill is ultimately about whether we take a permissive approach to responsible adult New Zealanders being able to choose their own values, their own behaviour, and what is important to them. So I am very proud that some of the details of the bill will be able to be debated as we constantly seek to refine that balance between freedom and harm, but, none the less, I think the important thing is that the debate is taking place and I look forward, as the House has given leave, to the bill being referred to the select committee and being reported back on 26 August for its second and third readings forthwith. Without any more from me, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.