Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I have already spoken for 10 minutes on this bill today, so I am going to keep my remarks fairly brief, except to say I was remiss in acknowledging the very fine officials who advised the Justice and Electoral Committee, who I think did an excellent job in supporting us. We are very grateful to them.

Also, I acknowledge the many submitters, who, I have to say, were of varying quality. There were a large number of form submissions, of a form that were largely inaccurate. In fact, there were some quite helpful and intelligent submissions, such as those from Auckland Council, the Auckland District Licensing Committee, and also from the Hospitality Association and Local Government New Zealand, which pointed out useful new information that assisted the committee in drafting a very good bill to return to the House.

I would like to thank the members for some of their speeches, and I particularly pick up on what Chris Bishop said at the second reading. The facts are that if you look at the quantity of alcohol consumed by New Zealanders, the concentration of consumption, the amount of binge drinking, and the distribution of that drinking across different age groups, it is a myth that New Zealand is somehow an outlier by international standards and that young New Zealanders have the worst of drinking problems. Quite the opposite is true, and in a liberalised environment over the last 30 years, alcohol consumption and harm has actually gone down. Those are the facts and I think they should be recorded for the House—none of which, of course, are incompatible with saying that there are difficulties with alcohol in New Zealand and we should always ensure to do better.

I would like to thank Peeni Henare for a very good contribution. He said I had a Magna Doodle. I was not aware that the member spoke Latin, but I thank him for that and for the rest of his contribution.

I want to put on record one matter in regard to this bill. Several people, in what is actually an unparliamentary way, insinuated that the bill was drafted by lobbyists with my help. I can tell the House that there was no such occurrence. I drafted this bill, and did I get on the phone and ask people in my electorate? Yes, I did. If there is one thing that I have noticed throughout this debate, it is that it is very humbling to have to walk up the driveway in the middle of winter, knock on the door, and say: “Hi, I am here to ask you to vote for me.” You learn a lot about what happens in your community, and you become a lot more worldly about the effect of the policies that we make in this House.

That is not to say that there are no very good list MPs, because I have just complimented one of them, but it may also tell us something a little bit about the approach of the Green Party members, who, of course, do not have any. Did I ask, for example, the Hospitality Association for its advice? Of course you would ask for the view of an organisation that represented the people who run the facilities, but this was a drafting very much initiated by me.

I would like to thank one of my staff members who brought it to our attention that the British actually had what we regarded as a piece of model legislation passed for the FIFA World Cup just last year. So I want to put on record the genesis of this bill, and if the people who made those allegations want to repeat those unparliamentary allegations, then I challenge them to do so.

While we are talking about politics, I think that one of the things that Chris Bishop touched on was actually the intergenerational aspect of this. Can you not imagine being a new member of Parliament, thrust into the limelight after having been made the leader of your party, and the guy whom you beat to be the leader—we have been using a lot of sporting analogies today—forces you to do a triple somersault? Three positions on the same issue in just 2 weeks—if that is not dissension and difficulty within a party, then I do not know what is. I repeat what other members have said, which is that the public will be the judge. I suspect they will conclude that the younger James Shaw had it right, and the internal dissension in the Greens is going to have to be dealt with one way or another. I just wish James luck on that, not only on this bill but for the integrity of the Greens’ being able to take one position on a bill for 2 weeks in a row.

Finally, this bill is fundamentally about community. Members have said: “Why can’t you just open without alcohol?”. Well, the fact of the matter is that most of us actually do responsibly enjoy alcohol, and most of the licensed premises have their special licence on the basis that they cannot open if their primary activity is to serve alcohol—they must be allowed to serve alcohol when they open. So they are one and the same. That does not necessarily mean that what they are going to do is serve excessive alcohol. In fact, I predict that what will happen is that the overwhelming majority of people will come out early in the morning for breakfast and a coffee, maybe a lemonade or a shandy, and maybe a pint of beer.

The question for the opponents of this bill is “Why should law-abiding, responsible New Zealanders not be able to do that?”, rather than the question the opponents would like us to answer, which is “How will you justify yourselves to us?”. This is fundamentally about individual freedom and personal responsibility, and what the opponents have done is taken a very cynical bet. They are a little bit like an Opposition party I once heard when it was learning of bad news for the country. It said: “Good grief, it’s even worse than we hoped.”

The members in opposition to this bill have taken the cynical position that if there is an unfortunate occurrence that coincides with the Rugby World Cup and this bill, and if there is an unfortunate occurrence that may or may not have been caused by this bill, they will be in a position to say: “I told you so.” It is cynical and dirty politics to do that. What I hope is that we are going to have a warm, communitarian festival event where we are able to use our community facilities, our pubs, and our clubs to come together as free and responsible New Zealanders. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a bill that is not so much about the drinking of alcohol. This is a bill that is very much about watching rugby down at the pub with your mates or in any licensed or club premises. My ideal circumstance is probably watching one of the All Blacks games in my home town of Ōāmaru, probably in Fat Sally’s, I would imagine, and it will be an event organised by the rugby club, of which I am the patron, so it will be—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

When I started my contribution before the dinner hour my opening comments were that this bill is not so much about the harms created by alcohol—and I will go into that in a bit—but rather the ability for licensees to televise Rugby World Cup games outside their normal licensing hours.

The reason I talk about the opportunity to watch rugby on live television outside of licensing hours is that throughout the consideration of this bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee, it was brought to us that we needed to be very precise about just what it was we were proposing to legislate for. Perhaps I should say what we are not legislating for: the ability for licensed premises to take advantage of the provisions in this member’s bill, which will become part of the principal Act, simply to extend their licensing hours for a bout of all-night drinking. This bill is not about that.

There are provisions in the bill to ensure that, for example, if a Rugby World Cup game commences more than 2 hours outside of the licensee’s normal trading hours, then that premises has to close and it may reopen, under the terms of this bill, an hour before the scheduled game. This is not about extended drinking opportunities. Rather, this is a bill that is about the opportunity for New Zealanders who are passionate about the All Blacks, and that is all of us, I think, having the opportunity to get together and celebrate whichever team they are supporting, whether it is Samoa, Namibia, South Africa, or the mighty All Blacks. It gives New Zealanders and everybody else the opportunity to watch in a social setting a game of rugby on a licensed premises.

If we look at the bill, there is, helpfully, at the back, in schedule 4, I believe, a list of all the games. One will see that the games run from 1.30 in the morning right through until 9 o’clock. So the latest game that is scheduled is 9 o’clock in the morning. I think it would be stretching it a bit to think that that is a recipe for all-night drinking, particularly under the provisions of this bill. However, I do acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed to the select committee through submissions and also in this House that there is harm associated with liquor licensing. That really underpins the reasoning why, although this was a member’s bill that was a stand-alone bill, it is now proposed to become an amendment to the principal Act, which is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, with an expiry date, by the way.

There was one member in the House who did not sit on the committee terribly many times, and I do need to put on record that this bill does in fact expire. It is explicit in the bill and in the commentary on the bill that this is a bill that gives effect to licensees being able to trade outside their normal licensing hours for the purposes of televising live Rugby World Cup games. We were very careful in the select committee to be explicit about that point so that there would be no mistake.

I want to turn my attention a little to the word “televise”. Of course, these days many people will follow Rugby World Cup games on Twitter, Facebook, and other means, like live streaming, but this bill, although not excluding that, is explicit in that it is intended to enable licensed premises that have a large TV screen available to most of the people in the bar to televise that rugby game for the enjoyment of the people who choose to go and watch it.

I was watching the telly in the break, as one does, and I saw one of the 7 o’clock programmes—we call them news programmes, loosely—which did a story on this bill and put up the proposition that it is perhaps not needed because we do have the ability to grant special licences. Yes, it is true we do—“we”, as in licensees—but there is the genesis of this bill, because what has been found is that district licensing committees can put very onerous conditions on special licences, which then have to be appealed, as has happened many times, and can put onerous licensing conditions upon the applicant. “What’s the problem?” one says. “There is nothing wrong with onerous mitigating measures to mitigate the harm from alcohol.” So this is where the provisions of this Rugby World Cup licensing regime come in.

When notifying police or a district licensing committee that a licensee wishes to be open for the All Black versus Australia semi-final, within 7 days that licensee has to provide the police and district licensing committee with a notice that sets out the measures they will take to reduce the harms associated with being open. Although that is not appealable, which is a little unusual in itself, there are three brightline conditions that must also go with that notification, and those are: no dumping bottles in dumpsters in the early hours, no use of outside courtyard facilities, and no broadcasting of loud music. Furthermore, because this bill has been made an amendment to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act for as long as it lasts, that enables section 259 of the Act to apply. That section deals with variations in hours and transgressions against licensing conditions. So there is protection for citizens, and there is the ability for the police and licensing inspectors to step in and act if there is a transgression.

I just wanted to be very clear about the provisions of this bill—it is stepping in where a gap is left with special licences. Whether this Government and this Parliament deals with special licensing in the future is a matter for another debate, but this bill fills that gap. This is the bill that is going to enable New Zealanders like me, who only ever support one team, to be able to go down to the pub and watch the rugby. I will able to go down to Fat Sally’s on Thames Street in Ōāmaru—and I started to say this before dinner—as a guest of the North Otago Rugby Football Union, of which I am a patron, and watch one of the games in the bar. I will probably have something to drink, I will definitely have something to eat, and I will cheer my heart out as New Zealand and our mighty All Blacks go forward to win the Rugby World Cup. Thank you.

I want to start my contribution by speaking briefly about the process issues that we are going through and just to record that I do think it is unsatisfactory that we come to the House tonight having not had a Committee of the whole House on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

I actually support this piece of legislation and I will explain my support for it in a moment. But I do think this was an issue that was foreseeable. It was raised with me a couple of months ago. I undertook to talk to various stakeholders on the issue in my own inner-city electorate, and I do think there was the opportunity to have a better process than the one we are having now. No matter what the good intent either of Mr Seymour or of the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I fear that there will be unforeseen circumstances—unforeseen things will arise as a result of this that we have not had enough time to work through. There is even some confusion among members about exactly what provisions have stayed in the bill and what provisions have not, so I regret the fact that we are doing it this way.

I would rather that we were treating this matter with a little bit more caution and with a little bit more of the normal process that we have, and I just want to put on record that I think the Government dropped the ball—and that will be one of the very few rugby metaphors that I will use in this speech; but there may be one or two others. I do think the Government has dropped the ball in terms of not getting on to this issue earlier. I also think that although Mr Seymour has taken the initiative on the bill, the Government itself was at one point going to take it up, and again I think it probably would have been better had it done that. That is not what happened, and we stand here tonight having to debate this bill in the form that we are.

In the Wellington area a number of special licences have already been granted to establishments to screen games for the Rugby World Cup, and the process that those establishments went through was a thorough one. They spoke with the district licensing authority, the police were involved, and they were granted special licences, with a series of conditions. That process should be the process that we are able to follow for events like the Rugby World Cup. However, around the country inconsistent approaches were abounding. The idea of ridiculous conditions being put on the licences became, it seemed, a tactic to be used in certain authorities by certain people who had a concern about the licence. So we got the stories of people needing to run fancy dress parties or quiz nights or have MCs, and all sorts of things like that.

The inconsistency of that process concerns me. I think it would be far better if this legislation was actually about special licences rather than a blanket exemption. For me that is what I thought I was doing as a member of this Parliament when we passed the last Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act changes—establishing that a special event like the Rugby World Cup would generate a situation where a special licence would be provided.

It has become clear for many people in this process, either deliberately in terms of trying to make it more difficult to get special licences or simply because this is how they interpreted it, that the special event is the thing that happens in the licensed premises, not the thing that is on the screen, on the television. For me as a member of this Parliament I always felt we were passing legislation where an event like the Rugby World Cup on the screen would be the special event, and had that interpretation been consistently taken around New Zealand, then we would have had applications for special licences on the basis of the event, the Rugby World Cup. So I want to put on record that my preference would have been to be able to use the special licence process, on the understanding that the special event was the event, the Rugby World Cup, and we will have to revisit this because we cannot keep doing this every time a major event in the world comes up. I would much rather we were in that situation.

But my reason for supporting this bill relates to the fact that the Rugby World Cup is a special event. Obviously, I am a huge rugby fan. I appreciate that not everybody else is, but I think we can all understand that the Rugby World Cup will be an event quite different from any others that we see. People want to come together for these events. This is about a sense of community. It is not about a sense of wanting to go on long, drawn-out drinking benders. The few people who might think that that is what they want to do are going to find they are not going to be able to. They are going to find that actually both the police and the licence holders are not going to let them do that. They know there will be huge scrutiny on them, as part of this bill, and it simply will not occur.

What this will be about is people coming together for what are iconic moments in their history—and that will not necessarily be confined just to New Zealanders. The passion with which people from other nationalities will follow their teams will match New Zealanders’, and when Samoa play and when South Africa play we will see huge turnouts of people wanting to be part of that. I believe there is more danger of people leaving pubs in a caffeine and bacon-induced haze than there is in an alcoholic haze after these events, because that is what will happen. We do need to be practical and real about this. People will mostly be there having breakfast, because that is the timing of the games when they would be wanting to be out, and that is what I know in my own heart is what will happen.

That is not to diminish the concerns that have been raised tonight about our drinking culture and about the laws that govern the way in which alcohol is used and sold in New Zealand. I think Chris Bishop did a disservice to this bill by standing up in this House and trying to diminish binge drinking and its impact in New Zealand. It is a real thing. Standing in this House and saying it is a myth and it does not exist is actually a silly—

💬 Jono Naylor: That’s not what he said.

No, it is what he said, Mr Naylor. I have listened to Chris Bishop’s speech. You know, you could see the old tobacco lobbyist coming out, taking the statistics, and twisting them round for his argument. I think that was a silly set of arguments for Chris Bishop to make.

I want to put on the record again that we do need to look at the drinking culture that we have in New Zealand. We need to look at things like hours of sale, cost of alcohol, the abuse of alcohol, and education. This bill is not going to sort that out, and opposing this bill is not going to sort that out. So I continue to support the bill, but I do not appreciate those arguments. I do not think they are helpful. I think Mr Bishop needs to look again, and spend a little bit of time perhaps with an accident and emergency staff member on a Saturday night before he does that. I also want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the linkage between alcohol and domestic violence. They are serious issues that New Zealand needs to get its head around. Again, though, I do not believe that opposing this legislation is the way in which we will address those particular issues.

I do think it is important to relate the matter around the conditions of licences. The licences that were granted in a place like Wellington take into account the concerns of those who live in the inner city, and I want to acknowledge the Wellington Inner City Association, which has put in a very good submission on this bill about its concerns. They are the people who wake up in the morning when those bottles crash down when they are being thrown out, they are the people who will be concerned about the courtyard noise, and so I appreciate the work that the Justice and Electoral Committee did in knocking out some of those things. But I have to acknowledge that the Wellington Inner City Association would rather the bill went further, would rather that there were more restrictions around, and we do have to appreciate the mixed use of inner-city environments.

Having said that, all of the conditions that apply to licences, other than hours, will continue to apply, and I am quite sure that the police will keep a very close eye on that in the Wellington central area, as they always do. I am very pleased to see the provision around people whose licences have been suspended not being able to use the provisions of this bill. We should not reward bad behaviour; we should make sure that those pubs understand that they are not able to be part of the special occasion, because of what they have done. I also want to note the provisions that basically say that the only way that noise restrictions that are not in this bill will apply is where they are more restrictive than what is in this bill. I think it is very important that we maintain the faith that we are putting in people behaving responsibly.

So I will be supporting this legislation. I do not think this is the best way that this House could have gone about this. I do think that we need to sort out the provisions around special licences and special events. I do think there could have been some more conditions imposed, particularly around the question of venues being closer to schools and other things like that, but on balance this is a special event, as I envisaged a special event when the sale of liquor legislation changes went through. I think we need to work together as a community to reduce and eliminate harm from alcohol use. We must continue to do that regardless of what we are doing here today, but this piece of legislation, on balance, is one that I can support.

It is a great pleasure to rise to take another call on this bill so quickly after we have had the second reading. Some of the members who are here will remember that before we went to the dinner break I talked about the importance of why we should have this legislation. I talked about the importance of the games, and I talked about the importance of sport in New Zealand and people’s ability to be able to watch it. I do not want to rehash all the same stories that I told in my last speech, because I am sure that people do not want to hear about my cricket-watching escapade of 1983, so I will try to focus a little bit more on the bill. I know that Jo Hayes wants to hear the story. I will have to tell her later, but that is all right.

Given the truncated process that we have had to follow in order to meet the time lines associated with the Rugby World Cup looming so quickly, I believe that it is important, in the absence of the Committee stage and in the absence of, perhaps, a longer period for submissions, that we ensure that we cover the bases well tonight and that we go through the bill very well in its third reading. What I want to start with, though, is really outlining some of the key issues that the Justice and Electoral Committee faced as a select committee as we went through this process. There was certainly a good level of debate, and I have to say that it was probably one of the most enjoyable experiences that I have had in a select committee since being in Parliament, in terms of people, basically, working constructively to try to find a way through and to find a sensible outcome for what is probably going to be a reasonably important event—well, hopefully, an extremely important event—for New Zealand in a few weeks’ time. It was a very constructive select committee process, where we explored the various upsides and downsides of having this kind of legislation. I guess, obviously, the fact that we are all voting for this bill in so many numbers this evening indicates that we have arrived at a point where we think we have achieved the right balance and that we are going to get a good piece of legislation that is going to serve the people of New Zealand well.

I just want to stress again, though, that this bill is not about enabling people to drink. This is a bill that is about enabling people to take part in what is an important event, in a sporting sense but also in terms of being a community event. So that is what this is. Unfortunately, there are not too many premises that are not licensed that are available for people to watch this kind of thing in a public setting, and so that is why we are addressing this through a licensed premises piece of legislation, to enable people to go along and quietly enjoy the games. There will be some shouting, I am sure, particularly if we score a few tries, but the point of this legislation is not to cut across the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act; no one is intending to do that. I do not necessarily think that we are compromising the principles of the Act by allowing places that are licensed to be able to be open for a short space of time, to allow people to enjoy this event for a very specific period of time, and for a very specific series of games, and then move on.

I guess the first thing that came up, really, was dealing with what is wrong with the special licence process. Mr Robertson, in his contribution just before mine, said that obviously there was concern about some of the variations in conditions that we have been seeing across the country when people are applying for special licences, with there being a sense of variation around the countryside. I think it is really critical that we get some sense of uniformity across the country. Some people do not deem it a special event unless people are wearing costumes; others do not deem it a special event unless it is a ticketed event. The difficulty is that when I think of the special conditions, or the special licence provisions within the existing Act, I think that they do not necessarily deal with the idea of a mass thing that is happening right across the countryside and is going to affect multiple licensed outlets.

Mr Mitchell, in his speech in the second reading, talked about an event that he had organised, which had 17,000 people at it. I think that if someone were going to organise an event that had 17,000 people at that one event, at that one place, we would all say that it was pretty easy—well, it is not easy, because he told us that it took 35 pages to apply for the special licence. But it is pretty direct and it is pretty noticeable what you have to do in order to get that special licence. Actually, what we are going to get is a district licensing committee that deals with that one licence. But, potentially, what we would have is every licensed premises within a territorial local authority area applying for a special licence. Frankly, I think that that is overly bureaucratic. They all would have to pay an extra fee for it. They all would have to do a whole lot of extra paperwork. We would probably find that the local council would have to put on extra staff to deal with this influx of special licence applications. So if, by putting together a reasonably simple piece of legislation, we can ensure that there is a sense of uniformity and a sense of basic provisions as to what needs to be put in place for people to televise these games, that seems eminently sensible to me.

I guess then the question is: why would we make it an amendment bill rather than an Act in its own right? Of course, when we were weighing up the important principles that we needed to incorporate into this bill, what we wanted to ensure was that we did not make it more permissive for people than the current legislation, in the general sense. So instead of actually trying to incorporate into this piece of legislation all of those facets of licences, it seemed much easier, much simpler, and much more straightforward to sort of bolt this on to the current legislation rather than importing into the bill a whole lot of bits from the original Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. So for simple streamlining purposes, we wanted to do that. It means that the police and district licensing inspectors will, essentially, be policing the same kinds of conditions, as well as these extra ones that we have put in. They will be able to ensure that people are trading safely, are trading within the law, and are trading within the boundaries that we as a society think are appropriate. So that is the purpose, if you like, of ensuring that this moves forward. It is straightforward, and it is simple and easy to understand. People who have licences know how the Act works. They will find this amendment in it and will find out what they need to do. It is simple. They are not having to go and look for a special piece of legislation.

I think the other important thing—and other speakers have touched on this, but I do want to pick up on it—is that not everybody who currently holds a liquor licence will automatically get an extension to their hours for the purposes of the Rugby World Cup. We talked about this at great length in the select committee, and I think there was pretty much universal agreement that if somebody has breached their conditions or has had their hours curtailed in the last 12 months because they have been behaving in a way that is contrary to their licence or, more to the point, contrary to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—i.e. serving a minor, serving somebody who was intoxicated, or otherwise—they should not get one of these special licences. We felt that it is not appropriate to reward somebody who, in the last 12 months, has shown a lack of responsibility in the way that they operate their premises, and so what we wanted to do was ensure that those people are not then able, with carte blanche, to just have an open-ended licence and move forward. So that is one thing that I think it is really important to note—that not everybody is going to get a special licence.

When it comes to the idea of trading hours, again, this caused some complexity because, of course, the games do not necessarily run back to back. One game does not start as soon as the other one finishes. There might be some time in between games, so there was a bit of a conversation about our needing to work out what was the most appropriate way to deal with games that would be spaced slightly apart. So what we said is that given it is probably going to be difficult for people to close down and open up again, we have got no issue with there being a gap of less than 2 hours. Absolutely, licence holders are going to have to close down and reopen if there is a gap of more than 2 hours between the games that they are screening. But if there is a gap of less than 2 hours, it would seem a little bit ludicrous to make them shut down, given that they are allowed to be open or serve drinks for half an hour after the game and have everyone out within an hour, and then they are allowed to open up again an hour beforehand.

Having looked through the agenda of the games, we thought about what the right sort of balance would be, and we said that, essentially, if there are more than 2 hours between games, then they will need to shut down and open again. I think that addresses some of the concerns of people who are concerned that people might arrive at a bar at 11 o’clock at night and stay there until 9 o’clock in the morning. I agree that this was not necessarily completely in tune with what we were trying to achieve. That may well happen in terms of some of the games, but what we are trying to do is minimise harm where we can.

I think that we have done some really good work over the last couple of weeks. It is a challenging idea to put together a piece of legislation this quickly. I commend the work that the select committee has done, and I commend this bill to the House.

I want to start this contribution with one of the points that Jono Naylor has just made in that speech of his, where he says that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill does not undermine or cut across the purpose of the principal Act, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The purpose of the principal Act is harm minimisation. The Law Commission and this House were clear that one of the ways that that needed to be done was by restricting the hours that alcohol was available for sale. So it seems to me kind of cutting across that. Then what we said in the debate around the original legislation, when it went through the House in 2012, was that we would deal with events that fell outside of normal licensed hours by means of special licences. We specified that the Rugby World Cup and, indeed, international sporting fixtures more generally were precisely the kinds of things for which special licences were created. What that does, of course, is it enables licensing committees to assess an application for a special licence, according to the circumstances of the applicant, and enables the licensing committee to impose conditions that are able to meet the primary objective of the principal Act, to minimise harm associated with that extension of licensed hours.

It seems to me that when Alastair Scott said in the second reading that what this Parliament is doing is going over the heads of local government and imposing a blanket special licence to almost everyone, that is, actually, precisely what cutting across the intent of the original Act is all about. It would have been possible—if we are creating a special licence for everyone, effectively, then the onus should be on this House—to set the conditions at the level that those licensing committees would have chosen to set them at the most restrictive level, had they been assessing individual applications for special licences. This House, in this bill, is choosing not to do that. Submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee, in large numbers, told us what the conditions ought to be; this House is choosing to ignore most of what they said.

I want to come to the issue of whether or not this bill is necessary, because in a number of the contributions this afternoon and this evening I have heard members continuing to quote the same kinds of statements that we have heard from proponents of the bill—that a special licensing regime would have been the right way to do this but, sadly, it just is not working, that people are not getting licences, or that the licences that people are getting have onerous conditions. I just want to put on record the evidence that was heard by the select committee about that issue. Here is the evidence: the committee saw no evidence whatsoever that any special licence had been refused anywhere. The select committee received no submission from any licensee saying: “Well, I received the special licence, but the conditions on it were too onerous.” The committee heard from the New Zealand Police in its submission opposing the bill that special licences had been issued in all police districts except two, and in the two districts where special licences had not been issued, that was because applications had not been made, not because they had been refused. So it seems to me that the evidence, the actual evidence before this House’s select committee, actually suggests that the evidence of the problem is, in the very best instance, exaggerated.

We also heard about a licensed premises in Rotorua, I think it was, that had applied for and received special licences to open and to serve alcohol during 23 Rugby World Cup games. It has been referred to already in the second reading debate. The premises found that the conditions initially imposed by the licensing committee were more onerous than it would have preferred. It appealed against those licensing conditions and had almost all of them thrown out. So it seems to me that if indeed there is a problem in some parts of the country with, perhaps, bizarre or maybe more onerous conditions being imposed, actually that suggests that the courts themselves will, in fact, even that problem out.

When we heard in the lead-up to this bill being considered of the case that the special licensing regime was not working as this House had intended, the correct response to that problem was that we ought to have a review of implementation of the special licensing regime, and then to correct problems with it, if, indeed, they exist. That is important for a reason that Grant Robertson, in fact, has already given in this House in this reading. What next? If this is the approach that we are taking to the Rugby World Cup, the thinnest end of the wedge, will the next bill be about the Cricket World Cup or the Netball World Cup or the World Rowing Championships? What is actually happening here is that industry and people who were disgruntled with the original legislation that this House passed in 2012 are attempting to relitigate that point. So a review of the implementation of special licensing is required, and the Green Party urges the Minister of Justice to initiate such an inquiry. The Green Party agreed to allow this bill to go forward to a select committee so that the public’s views could be heard on the basis, first of all, that claims were being made that the special licensing regime was not working as intended—those have proved to be exaggerated, at best—and also on the basis of undertakings made by ACT and National. I am sad to say that those undertakings have not been honoured.

I want to move now to talk about another of the arguments that have been made by the bill’s proponents. The bill’s proponents have depicted New Zealand’s drinking culture in a way that differs extremely starkly from the picture painted by the Law Commission, by the police, by New Zealand’s medical and other health professionals, by Women’s Refuge, and by other community organisations that work with the consequences of alcohol abuse. Proponents of the bill have described New Zealand’s drinking culture as sophisticated, mature, and moderate. When they have described how this bill will work in practice, they have described people turning up to a premises, perhaps with a family atmosphere—eating breakfast, drinking coffee. As we heard from one proponent of the bill this evening, they are more likely to be suffering the ill effects of an excess of bacon and coffee when they leave. Well, I am sure we could all probably think of premises like that; I certainly can. My flat in Wellington is about a block away from Courtenay Place, and I can tell the House that arguably on most mornings of the week one has to be careful for the first few hundred metres of my walk to work to dodge the debris of the previous night’s consumption of alcohol—specifically the vomit, whether it be dry or still wet. That actually is a regular feature of inner-city Wellington.

Although we can think of plenty of premises where that is the culture, I will bet that every single member of this House can think of at least one premises where the owner will look at this bill, rub their hands, and say: “Great. I can extend the hours in which I can sell alcohol, and all I have to do is buy a TV and a Sky subscription. That’s a pretty good deal.” If proponents of the bill are serious about that culture, how about this for a two-tier system? Let us remind the police that this House wanted the special licensing regime to be available for Rugby World Cup games, and, at the same time, let us amend the principal Act. Let us amend it to allow all licensed premises to open for every single Rugby World Cup game, provided they do not sell alcohol. We would vote for that bill.

Phew, that was on ordeal. I would like to start by commending Jono Naylor actually, first and foremost, for his comments and his recognition of reading a crowd so well for him to not to put us through another cricket story like we had in the second reading. And I swear to God that I would not have been surprised if you had sent him out of the House and given him 10 minutes on the bench with that sort of behaviour, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is pleasing to see that he got himself back on track and—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But the member said that Brazil played rugby.

Well, there were Brazilians and South Americans, and of course the Chileans, in the rugby—but it was great to see that he got back on track to speak about rugby.

I would also like to start by saying that it is not very often that New Zealand First shares similarities with the Green Party and its views, and, of course, today is not one of those days that we share its view. However, there are a number of sentiments that the Green Party has displayed quite eloquently today that we do actually have concerns about. And there is definitely a binge-drinking culture in this country—for anybody to say that there is not, and to bring out Wikipedia to try to beat us up with facts and figures and to suggest that we are sitting in the middle tier of the world when we talk about social drinking ailments, I think they are missing the point.

The fact of the matter is that we do have a binge-drinking culture, but it is on the decline. You have to again get back to those vectors—the direction in which we are travelling—and we are getting it under control with this binge-drinking culture. In fact, I will just bring your attention to a member’s bill that would also help address the binge-drinking culture. I am sure, once the bill, which is in my name, gets pulled out of the ballot, the House will support it because it is, of course, addressing binge-drinking culture. The reality is, if the National Party does not support it, then I am sure it will bring it up and put it in as its own policy in a few weeks’ time, as it generally does with New Zealand First policies.

The general policy statement of the Summary Offences (Drink or Drugs Affecting Behaviour) Amendment Bill says: “The binge drinking and drug culture in New Zealand, especially among the young, is causing serious anti-social and harmful behaviour in many communities throughout the country … This bill would make it an offence to be drunk or drug affected in a public place, or while trespassing on private property, to a degree that serious harm could result.”

This is about personal responsibility, and we keep hearing the gibes and the attacks on licensed premises for vomit in the street, which we have just heard from Kevin Hague, and the reality is that within the current culture 75 percent of all alcohol that is consumed is consumed off premise; it is consumed in people’s homes. It is bought from the supermarket or down at the liquor store and drunk at home. What happens after people have had a few beers is they want to go, like moths around a flame, to where social intercourse is—gathering of people and communications. I would suggest that in this House the number of members who are married and who are in loving relationships who met their loved ones either at the pub—

💬 David Bennett: Oh, no way! Don’t tell us this story. We don’t want to hear this one.

—or at a sporting club, where you are having a few beers and you are engaging in social intercourse—

Mr Bennett, you might be one of the members mentioned in the Ashley Madison group. You might find your love in another place, but we are talking about genuine love here.

💬 Hon Member: He hasn’t got a love.

He has not got a love. In fact, I am sure his mum is trying to get him a house so he can move out of home. The point is that we are trying to facilitate social engagement because it is the core of our society. The ability to be able to go down and have a beer and watch the rugby with your friends, with your family, and with your mates and enjoy the camaraderie and enjoy the atmosphere of a rugby match is what this bill is actually about.

We do not agree with the way that this has come about. Excuse my language, but it is arse about face. The reality is we need to get back to the basics and actually review this bill and iron out the problems. I have been hearing a lot about the police getting the raw end of the stick on this, but they are risk averse. It is their job to minimise harm, and we are not giving them a fair suck of the sav to actually say that it is the stuff-up of this Government.

It is the stuff-up of this Government that has got us into this position where we had to throw a bill on the table at 5 minutes to midnight, scramble around, and try to mish-mash it and mosh it together. It is an absolute dog’s breakfast. New Zealand First debated this in caucus to the point where we had to decide that it is not the fault of the licensees, it is not the fault of the police, and it sure is not the fault of the rugby fans who want to enjoy a beer. So we have come along to support this bill, but it should not be here needing the support if this piece of legislation, the Supply and Sale of Alcohol Act 2012, had actually been—

💬 Brett Hudson: Why don’t we just host the world cup?

—remedied and sorted out, Mr Hudson, the first time. Oh, wait a minute, you were not there the first time. You are a first-time MP, and you may not be back again, the way you go, mate.

I have to say that the vast majority of people in this country enjoy a beer with no problem, enjoy the pub, enjoy the atmosphere, and we are talking about the minuscule minority that spoil it for the rest and everybody else. We are talking about one person who may have vomited. At the end of the day, you cannot judge a book by its cover, because, again, we get back to the statistics that 75 percent of all alcohol is consumed off premise. They go into town after pre-loading. They may not have even got into a licensed premises and, yes, there is a can in the street and, yes, there may be some vomit in the street.

We are not condoning that behaviour at all, but what we are saying is that it is very easy for the Greens to sit there and throw stones at the industry when in actual fact the problem is the overall binge-drinking culture, because there is no personal responsibility. I would just like to come back to the bill now and settle myself down just a fraction—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

I can see the look of joy on your face, Mr Deputy Speaker. The reality is the District Licensing Committee and the current legislation were designed to actually get engagement with the community. Those local alcohol policies that certain councils around the country have put together, after consideration and consultation with the people within their community, were designed for this very reason.

A local alcohol policy could be designed to have a licensing closing time at midnight and an opening time at 10 a.m., or they could go to the standard operational hours of 4 a.m. closing, if they decided not to get a local alcohol policy in, and an 8 a.m. opening. I think the majority of councils around the country—those that could afford the time and the resources to put one together—either made up their own plan or adopted somebody else’s plan. That is vital. What we have around the country is a number of councils that have come out in support of these special licence applications. They have come out in support of these special licence applications going through the District Licensing Committee.

However, because of the ambiguity of this legislation, the police have said that in terms of what makes and what constitutes a special licence, they do not see a rugby match on the TV as being that special, because anybody can get it. Our whole point is that we have got to make it so clear that there is no clunky ambiguity and so that the police know that New Year’s Eve is considered to be a special licence. So providing you stick within the laws of your licence, you should be able to apply for it and comfortably understand that you are going to get it. So too it may warrant the Rugby World Cup, which we are currently discussing here today. It may be the Olympics and it may be the FIFA World Cup. That is for the Government to decide, instead of leaving it up to the ambiguity of the police, councils, or others.

We do have some concerns. I have outlined those fears. It comes back to personal responsibility. We do want to just put one more point forward for the House to consider. We would like this Government to support New Zealand First’s policy to broadcast games of national significance live on free to air. We would like you to take on our policy to broadcast games of national significance live on free to air—games that the taxpayers are already paying for to support our rugby team and to support our netball teams.

If you are talking about harm minimisation, would that not be a panacea? Because people could actually stay at home, on free to view, and watch rugby in their own living room instead of packing on the jersey and popping down to the pub to watch it. There is the best of both worlds. Then, clearly, people back home can make a choice about whether they want to watch the game at the pub for the atmosphere or stay at home and watch the game for the atmosphere in their own home. [Interruption] They may be yelling and jeering and I cannot hear what you are saying, as a lot of it—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Yes, I could hardly hear myself think, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. I can guarantee that in time this Government will support this bill, but it will put it into its name and dress it up and try to say it was its own, but you know that New Zealand First is saying this first and foremost, because it is standing up for New Zealanders and the people who need it the most.

[Interruption] Mr Bennett, you know what you remind me of? You remind me of a funny bone, which, of course, is an oxymoron. You are little bit “oxy”, but mostly “moron”. Thank you.

That was a very interesting speech, and, true to the name of Mr Clayton Mitchell, it was a Clayton’s: it promised all the punch, it was a placebo in disguise, but at the end of the day he votes for it. New Zealand First will vote for this bill, and the only reason why we had that speech that attacked the Government on all different sides was so that he could justify the fact that—“Yes, we are voting for it; however, we do have concerns.” If you are going to vote for it, vote for it. Support it wholeheartedly. Do not get up and be half-hearted, not like when you are going to have a bit of a bet and you have one each way. That is right—one foot this way: “I will have one on the win and one on a place.” Just in case the horse does not get through right, you take one each way.

What we over here, in National, in Government, are about is making decisions and turning round and saying that actually we are putting it all on the nose, we are going ahead, and we are going to support the bill. Yes, we have had some concerns. We have heard, we have listened, but we believe that this is the right thing to do. Here is the tell of the tale. The fact is that most New Zealanders have turned round and said: “Actually, this is the right thing to do.”—this is the right thing to do. This is what this bill is about: it is about extending trading hours, simply and quite clearly. It is about the sale and supply of alcohol, and extended licensing hours during the Rugby World Cup. It is about extending those hours.

I want to acknowledge Mr David Seymour, who is here. He has put this bill up. Also, too, there has been great support. We know there has been support, because even the Greens turned round. They did the old flip-flop. First they were against it, then they had to go for it. They went for it because even their own supporters turned round and said: “Don’t be haters—don’t be haters. Don’t be joy killers. Instead, what you should be doing is supporting this bill.” So what did they have to do? The very next day, when the leave was put forward, they had to retract their opposition. Instead, they had to vote for the bill, and so they did. The Greens went into the Justice and Electoral Committee. Yes, Mr Hague was there. He heard the submissions, but again he has come out fighting. Why? Because it was not quite where they wanted it to be. He has talked about the rhetoric, and talked about the concerns. I think that is going to do some damage to their brand, because at the end of the day this is about extending trading hours. It is about giving an opportunity that is part of the celebration of who we are as Kiwis. It is part of the All Blacks. That is what it is actually all about.

We know that the Rugby World Cup is the third-largest sporting event in the world. In 2011 we made concessions. In 2011 we hosted the Rugby World Cup, and what a great occasion it was. I know that before the dinner break Mr Peeni Henare was talking about some of that celebration. In fact, I would like to acknowledge that if it were not for the Tongan community that came out, which gridlocked Auckland International Airport—there was a sea of red. The colour may not have been right, but the passion was. That is what was there. There was a great passion that was there. What those people did was they celebrated the welcoming of their team coming in. They had brass bands. They turned round and said: “This is great. This is for our community.”

You see, this is what the medium of rugby will allow us to do. Even small communities, like our Tongan community, like the Fijian community, and even like the Samoan community, were out there. Their teams were able to be celebrated. New Zealand is a diverse culture of people, and inside of that, rugby has become one vehicle, a vehicle—a very powerful vehicle—for them to be able to acknowledge and celebrate and also for their young men and women to be able to excel in sports and also to travel the world. We think it is a great thing to do.

I also want to put on record the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup. Mr Mallard will know about this. In 1995 Nelson Mandela—Mr Mallard will remember that, the letter that was sent. Here is the reason why. The nation of South Africa wanted not only to celebrate and host that world cup, but also to say, through Nelson Mandela’s words: “Let’s invite the world to come to us.” They put the invitation out to all the different parliaments.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And they had Suzie deliver the food.

That is right. Something about the food, Mr Mallard. The invitation went out to all the different parliaments of the world to come and use the medium of rugby as a way of uniting nations together.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no. The invitation came from London.

London, South Africa—we know what the story is, OK. Do not destroy the story there, Mr Mallard. Do not destroy the story. He is the legend—Nelson Mandela. It came from Damien O’Connor, who told us the story, OK? He told us the story. Damien O’Connor shared it with us. Nelson Mandela welcomed all these different parliamentary teams, and it was the medium and the sport of rugby that allowed the nations to be united in one place at one time. What a great story. What a great place to be able to do it. Here again, rugby is the medium to allow us to be able to exercise that great ability as well.

So here are some of the bits of the bill that I think are also very important. We heard in the Justice and Electoral Committee about special licensing. There are a lot of acronyms here—DLCs, LAPs. Here is an opportunity in the hands of those communities. We are not removing the ability for those district licensing committees, with their local alcohol plans, to be able to put those plans together, so they can work with them. We also realised that some of them actually had not put those plans together, so here was a chance for them to be able to put in place local alcohol plans that would address some of the issues of concern. Yes, it is about the binge drinking. Yes, it is about the hours. It is even about noise control, as well. We think those things are important.

Submitters expressed their belief that special licences negated the need for the bill. However, concerns were raised that some district licensing committees were requiring licensees to provide complementary entertainment. In other words, they made it slightly difficult for licensed premises to be able to receive their licences. We think this bill will be important for addressing those issues as well.

There was also a concern around eligible games. At first, in the journey of that select committee to hear submissions, we thought: “Well, let’s restrict that eligibility.” In fact, it came directly from the Green Party: “We would vote for it if we could restrict those games to around about 16—around about 16 games.” Why? Because then you could do four pool games, and then maybe 12 other games. That would allow you to have 16 games that were in there—the semi-finals, quarter-finals, and also the final. We went back and we discussed this. That would be discriminatory. It actually would not allow for some of the smaller nations, like Tonga, like Fiji, and like Samoa, that have got different pool games. Why do we not make this eligible for all 48 games? We believe that that is important. It will enable licensees to open up for all matches during the Rugby World Cup. We think that is important as well.

The other area, and Mr Hague made the point, is that licensees will just buy a little TV—maybe a 20-inch flat-screen TV—and put it in the corner, and they will be able to do that. We know that it is really clear that it clarifies in this bill that the games must be a live, audiovisual feed, not delayed or replayed, and the displaying of those licence conditions is also made important in this bill.

I think one of the things that are important that has been raised by Mr Mitchell was around binge drinking. We know that controlling binge-drinkers just by putting more restrictions and regulations in place is not part of it. Instead, it is by role modelling and having good behaviour. So trading hours become really important to this issue. In short, the select committee has made the trading hours more workable. The bill as introduced specifies that the licensee would have their licensing hours extended for 1 hour before and 1 hour after a game that has been broadcast outside normal licensing hours.

I want to touch on the issue of noise management. We know that there are some concerns, because of the odd hours, about where some of these licensed facilities may be, and around noise control. Again, we wanted to make sure that we did not burden our communities. The noise-management provisions have given the extension of licensing hours, so the committee has recommended that there is no discarding of empty bottles during the extended hours or use of outdoor courtyard areas either.

There are just a final few comments that I would like to make in my speech on this bill. I think one of the areas was around the one-way door policy. We know that there are a number of people who will frequent a number of other liquor-licensed premises. We wanted to make sure that many licensed premises are subject to the one-way door policy as a condition of their licence or as implemented by their local alcohol policy as well. Although there are generally good reasons for one-way door policies where they apply to premises, they do not fit well with the intent of this bill.

We have had this bill come through. Yes, it has been a truncated process, but the intent has been right. I want to acknowledge Mr Seymour. He has come through. I know there was some comment about his bill being like a Magna Doodle that he had to shift and change in some ways. I think that is part of the process of ensuring that we could get enough support in here to make sure that this bill—which, at the end of the day is around celebrating, I suppose, the culture of rugby and also its part in New Zealand’s culture—provides the opportunity for New Zealanders who cannot go to the Rugby World Cup to still celebrate that by the extension of trading hours under this Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge David Seymour and congratulate him on this bill—your first member’s bill, Mr Seymour. Secondly, I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I want to acknowledge the work that was done by people behind the scenes to do the best that they could to bring this bill to the House. I know there was a lot of discussion at the meeting—it was a great collaborative process—however, the bill that has come to the House is slightly different from the one that was recommended, and I think that is a shame because it did address many concerns that those of us around the House have had and have discussed here this evening.

I also want to talk about matters of licensing and matters of this nature—the ability to have a conscience vote. I want to thank our whips team for allowing a process to occur where members were able to cast a personal vote, because I do not support this bill and I wanted the opportunity to express my reasons for doing so and for justifying why I am not supporting this bill. I could not, in all good conscience, being a former victim advocate for the family violence sector, stand up here and support a piece of legislation that allows access to alcohol in the way that this bill does. I want to advise that my contribution will be around the relationship between alcohol, alcohol harm, and family and domestic violence, and the perfect storm that is formed when we put something like a national sports extravaganza, as the Rugby World Cup will be, into the mix.

I want to just supply some statistics in the debate, and to advise people that I know that these statistics are not unknown to many of us, but there are over 101,000 family violence investigations by the police each year. Having run a women’s refuge in the past and having had access to each and every one of what were known then as the POL 400—the police investigations—I know that in half of those investigations by the police, when you get the police summaries, they have what members who were previously police will know is a notation of 1K, which indicates the presence of alcohol in a family violence situation. So we are talking about at least 50,000 incidents of family violence that are directly connected to the misuse of alcohol.

Women’s Refuge—from the statistics of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges—takes nearly 80,000 calls a year from women, mostly, who are impacted by family violence. We add to this the impact on the children in our families. Child, Youth and Family receives nearly 150,000 reports of concern each year, and about one-third of those require further action. I want to talk about our children in this debate. The chief social worker, Paul Nixon, talks about the unholy trinity that impacts the safety of our kids. The unholy trinity is mental health, family violence, and alcohol and substance abuse. Add to that that we know that anyone who is involved in a significant family violence situation at home is obviously also impacted by sexual violence as well.

Let us add all of this together—the fact that we have this huge prevalence of family violence—to the fact that we put alcohol in the mix. I was also really concerned to hear the member from the other side of the House say that binge drinking is not harmful in this country. I wanted to say, actually—in fact, I did shout it across the House at the time—that the statistics from the Health Promotion Agency in New Zealand are very clear that one in five drinkers in the past year has had hazardous drinking patterns and that 26 percent of men who were drinkers in the past year are more likely to have had hazardous drinking patterns than women. Among past-year drinkers, hazardous drinking was most common amongst men and women aged 18 to 24 years, and men aged between 18 and 34 years had a particularly high rate of hazardous drinking, at over 40 percent. So there is no doubt in my mind that we do have an issue with alcohol. We have an issue with alcohol, which then becomes an issue in the home with family violence, with 50,000, at least, of family violence investigations in New Zealand involving alcohol. Alcohol is a contributing factor.

Then we have to add to that the fact that when New Zealand plays well, all is well in the home, but when New Zealand does not play well, all is not well in the home. Jono Naylor mentioned that after a loss that the New Zealand rugby team had had at one of the previous Rugby World Cups, there was sense of depression in the country; and I agree, there was. However, I was working at the time for a single-parents organisation called Birthright, and I recall engaging with women in particular who had in the family home, as direct result of their partner’s team not winning that particular rugby game, an increase in family violence. So I cannot stand here and support this bill, knowing that allowing premises to open for longer and permitting them to sell alcohol for much longer periods of time in the morning, is not conducive to family harmony.

The other thing I cannot reconcile with is the fact that members in this House have been talking about children going to licensed premises in the morning, and it being OK for them to be part of the normalisation of alcohol in our families. It is not OK. It is not OK to think that it is fine to take your kids into situations like that. Why have we not actually thought about those clubs and those sports venues that would be able to open and show these games to all and sundry and not sell alcohol? Why are we not supporting that to happen? What we are supporting here is businesses to profit from the misery of families, and I cannot put that point strongly enough. I am, along with my colleague Meka Whaitiri, one of the only voices here to speak against this bill—and I totally tautoko the stance of the Green Party on this.

The last thing I want to say is that this matter should be about conscience, and we should not be saying to members of the House that their values do not count in this debate. It has really distressed me to hear that because our values do count, and I will continue to support the women, the children, and the men who are impacted by family violence in this country. I will not support this bill and I am really disappointed that this process has been so truncated that many of these concerns could not be raised in the appropriate way. Kia ora, and thank you.

This is a 5-minute call from the Green Party.

In a very similar vein to my Labour colleague Poto Williams, I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill. As I have said already, the Green Party is opposing this bill, and I am proud of that. I know that not everyone agrees with our position on this and that many people are presenting us as wowsers for our position, but I am proud to stand and represent those who believe in local decision-making and those who want to unhinge the harmful relationship between alcohol and rugby, particularly in relation to domestic violence in this country.

As a country we do have a problematic drinking culture and there are strong links between alcohol and violence in this country. The police have reported that 33 percent of all family violence incidents involve alcohol and 50 percent of all serious violent crime involves alcohol. We know—the evidence tells us—that late-night and early-morning consumption of alcohol is linked with increased levels of intoxication and alcohol-related harm. That is the evidence. There is strong evidence that levels of risk and harm associated with family violence are increased when alcohol is involved and that extended opening hours increase alcohol-related harm. There is clear evidence that links the impacts of rugby and drinking and connects it to family violence—ask any women’s refuge after we have lost a match. They know, and the women and children who are living through it know.

According to the Family Violence Death Review Committee, just last year, 31 percent of family violence deaths in New Zealand between 2009 and 2012 occurred “in the context of a social gathering of people, who had generally been drinking alcohol for an extended period of time—during the day and into the evening.” So, here we are, overriding an existing Act, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, where there are adequate provisions included to obtain special licences for special events such as the Rugby World Cup. Special events are associated with increased risk of alcohol-related harm and, as such, they require additional oversight and management. That was the agreement that this House came to in 2012 when it passed the Act that is currently being overridden in a very truncated process by this House. It was a 5-year process, going through the Law Commission’s work and having extensive debate within this House, that is now being overridden on a whim, I would suggest. I have heard my colleague Kevin Hague say: “And so what will be next?”. Is it the Cricket World Cup? Will it be the Hockey World Cup? How many other times will we have this come to us?

💬 Marama Fox: Darts.

Darts, we are having suggested here. I heard a National Party member saying “Well, I hope so.”, because that is actually the intent of this bill, to override the legislation that took us 5 years of debate and so much public consultation to get to, to help us reduce the harm that is caused by alcohol.

When the Police presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee they informed the select committee that they did not support this bill because they believed that the measures in place at the moment enabled them to assess the risk in the community and ensure that appropriate provisions were put in place to ensure safe, healthy drinking. Well, now this Parliament and those politicians voting for this are saying they know better. They know better than the local communities, they know better than the Law Commission, they know better than all the people who submitted on the 2012 legislation, and they know better than the Police, after a few days of debate and discussion, because they heard from the hospitality industry.

The Green Party is proud to be opposing this and to stand up for that disconnecting of the sense that you need a drink to enjoy a game of rugby and that our national identity and patriotism is dependent on having a drink. It is not. We can be proud. There are some people saying: “You know, look, I’ll have a drink. I’ll be healthy—there’s no harm there.” Well, I would then ask you to think of those few people for whom there will be harm, those women and children, and think about what you could do to support them, and it is to vote against this bill.

5 minute call, Māori Party—Marama Fox.

You know, Jan Logie has articulated a very compelling argument. Poto Williams also has expressed the views that we hold. We gave Mr Seymour the ability to respond to some of our concerns. We worked with the Justice and Electoral Committee to try to address those concerns as we went through. In fact, one of the times when I was otherwise engaged in the House and missed the meeting by 5 minutes, I went back to the select committee to find that everything had been turned round after we had already made those decisions and had those debates. I think that that, actually, points to the heart of the issue for me.

Despite all of the talk that we have had about communities coming together and being able to watch the game, which I do support, by passing this bill through tonight what we may do is actually loosen alcohol licensing rules. We have had all the good scenarios, but, actually, we do this to protect against the worst-case scenarios. Despite the fact that we want communities to come together, we are actually loosening alcohol rules to extend the sale of alcohol. Why? So that we can watch games of rugby. I love rugby—absolutely love it. I would go watch a game of rugby in my home town any time, night or day, but this does not make sense.

Let us have a look at some of the issues that we raised before. The misuse of alcohol has devastating effects on our whānau. One in five Māori will have an alcohol disorder at some stage in their life. One in 10 will become dependent on alcohol. Those most likely to have alcohol abuse and dependence issues are those living in the poorest households and communities. We also know that domestic violence incidents arise when alcohol consumption increases. Our whānau suffer when we have lax alcohol laws. There are enormous harms associated with alcohol consumption. We cannot support this bill. We cannot support it going through in the way that it has done. We wanted to try to work with the select committee to put some processes around doing this because, yes, communities coming together is a good thing, but why with the sale of alcohol? Why would we need to have, potentially, some licensed premises open for almost 48 hours? That, potentially, could happen.

We tried to say “Limit the number of games that on-licence premises and clubs can be open for.”, but, no, that was turned round. We tried to say “Give the emergency services and the Police time to put things in place.” because the impact that this is going to have on them, by making the special licence 14 days’ notification—well, that has not gone as well; it is back down to 7. We cannot apply these blanket, open-slather rules that we have done and not expect harm. We are here and we are opposing this because we absolutely believe that what will happen is an increased risk to our most vulnerable people, to our children, and to our families.

Through the 2012 reforms the Māori Party put up a number of Supplementary Order Papers. Following the reform of those laws there was a significant decrease in the incidence of harm. In the 10 weeks following there was a 24 percent fall in alcohol-related offences between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. In central Wellington alone there was a 31 percent fall in alcohol-related offences, and in central Auckland there was an 11 percent drop. That was in only the 10 weeks following those reforms in 2012.

I want to say to you that there is real harm associated with excess alcohol consumption, and what we are proposing here tonight is to loosen the laws around alcohol rules, and I believe firmly that there is already provision if you want a special licence, and we are just ignoring that process. Thank you.

Today we have heard a number of arguments that are serious arguments made by people who are against the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. We recognise those arguments, and I do not think anybody in this House would want to look at those arguments and dissuade the public from the importance of discussing them, and also from acknowledging the role that people have had in this House in wanting to make sure that we actually deal with some of those issues. I think they are serious things that everybody in this House takes seriously and would not want to see happen.

Then the other side of this argument is that we are dealing with a bill here tonight that is basically one about freedom of choice. Rugby is New Zealand’s national game. The Rugby World Cup is the 1-in-4 year scenario that comes round when New Zealanders celebrate their national game on the world stage. This is the time when people come together, whether they are rugby fans or not. They come together in their communities and they support their country on the world stage. To deny our people the ability to celebrate our heritage, our culture, and our future and history in a public place is to deny our people the very essence of being New Zealanders. Why would we want to do that to our people, at their very time of enjoyment and pride in their country? It is not about whether we win or lose. It is about wearing the black jersey out there and representing New Zealand at the highest levels. New Zealanders are proud of their sports teams, and they are prouder of no other team than the New Zealand All Blacks team. Why not be part of that pride? Why not let New Zealanders celebrate the success that has been our national game for years and years, and will be, going into the future? This is what this bill is about. It is not an attempt to hijack the liquor laws that have been passed in this Parliament in recent years. It is in no way an attempt to limit or discourage what those laws attempted to achieve in regard to public and, especially, family and women’s security in the home and other places.

This is a bill that is about giving New Zealanders some enjoyment, some pride, and some belief in their country. Why do we want to sit in this House and deny our people the very thing that they want to see happen? Nobody forces anybody to go to a bar at 6 o’clock in the morning. Nobody forces any New Zealander to have a drink at that bar. That is a choice that that person may or may not make. That person may well be at home drinking all night and going through to the morning. They may well make those choices in their life, but this is not something—and members across the room laugh. Well, that will not be a laughing matter. That is a reality, where a lot of those domestic violence cases happen—because it will be after a long night of drinking, and then the game in the morning, when many of those things happen. It is not that people get up at 4 o’clock in the morning, suddenly desire to go to the pub, and then come home and have those kinds of situations arise.

This is an attack, by those people who are voting against this bill, on the fundamental values of what it means to be a New Zealander. Shame on the Green Party. Why would the Green Party want to vote against a bill that enables New Zealanders to enjoy the culture and heritage of their country? Why would the Green Party want to attack people in their own place, doing their own thing? We see members of the Green Party who are laughing. Members who were not born in this country do not understand the culture and heritage of this country. They do not get what it actually means to be a New Zealander, to go to the pub and to sit and watch a game wearing a black jersey, to actually understand what this game means to our people and our country. I want to congratulate David Seymour on bringing this bill forward to the House. There are local rules around that enable bars to go through this process and to be able to have licences; nobody is not acknowledging that. Those rules exist, and they have been used by many bars in many places. But there are some cases where they have not been used, and in many of those types of instances we will get to a situation where we will be in the world cup, we will be playing games, and New Zealanders will not be able to enjoy watching their own team.

It is not just about the New Zealanders supporting the All Blacks. There are many New Zealanders in this country who have other teams that they support. There will be a lot of South Africans in New Zealand who will support the South African team. There will be a lot of Tongans. There will be a lot of Samoans. There will be a lot of Fijian families and communities who will want to see their teams play out in the competition. It is unfair to try to limit these rules to one or two games, or to games that only the New Zealand All Blacks play in, and not to let all New Zealanders watch all games that are part of a competition that we excel in. That is the point of what we are here tonight to discuss. This is not an attack on the laws around liquor licensing. This is not an attempt to dispel any of the arguments that have been made, which are strong and substantial, about the rights of many of our people in our community. But it is about the ability of New Zealanders to go out there and enjoy their national game, to enjoy the camaraderie and the ability to get together as Kiwis, and to support our country in our national game in an environment that we can all be proud of—to support our team, whatever the result may be. When you look at the Rugby World Cup, that is the third-largest sporting event in the world, and New Zealand is defending its title this year. We have a great record in recent games. We have a team that is performing well, and we have one of the greatest-ever All Blacks who will be playing in his final competition. Imagine Richie McCaw going in to that last game, going out there and winning the world cup for New Zealand, and New Zealanders not being able to be at the bar to watch it. What would you tell your grandchildren? You could not watch Richie McCaw play because—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Two points: first of all, the member has taken about 7 minutes and made only quite passing reference to the bill; secondly, the member is not to bring my family into this debate.

I would never bring your family into it, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! That is exactly what the member did. He should think before he speaks.

This bill is about the sale and supply of alcohol during the Rugby World Cup. One of the key things around that world cup will be some of the players playing in that, and some of our All Black players who will be playing their last games. Richie McCaw and Dan Carter, potentially, will be in that team on that day, in that game, and New Zealanders want to be able to watch that and see that history of our country going forward.

💬 Pita Paraone: What about Mealamu?

Pardon?

💬 Pita Paraone: What about Nonu? What about Mealamu?

He will be there as well, yes. There are others, as well. That is what we mean. There are a number of New Zealanders who will be supporting the All Blacks in this game.

We have got to look at these games. They are going to be in a different time zone—that is, different from the one, traditionally, in we have watched many of our other games, which have been southern hemisphere games. These games are going to be played in the northern hemisphere. They will be at times that are not in tune with the laws that have been passed in the past, which have presumed a New Zealand environment with a New Zealand time zone. So this Parliament should be able to exercise some flexibility around this piece of legislation so that we can enable New Zealanders to watch these games at these important times, because it is part of the culture and heritage of our country going forward. The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered the submissions made in regard to this bill and has made some recommendations. We have come to a situation now, in the bill, where all games will be covered. That is important, I think, for all New Zealanders, so that those who may not be supporting the All Blacks are also able to watch the games that they take an interest in.

I would like to congratulate David Seymour on bringing this bill before the House. I think he has done a great job in doing so. This is a great bill in the sense of a member’s bill, in the sense that it enables New Zealanders to actually exercise that pride and belief in their country and in their national game. They can do that when they can exercise those rights, and they can do that in a way that is of benefit to themselves and their enjoyment, but also that is part of being a New Zealander. It is something we should not deny in this House through the use of other legislation and other arguments, which are not the intent of this bill. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Might I say from the outset that I will be supporting this bill. Despite all my concerns around the overuse of alcohol and the effects it may have on people, I still believe that people do have the right to go and watch the All Blacks at a bar or wherever it may be. I support that.

I would like just to touch on a few things that the previous speaker, David Bennett, raised, such as the pride of pulling on the black jersey with the silver fern and running out on to the field. I have no doubt whatsoever that he was talking about the Parliamentary Rugby Team’s Golden Oldies team. I would just like to make special note of the awesome effort that his colleague Alfred Ngaro made out there on the field on Sunday. The whole time he was out there on the field, he put everything into it, and showed superb skills and levels of fitness. I would like to congratulate Alfred Ngaro and acknowledge his contribution on the field the other day.

I think it is important that people are able to watch the games live and at a pub. There is a saying in our household that there is no point watching a replay of the game because yelling at a replay never affects the outcome of the game, so it is important that people get the opportunity to watch it live and to enjoy it live.

I also acknowledge a point that Grant Robertson made earlier, which was that people will probably have a hangover more from coffee and bacon and eggs rather than alcohol because many of the games are going to be played in the morning, between 6 o’clock and 8 o’clock, when most people actually will not have been out at night drinking and then wanting to watch the game. Instead, they will probably get up early and go down to the local pub—probably go down as a family, have breakfast, have coffee, have bacon, and watch the game and enjoy it in quite a sensible family situation. Notwithstanding, there will be people who do want to go there for a drink. I know a District Court judge up in the north who said that if alcohol was suddenly banished from New Zealand, 90 percent of his work would disappear along with it. So I do acknowledge the comments and the concerns that the Green Party does have about this. I do not really think that the problems will be as bad as it makes out.

Most New Zealanders will want to go and watch the All Blacks games, and there are seven of them. You know, for Fiji versus Namibia and games like that, I doubt that there will a lot of people who will really get themselves excited and drunk over the outcomes. People may have a slight interest in the games, but most people will actually just stay at home to watch those games rather than going out. Maybe the South Africans when they are playing—there is a large South African community on the North Shore. Perhaps those people will go down to their local pub. But I really do not think that the majority of people will be there just trying to get sloshed.

I think that most people will be quite sensible about it and will enjoy the occasion for what it is, as David Bennett said. He said that it is an occasion that comes around every 4 years; it is a celebration of part of what it is to be a New Zealander. Our country has developed—the All Blacks have been part of our culture right from the 1880s, when they first started out. It was 1905 when the Originals team left and toured Great Britain. The 3 nil loss to Wales was one of the saddest days of my life, I have to say, and I am struggling to get over it still, along with the 1949 whitewash against the Springboks and the 1971 loss to the Lions. They still really, really cut and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Just maybe—

Bring it into the bill, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes.

When we are talking rugby, you know, I tend to get a bit carried away there. However, moving to the eligibility for premises being allowed to open—the bill would apply to on-licences and club licensed premises that intend to, and do, televise the Rugby World Cup matches. The Justice and Electoral Committee deliberated over limiting the number of games that could be screened but decided against such a restriction, so all the games will be shown. I think it was going to be limited to 16 games initially; now all the games are going to be shown live. I just think that is sensible, for the reasons I outlined earlier, which is that there will be some, shall we say, minor nations that are going to be playing, and I really do not expect thousands and thousands of New Zealanders to be pouring out of the pubs in the morning and getting all excited and overcome with emotion watching those games.

Licensed premises that have had their hours varied in the previous 12 months, under section 280 of the principal Act, are ineligible for the provisions of the bill; that is, the premises have been sanctioned for breaching their licence and they will not be allowed to open. As proposed in the original bill, licensees would have to notify their district licensing committee and the Police 7 days before each game that they wish to open for, outside their normal licensing hours, and they will not have any appeal rights.

There is one concern that I did see on the news tonight, which was that due to the timing of some games in the last weekend, whether premises may be allowed to be open for some 60-odd hours—there is that potential; I am not sure where Paddy Gower was going with that one—or whether premises may have to close for a certain amount of time in between games. According to the report on the news tonight, some premises could be allowed to be open for some 60 hours. That would be a concern. I do not think that premises should be able to be open for that amount of time, and I hope that is not an anomaly that has been allowed to creep into this bill.

Licensees would be required to close for the sale of alcohol 30 minutes after the end of each game. However, if the games are close together that may not actually be the case, so I do have questions around that. The bill says the licensee may remain open if the game starts within the licensing hours. If the game starts within 2 hours after a premises’ normal licensing hours end, then the premises may have its licensing hours extended through to 1 hour after the end of each game, which is basically allowing people just to finish up their drinks and move on.

There were concerns around noise management. Premises would not be allowed to have music blaring. If the police came in to check what was going on and people were there dancing and raging, and the television was on in the corner, that would not be allowed to happen. The premises would be closed. Also, with the disposal of bottles—I do not know whether people have had to clean up after a party when there are a number of beer bottles to be emptied and they all get dumped into a bin at the same time. It makes a hang of a racket. If the premises are near enough even to apartments in the city, then it makes quite a racket, even if you are a few floors up.

The one way - door policy will apply as normal, but it will not apply 1 hour before, during, and 1 hour after each notified game. Licensees who do not comply with the terms of the bill—section 259 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act sets the infringement fine for the offence at $250, or $5,000 if it goes through to the court. Licensees who have been granted special licences can choose whether they want to operate under that licence or under the provisions of the bill. Licensees may still apply for special licences if they do not wish to operate under the provisions of the bill. The refunding of special licences made redundant by the provisions of the bill would be determined by the relevant local authority.

Before I conclude, I think it is timely that we actually just wish the All Blacks the best. I know they are being named here in Parliament in a couple of days’ time. As Jan Logie said, the spirit of the nation actually drops a bit if the All Blacks lose, so the best thing to do is to wish them the best and hope that they do not lose so that we can continue to carry on in the next 4 years in a positive frame of mind. Certainly, the years 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007 were some of the saddest of my life because we could not claim ourselves to be the world champions in rugby. So I wish the All Blacks all the best. Thank you.

I call Sarah Dowie—5 minutes.

I rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. I do not know if this is the pinnacle of my career or not, but if you boil it down it is surprising that we are debating the concept of 30 men on a paddock wrestling over an oval ball. Depending on how you look at that, that could be a really good thing or it could be not so good. Anyway, despite the arguments of the other side in respect of the issues of domestic violence and alcoholism—I acknowledge those—we cannot get away from the fact that rugby is our national game, especially in the place where I hail from, Southland, where rugby is used as a vehicle for socialising in a constructive way. I think it is only fair that this legislation is going to enable people to come together to watch our national team and celebrate in their prowess on the rugby field.

I understand that there are 20 teams in the world cup. I did not know that before. I had to google it. As you can tell, I am not exactly a rugby follower, but I have in the past got tied up in the important games. In fact, I do remember the last world cup. I was pregnant at the time and got really sick, and that is why I remember it, but I did take the time to watch the All Blacks and I did get very excited. It was wonderful to see them do so well. As a New Zealander I support them. I think it is only fair that people are allowed to come together, and New Zealand pubs are one place where people do that. I do not think, necessarily, that people are going to come together and get out of control. There are measures in this bill that look to minimise alcohol harm. The member opposite has outlined some of those methods—talking about closing conditions, the call for the last round, and the police, who retain the right to close down premises if there is a prima facie breach of those licensed terms and conditions.

Regardless, it is good that people can come together and enjoy the comradery and watch their team. It is a bit of fun, at the end of the day, but provided people keep it as a bit of fun, and acknowledging that there can be some issues, I think I would rather people be in a controlled premises and be supervised when they are drinking rather than doing things like pre-loading or drinking all day and all night, staying at home ready to watch the game perhaps there. We are talking about people who will get up in the morning and go and view games at odd hours because they are passionate about the rugby. They want to be involved in that comradery with their friends and absorb the atmosphere that the games will bring. Of course, the Rugby World Cup is going to be held over in England and at Twickenham. They do not have the same hours as us, so, of course, we need to cut the red tape and allow responsible hosts and responsible premises to open their doors and allow people to come through them and watch the matches.

I want to talk a little bit more about some of the mitigation methods in the bill. I have talked about the police retaining the right to shut down premises. That maintains, if there is a breach on the face of it, the onus going on the host. Hosts have to be responsible when they are opening their doors. They have to keep an eye on their patrons to make sure they are being responsible, and they have to watch how much alcohol they serve. It needs to be done in a responsible manner and, in the same breath, these people need to make a personal choice and take personal responsibility as to their actions.

At the end of the day, rugby is our national sport. Whether you love it or hate it, it is part of our culture. It is part of Southland especially. As I talked about it, it is a vehicle for socialising. At the end of the day, I just hope that everyone has a bit of fun and does not take it too far. So I support this bill.

It is an honour to rise to speak and take the final call on this third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill. This bill will extend trading hours during the Rugby World Cup 2015. It is a bill that will cut red tape and that will enable and support many Kiwis who might not have Sky at home to go out and cheer on the All Blacks in the Rugby World Cup 2015. That is important because the All Blacks are best rugby team in the world. My region, Canterbury, is the best rugby region in the world. It is disappointing that we do not have an international rugby stadium at the moment, missing out on All Black games, but I am sure that as part of the recovery and as part of the anchor projects we will get there.

Also, in my electorate of Waimakariri we have many communities of British and South African supporters. It is quite right that under this legislation trading hours will be expanded for not only All Black games but for any game that there is a crowd for. It is great that those local communities will be off to cheer on their local sides.

I was probably destined to speak on this bill. It covers two key areas that I focus on. One is rugby—primarily the Rugby World Cup—and the second area is having a responsible beer in a licensed premises. I started playing rugby—a big part of my life—when I was 5. I was a 5-year veteran of the Christchurch under-9 team. Many will recognise the name “Doocey”. My father was Tom Doocey, an international rugby referee in the 1970s and 1980s. He was the first southern hemisphere referee to go and referee the Five Nations Championship. Not only that, he went on to coordinate the 1995 Rugby World Cup in South Africa. Who would forget that Rugby World Cup? It was a Rugby World Cup that unified a divided nation after apartheid. Who could forget “Suzie”, the tea lady who went out and poisoned the All Blacks and caused them to lose in that final?

This bill cuts red tape. It acknowledges the importance of the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand communities. I remember vividly the inaugural Rugby World Cup in 1987. I was 15 years old. I remember us going out and beating France 29-9 in the final, and I remember the names from that world cup.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am now going to invite the member to address the bill. He has mentioned it twice but I think would be really good if he could speak to it.

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a bill that we know will congregate New Zealand supporters; it will allow New Zealand supporters to go into a local pub that will open up and trade outside its registered hours. That is important because, as we know, this competition will be played in the northern hemisphere.

I know myself that I had the benefit of this kind of legislation when I lived in London during the 2011 Rugby World Cup. I joined hundreds of New Zealanders over in Finchley Road. We all convened at the Walkabout bar that morning. We were all up in the middle of the night having our lattes, our English breakfast teas, and our English breakfasts. We cheered on the All Blacks. It is important that this legislation allows people who are unable to access Sky television to go to their local pub and join other Kiwis to support their national team.

It does not matter whether you were at home in 2011 watching that game, whether you were in a bar in London up all night because of the time zone, or whether you were at a game, because we stood up as a nation and we shed a tear as McCaw raised his arms in victory. What a fantastic bill this is, because we know that the All Blacks need support over in the UK. Look what happened in 2007 in Cardiff at Millennium Stadium, where we got kicked out in the quarter-finals.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Personal vote. Personal vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, you have to wait until I declare. The Ayes have it.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Personal vote. Personal vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. I have come to the conclusion after being in the House for the second reading that the result was clear. Only one party was exercising a conscience vote, and the generous interpretation of the method for counting the party vote that my colleague in the Chair at that time had will be repeated now. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to all those—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Does the member have a point of order?

Yes. There will be a brief celebration of the passage of the bill at my house, 11.07.

The member is now being disorderly.