Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 was a substantial reform to alcohol laws in New Zealand, and this bill makes three amendments to that Act to clarify and to correct issues that have arisen over the last few years as it has been put in practice. The amendments are minor, the amendments are non-controversial, and they do not change the policy intent of the reforms passed in 2012. They are very useful amendments to the bill and they will strengthen the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

In particular, the bill changes rules around the single alcohol areas in supermarkets, and I think it will have substantial benefits. It is the main amendment, under this bill, and it allows for the display of non-alcoholic or low-alcohol beer, wine, or mead in a single alcohol area of supermarkets or grocery stores. Under the wording of the current Act, supermarkets and grocery stores cannot place low-alcohol or non-alcoholic beverages in the same areas as regular strength alcoholic beverages. This bill corrects that unintended consequence because it does make sense that these low- and non-alcohol substitutes for beer and wine are in the same place as regular strength alcoholic beverages. The single alcohol area is where most people will intuitively look for these products, and so this amendment makes sense for supermarkets, for grocery stores, and for the general public.

The second amendment in the bill is to clarify that a company can hold an alcohol licence under the Act. It is not explicit in the Act at the moment that a company can hold that licence, and it was causing some confusion. So it is good to see that the bill can clarify that issue by including “company” in the relevant section of the Act.

Finally, another useful amendment was added to the Act during the select committee stage, and I do want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for reporting back on this bill. When the committee did that, it reported back a change to the Act’s definition of “working day”. That is in response to the Mondayisation of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. This change means that “working day” no longer includes the Monday after the weekend containing Waitangi Day or Anzac Day. This amendment will make the Act consistent with the changes made to the Holidays Act in 2013.

I was very pleased to see that there has been unanimous support for this bill received from the parties as it has passed through the process, and I hope again that Parliament will support the bill going forward. These are very minor, they are non-controversial, and they are useful changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. I wish that these can come into force as soon as possible. I commend this bill to the House.

The issue of alcohol is an issue that many throughout our communities are concerned about. It is an issue that local governments have to deal with on a regular basis. It is an issue that our police force spends significant amounts of time on. It is also an issue that prevails in our health system on a regular basis. In communities such as Māngere—and no doubt there will be many others throughout New Zealand—this is an issue that we have to consistently contend with and look at trying to prevent the harms that it causes. Although we support this particular bill, and the Minister Nicky Wagner is correct in saying that the changes to the bill are minor and technical, the reality is that the 2013 bill, which this Government passed, did not include or address the issues that were raised in the report commissioned by Geoffrey Palmer at the time.

The bill basically addresses two things. It now provides for those drinks considered to be low-alcohol—under 1.15 percent ethanol by weight—to be included in the single alcohol spot in supermarkets. That is the first change. The second one is the clarity. In many ways it now just expands the ability for any company to have an on-licence or an off-licence to sell alcohol. That is a concern for those of us who have to deal with the harms that are caused, because, on the one hand, we all know in this House that we have got to reduce the harm that alcohol causes in our communities, but, on the other hand, in that particular clause, we are pandering to and allowing the proliferation and sale of alcohol.

I want to refer to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board and the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, which made a joint submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee. They asked the committee to make some significant changes to clauses 4 and 5. In respect of clause 5, their submission was that if we are going to display low- or no-alcohol beverages that are sold as beer or wine in the area where alcoholic beverages are displayed, we should ensure that those same products are not then being sold outside that confined area. It seems to me, and to our local boards, that this is an opening that allows for the proliferation again of the ability for products to be displayed where alcoholic beverages would normally not be displayed.

In respect of clause 4, the second point that this submission raised, which still raises a concern for many, is that when we allow companies—any companies—to be able to get an on- or off-licence, we do not know who the directors of those particular companies are. If certain directors were involved in previous enterprises where that licence was removed from them, that information ought to be made public so that those who are making the decision as to whether the company ought to have an on- or off-licence can make this determination, with the full and complete information that is available to them. For our local boards that made the presentation to the committee, it just seemed that allowing for any company to have an off- or on-licence, without disclosure as to whether the directors of that company were involved in previous companies whose licences were revoked, does not provide full and complete information to the general public or to the committees that are determining whether the company ought to get the licence or not.

Another aspect that I want to raise is that, although the Labour Party members support the bill because of its technical changes that are necessary, there are other areas that we included in our minority report that we would like to raise and will continue to raise with this Government as areas of unfinished business. The first area is the lack of minimum pricing. It is clear that inexpensive, readily available alcohol is one of the key drivers of alcohol harm, yet the Government, in this opportunity, has failed to address it. The international evidence is unambiguous. Price is one of the most effective policies to combat alcohol-related harm. We understand, from the research and work that others in the communities do, that the problem is the reduced-price bottles of wine or the mixed drinks. We understand that there was an intention by a previous Minister, not this Minister, that the targeted alcohol reforms would address cheap alcohol. However, he failed to do that during his time. We think that the Government’s failure to stop retailers selling cheap alcohol, at rock-bottom prices, is standing in the way of genuine alcohol law reform.

The second part that I want to again raise with this House is the availability of alcohol. There is a connection—an evidence-based connection; well researched—between accessibility and harm. It does not need a rocket scientist to know the harm that alcohol causes. One only needs to turn up late on a Friday night or a Saturday night at the emergency centres of any of our hospitals and you will see the evidence there. I do not believe—we do not believe—that that is being addressed at all by the legislation. People purchasing alcohol late in the evening, we know, are more likely to have been drinking beforehand. They may not have the judgment and self-control required to make good decisions. There are strong suggestions by many community groups, who have to deal with the carnage on our streets, that there should be a default closing hour, and they believe strongly that 11 a.m. the next morning is just the wrong hour. We have got concerns about the inconsistency of trading hours. The advertising and sponsorship—94 percent of the submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee did say that this is an area that they ought to address.

As I said, on this side of the House, on the face of it, the bill is very short and it is technical. It makes those two minor changes in terms of allowing companies to sell low-alcohol or non-alcohol beverages together with other alcoholic beverages, and it clarifies that companies—any company—can have a licence for on- or off-licence sales, and yet there are those particular issues that communities such as mine have to deal with.

I just want to, finally, mention an attempt by local communities such as Māngere-Otāhuhu, such as Otara-Papatoetoe to highlight that we are not doing enough—not just this Government but Parliament as a whole—to address the harm that is alcohol-related. These two local boards, in particular, have reviewed their existing bans throughout that community, and as of late last year decided to publicise that there are now 38 areas where the consumption of alcohol has been banned. Those areas were a direct result of input from police, from individuals, and from community groups that are having to deal with the harm. So I just want to relay that to the House.

While we are congratulating ourselves on passing this bill with its minor technical changes, the reality is that we have still got a long way to go in addressing the harm that alcohol causes, not only to the individuals but to our families, to our communities as a whole, and that there is a cost to that harm that, eventually, all of us have to pay for. I would not be shouting at the rooftops to say that this is a wonderful bill. We support it because they are technical changes—

Sorry, your time has expired.

Well, I do agree with the member Su’a William Sio in one respect: this is not a wonderful bill. There are plenty of other bills passed by this Parliament, put forward by the Government, that are wonderful. This is a sensible, technical bill that makes, basically, remedial changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and, of course, the major change is to allow low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beer, wine, and mead products to be displayed in a single area of the supermarket. We have this bizarre situation at the moment where these products, which people are increasingly turning to as an alternative to traditional alcohol products—particularly beer—have to be displayed not in the single area of the supermarket that Parliament legislated for in the 2012 alcohol and liquor reforms, but in, basically, the fruit juice and fizzy drinks section of the supermarket. We have this absurd situation where people go to the single alcohol section in order to pick up a 12-pack or a bottle of wine, expecting to find alternative products that they may wish to drink instead, but they cannot find them.

So, of course, what the bill does is essentially clear up that piece of—I guess you would say it was an oversight in the 2012 legislation. Although, interestingly, the popularity of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic products has really rapidly increased in the last 3 or 4 years. You do see people at parties and social events increasingly choosing those low-alcohol products as a substitute, and that is a good thing. We had a bit of a debate at the Justice and Electoral Committee about whether or not these products were substitutive or additive, which is a sort of complicated way of asking: do people drink less full-alcohol products, or do they just drink more generally? Do they have a few full-alcohol beers and then also drink low-alcohol beers at the same time, thus increasing their overall alcohol consumption?

There was a view put forward by one of the lobby groups in this space, Alcohol Healthwatch, that it is actually additive—that people actually end up drinking more. No evidence was actually provided for that, as is often the way with Alcohol Healthwatch, but that was the view that was put forward. Actually, the sales figures and the market research shows that people are actually substituting full-alcohol products for low-alcohol products, and certainly that is the anecdotal experience that I see around the place.

This is a sensible bill. Su’a William Sio talked about how it does not go far enough, and we heard a tired refrain that we often hear from the Labour members about how they are going to tackle our drinking culture and how we need to do more—we need to change default closing hours, we need to tackle our drinking culture, and things like that. But I just make the simple point, which I have made in this House on a few occasions, that it is actually important to have a look at facts in this situation. There is a lot of rhetoric about drinking culture in New Zealand. There is a lot of rhetoric and words said about binge drinking, in particular. The actual fact is that alcohol consumption in New Zealand is at a 30-year low. The actual fact is that youth drinking is declining, and has been for 10 years. The actual fact is that drink-drinking and youth drink-driving are down. The number of young people who say they binge drink, or drink to excess, is declining, and has been for 10 years.

So before we get a little bit carried away with the rhetoric about how we need to impose even more Draconian restrictions on alcohol, it is helpful to actually start with the facts. Actually, that is often not what members opposite do in this House, particularly the Labour Party.

This is not some wonderful piece of transformative, world-changing legislation. The members of the press gallery would like Parliament to consider those pieces of legislation constantly, on a 24/7 basis, but, actually, sometimes the work of parliamentarians is making those necessary and technical changes to the law that will make a difference, and this bill essentially clears up an oversight in the 2012 legislation. I think it is going to have unanimous support going through the House. It certainly did going through the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to speak in the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Just as the member Mr Bishop leaves the House, I note that he spoke about the facts around the drinking culture. Well, what we do know is that just recently, you may be aware, there was a thing called Crate Day. I am sure Mr Bishop was one who trotted down to the local liquor outlet and grabbed himself, probably, a crate of Tui—he looks like a Tui man. It is probably one of the lighter beers out on the market. I have no doubt Mr Bishop would have trotted down to the liquor store, grabbed a crate, and probably joined some friends, who are probably in the same age bracket, and he would have indulged in a crate of beer.

Now, post - Crate Day, hospitals across the country and in Waikato and in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau have made it very clear that Crate Day has to go and that outlets who advertise a day such as Crate Day are actually causing great harm in communities. They are saying that the A & E departments in Waikato Hospital and in Auckland Hospital were inundated with people of all ages who were completely intoxicated, who had to have their stomachs pumped, and who were at serious risk of choking on their own vomit. Some of them got violent towards the staff in the A & E who were there to help them: doctors, nurses, and ambulance drivers and officers.

This is the culture we are talking about. If the member wants to refer to some facts, I suggest he listens to those who are on the front line of dealing with some of these issues, and not simply read a report on the internet.

But we do rise on this side of the House to support this bill. The member mentioned some of the—his word was “oversight”. Actually, the words we want to use on this side of the House are “unintended consequences”. We seem to have been coming back into the House rather regularly of late and mentioning unintended consequences, which is to the point that my esteemed colleague here, Mr Su’a William Sio, mentioned about the need to make legislation that is transformative—that actually goes all the way, or goes further than what this bill intends to do—to making sure that we protect our communities, while also offering the opportunity for our members of the community to enjoy an alcoholic beverage.

One of the parts of this bill actually says that, without overexposing the general public to alcoholic beverages in the aisle at your local supermarket, this particular bill will allow them all to be situated in the one place, and that is common sense. That just makes sense to us. Why would you walk down with your child—I have got young children myself. I will be holding their hand, walking down the aisle, and if they are not dragging me to the confectionary aisle, they certainly spot out the drinks, and they know what they are. So this kind of bill is a common-sense, smart way forward.

Does it address all of the harms of alcohol? Probably not. It does tidy up, however, some of the unintended consequences, or, in Mr Bishop’s word, “oversights”—oversights from the 2012 legislation. The rest is technical amendments. We understand that. The definition of a “working day”—Minister Nicky Wagner, in the place of Minister Amy Adams, described that well enough. We will not labour that point. But what it does do is it actually just tidies up, and makes it very clear for the general public, the definition of the “working day”.

My colleague Mr Su’a William Sio talked about the ability to gain an on-licence, an off-licence, or a special licence. The bill talks about the ability of those companies that qualify under the Companies Act to be able to do that—they are able to gain an on-licence or an off-licence. I mentioned in earlier debates on this particular bill how I understand that, but if you look at the kinds of companies that qualify under that particular Act, one has to wonder, well, why we would allow such open access to having an on-licence or an off-licence? We have made that point throughout the process of this bill. I understand that for the purposes of holding events and the supply of alcohol to consumers—I understand that. But let us be very clear that in opening it up to the Companies Act, what we are actually saying is that in that definition we are allowing a wide range of companies access to this, and that is of concern to me. That is of concern to me.

It touches on some of the points that Mr Su’a William Sio spoke about with regard to our vulnerable communities. Companies in vulnerable communities are exploiting a bill such as this by gaining an on-licence, or applying for an on-licence or an off-licence, to supply alcohol, and that is a concern. That is a concern in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, across the electorates of my colleagues here, and, of course, in the great township of Onehunga. But that is a concern, and my fear is that when we are able to have a review at some point in time—hopefully, in the near future—we will look back at this to see what kinds of companies have applied for these types of licences, and we will be able to get some data that will inform us. And I am going to pick that it is going to actually tell us that maybe we gave far too much room here—far too much scope for companies to be able to apply for those.

So those are some of the concerns we have. Of course we do support this bill. Like I said, they are sensible steps forward—we understand that—and we are more than happy to support the bill into legislation. But, in my final closing point, I do just want to express our disappointment at the fact that this particular bill just does not go quite far enough. It does not meet the recommendations of the experts and those who are able to crunch the data, whom Mr Bishop referred to, who made clear recommendations that a major overhaul and reform was needed in this particular space. But for now, in the third reading, we will support this bill. Kia ora tātou katoa.

It is a pleasure to now, at this third reading stage, talk about this bill. It has been a full process that we have been through and, I think, a good one to highlight a particular issue that was causing a number of companies, particularly supermarkets, some concern. On this side of the House, and I think right around the House, we are concerned about reducing alcohol-related harm. So to make it more difficult, as it was under the old regime or the current regime, for people to be able to find low-alcohol beverages in places like supermarkets really did not make any sense at all.

If we look at the original intent of what it is that we are trying to do by having supermarkets sell low-alcohol products, this bill absolutely supports the intent, which is that people will be able to more easily walk into the supermarket, find a low-alcohol product that is similar to a product they might normally have consumed that had higher levels of alcohol in it, and therefore be able to drive more safely when going home—and, actually, other alcohol-related harm would be reduced.

We did hear from a number of different people along the way. We had some good, robust discussions about things like what mead is. We had some interesting conversations about how it is that we should define low alcohol. But I think we arrived at the right spot where we said, actually, if somebody is marketing something as beer or wine or mead, it should sit alongside those other alcoholic beverages that people associate with those products. This is a sensible bill. It is great that it has had such widespread support from around the House. I look forward to it coming into legislation shortly. Thank you

The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We have supported it the whole way. It is not a controversial bill at all. It makes perfect sense. At the moment, low-alcohol beverages, be they beer, wine, or other low-alcohol beverages, are not able to be sold in the part of the supermarket where wine and beer are sold. They had to be placed in the same area as non-alcoholic beverages, which was quite strange and a bit of an oversight. So this bill just fixes that problem. Overall, the Green Party’s goal would be to minimise the harm caused by overconsumption of alcohol, and, to that end, we would like to see more done in the area of minimum price, restrictions on advertising, and availability.

The sudden appearance of low-alcohol beverages on the market is probably a good thing. As one of my colleagues who spoke previously said, the evidence does seem to be that people are replacing full-alcohol beverages with low-alcohol beverages. I know that last year the Auckland City Limits Music Festival, a music festival at the end of summer, actually ran the festival entirely with low-alcohol beverages. So it worked with a local company in New Zealand that developed a whole range of low-alcohol cocktails—I guess you would say they were somewhere between cocktails and mocktails—and low-alcohol beers and wines. Apparently that was quite a success because it gave people the opportunity to enjoy themselves, to have a tasty beverage, but without the excessive consumption of alcohol, which we all know can lead to so much harm here in New Zealand. The Green Party is supporting the bill. Cheers.

This bill is supported by New Zealand First. We support the intent of the amendments to allow for low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beer, wine, and mead to be displayed in the single area of supermarkets, and we support the retailer having the discretion as to whether they will do that or not.

But it is not what is in the bill that is a problem here; it is what is not in the bill that is really where the problem is. It is what the Government has chosen to leave out that is what disappoints us in New Zealand First. In fact, when I look back, the Government’s reforms needed around alcohol over the last few years have been a monumental failure. The drinking culture among the young still remains a problem; nothing much is being done about that. And we think that the failure to return the age for purchasing alcohol to 20 years in the principal Act is a major mistake. We think it would have led to less consumption by that age group, and it is a great disappointment that that opportunity was not taken in the principal Act when it was passed a couple of years ago.

In addition to that, the Government has failed to deal with the problem drinks, the ready-to-drink alcopops that are so popular, especially among young people. We know that those are particularly harmful, firstly because of the large quantities that can be consumed so easily and so quickly by young people, and also because the sugar levels are very high in those particular drinks. They are very harmful drinks because of the alcohol and because of the sugar levels. And these drinks have to have at least 5 percent alcohol and in many cases, actually, a lot higher than that. They are treated by young people, in particular, as though they are soft drinks, even though they are actually quite potent alcoholic drinks.

They are pushed by the retailers and priced to sell and are sold in large quantities. They are condemned by the experts, many of them, and they are condemned also by the Law Commission as one of the drinks that are the most potentially harmful to our young people. They actually should be prohibited, but this whole area has not even been touched by the Government; instead, it passes this quite satisfactory but really very ineffective piece of legislation, when there are so many more important things to do.

The big commercial interests in alcohol will be very pleased with what the Government has done because they have got what they want, but it has been at the expense of a worsening alcohol culture in New Zealand. And yet, at the same time, we have country pubs that are being forced to close, one after the other, all around the country. And we have sports clubs and similar organisations that cannot get licences to run events. Both the country pub and those organisations were not the source of significant problems with alcohol in New Zealand, and yet they are the organisations that are actually suffering. I think that the closure of country pubs around the country is a really sad thing to see.

Those country pubs and other organisations that wish to sell liquor, such as at race meetings and events of that kind, are really finding it very, very difficult to make a living. And yet, they provided a very important social facility. The fact that they are closing all around the country is because of the legislation brought in by this Government, and it has been without any actual benefit in terms of lowering the rate of consumption of alcohol in New Zealand or trying to avoid any of the worst excesses of the use of alcohol in the country. In fact, when country pubs have to close and other organisations cannot continue to operate, it means more people drinking at home and there are other problems that arise as a result of that.

To make matters worse, there are far too many grog shops opening up around our communities in New Zealand; far too many of them. Also they are opening in some of the worst possible places: near schools, very close to—in fact, in—residential areas, and in other places where they should not be allowed. For some reason this has been generated as a result of the Government’s legislation, or its failure to adopt the correct kind of legislation in the country. We are seeing this problem being complained about by people and communities from one end of the country to the other, and yet the Government is doing nothing about that and instead is passing this relatively insignificant piece of legislation.

As far as New Zealand First is concerned, this particular bill is a common-sense bill. It allows supermarkets to place low-alcohol products in the single area reserved for that purpose and to do so at their discretion, thereby preserving the freedom of people to buy the products they want and to be able to find them conveniently in supermarkets. So, for that reason, New Zealand First has no difficulty in voting for the bill.

But, as I have said, the real tragedy here is that there are so many much more important issues concerning alcohol consumption in New Zealand that this Government should be attending to and is not even interested in, and instead we see this insignificant piece of legislation. What we need to see are the changes needed to prevent those closures of country pubs, to make it possible for organisations to get the licences they need in support of race meetings or other events, whatever they may be, and also to stop the torrent of new grog shops opening up in inappropriate locations across the country. Those are three of the most urgent problems that the Government should be looking at and bringing legislation to this House to deal with.

But, instead, what do we get? We get a piece of legislation dealing with where to display non-alcoholic and low-alcohol beverages in supermarkets. That is OK in itself but really a pretty pathetic effort as far as this Government is concerned. We in New Zealand First hope that when a new Government comes along next year—and I am sure there will be one—one of its first priorities will be to review the alcohol legislation and to start doing some of the things that really need to be done to improve the situation as far as alcohol consumption is concerned in New Zealand. So New Zealand First will vote for this bill, but with a great deal of disappointment.

I rise to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. It is a pity that that member who has just been speaking, Denis O’Rourke, has learnt the political art of the manufacturing of crisis, because if that member had actually been round long enough to have been part of the process—and I was outside of Parliament when the process started, around the consultation, over a long period of time, that engaged with communities up and down the country around the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill that was put in place.

In those consultations, and that member may not have been part of that, what communities were able to gain through this legislation—OK, he is blaming the Government—was the ability and the provision to allow communities to engage and consult with the local territorial authorities around the configuration of those by-laws, the opening and closing of on- and off-licences, and all the sales in the areas around schools and other forms of facilities in the community. Communities get to choose. And if that member had been part of that, he would realise that the so-called chaos he has talked about does not exist to the degree that he has made out.

So I want to say to the public out there who are listening to this, that this is a very simple bill. If the member stuck to the issue—which is simply this: it gives discretion to supermarkets to be able to ensure that the supply of alcohol, whether it be a low-alcohol beverage or even a non-alcoholic beverage, would be placed in one single place. So, therefore, it would be the consumer’s choice as to what they would choose. This is not the murmurings of the member to create so-called political chaos and crisis, when it does not exist.

Out of this has come a bill that has seen support from key stakeholders that this is critical. It is a minor bill, a minor amendment, but it is important. When the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill did go through, we wanted to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. Well, there were; that has happened. This Government is simply ensuring that it remedies that, so it ensures that it is purpose-fit for discretion for supermarkets, so the consumer can choose. That is simply what it is doing; that is simply the cause and effect of this bill.

So I speak in support of this bill. It is good to see that it has widespread support right across the House, because we see this is a good bill. It is important. It is a minor change but an important one that, again, gives discretion to those who are not only providing and trading in the sale of alcoholic and low-alcoholic beverages but also to consumers in their choices. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora. I rise to speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. We are supporting this bill, and it is very good to see the particular point that low-alcohol beverages will be able to be displayed alongside others. As said in the earlier readings, it is very interesting to see the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Seventh-Day Adventists, who are certainly opposed to the consumption of alcohol, there with industry wanting the same thing. So there is a lot of sense in that aspect to the improvements on this.

One concern that we have had in the Green Party around alcohol—and, of course, something a lot of us in the House here, across parties, are really concerned with—is the binge-drinking consumption of alcohol. There would be very few in here who do not drink something, but there are some who do not, I gather. The advertising of alcohol has really amplified it, particularly to young people, and has made it into such a desirable thing. It is encouraging it in many, many ways.

We believe that that was something it would have been good to see changed and reduced significantly. It is always difficult, when you have got local regional enterprises, like the wineries in my region, Marlborough, to say when you would advertise and when you would not. But the massive amount of TV coverage, the sponsorships, and things like that that are actually encouraging and misrepresenting alcohol as a very, very positive feature to be drunk in bulk has been a shame, and we really pay the consequences of it socially. So we would like that changed, but getting the low-alcohol option right next to the other ones, to normalise it for people who are drinking, is very, very good.

It has been enjoyable to see the move to people drinking less because of the driving laws and to see them looking for lower alcohol options at the pubs. I have said it before—at my local in Marlborough, the Grovetown, people are drinking a beer called, interestingly, Empathy. It is not sympathy but it is Empathy, and they find it a very palatable drop when it is there as a low-alcohol option when they want to have the socialisation that they would normally have in that situation. The Green Party supports this bill because of the positive features, and I am very happy to have spoken to this bill and to be supporting it. Thank you.

I stand in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its third reading here today. This bill simply makes some minor changes to the existing Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and it is simply addressing technicalities that were causing some confusion for the licensing committees, for retailers, and for the general public.

There were 30 submissions received in response to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s work, all basically in support of this bill. During the select committee process, we also took the opportunity of making a minor amendment to the definition of “working day” so that it brought it into line with, and made it consistent with, the wording in the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Act 2013, which simply meant that the Monday following a weekend that Waitangi Day or Anzac Day fell on was also considered a holiday.

This is a very sensible and a very non-contentious piece of legislation. It does not change the policy intent of the original Act, and I commend it to the House.

Labour supports the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill corrects certain minor and technical issues that have emerged since the passage of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act in 2012, so we are supportive of it. However, we do have a number of concerns. Our major concern is the failure of this bill to deal with a few different issues that are crucial to combatting the harm caused by alcohol in New Zealand.

The first is lack of minimum pricing. In its final report, the Law Commission stated that “We regard pricing policies as the central plank of any reform package aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm.” It is clear that inexpensive, readily available alcohol is one of the key drivers of alcohol harm, and yet the Government has failed to address this issue. The international evidence is unambiguous: price is one of the most effective policies to combat alcohol-related harm. John Key rejected an increase in excise tax as soon as the report was tabled. In saying this, the Prime Minister ignored all other mechanisms for addressing the price of very cheap alcohol. The problem, really, is the $5 bottles of wine. I was on the select committee that was considering the first lot of reforms, back in 2009 or 2010, and this issue came up in a number of submissions. So it is disappointing that here we have another opportunity to address it and the Government has failed to do so.

Another issue that is a major concern for us is the availability of alcohol. There is a connection—well researched and evidence-based—between accessibility and harm. Accessibility is about the convenience of the outlets, their hours of operation, and their prices. And although the Government has started to address hours and the proliferation of outlets, the problem of easier accessibility will not be solved until price is addressed.

Default closing times: people who are purchasing alcohol later in the evening are more likely to have been drinking beforehand and may not have the judgment and self-control required to make good decisions. This should warrant an earlier default closing hour than the proposed 11 o’clock.

We have concerns about the inconsistencies in trading hours and, therefore, availability between neighbouring communities, despite our firm belief that communities should have greater say with regard to the sale of alcohol. Our concerns are that there will be pockets of alcohol-related activity burdening certain communities more than others. I am in west Auckland, so we have more restrictions, with the Waitakere Licensing Trust having a major say in where outlets go. Actually, you can see a huge difference between what we have in west Auckland compared with, say, when you go to other parts of central Auckland or South Auckland, where outlets are just everywhere. Just having such a presence in our communities, surely—and we know this through the research—has an impact on the levels of drinking that take place.

As I said, we will be supporting this bill. It is just concerning that there are other issues that could have been addressed by the Government, but, again, we are in the position where it has chosen to ignore some of the big issues and has chosen not to take up some of the big recommendations that have been put before us, not just during the submission process for this bill but, actually, during the major reforms that took place a few years ago.

Bill read a third time.