Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

I’d like to begin my contribution tonight by reading from my explanatory note, and it says, “There is no rational base on which existing off-licence renewals should not be assessed against a local alcohol policy that has been through a rigorous process that takes specific account of the harm caused directly or indirectly to the community by alcohol. To not assess existing off-licence renewals against local alcohol policies concerning density and location is to render the basis of a local alcohol policy nugatory and to ignore that existing outlets may have contributed to the identification of areas in a local alcohol policy where there is excessive harm caused by alcohol consumption to the community.”

Where does this piece of legislation stem from, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act? It actually stems from the Alcohol Reform Bill, which this Parliament debated in 2010, 2011, and 2012. I want to read from the select committee report—so this was reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee—“[The] bill seeks to implement the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s 2010 report, Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm. Alcohol has been recognised as the cause of significant social and health-related harm, and is implicated in 30 percent of all police-recorded offences, 34 percent of recorded family violence, and 50 percent of all homicides.” The bill had five policy objectives. They were “to reduce excessive drinking by adults and young people; to reduce the harm caused by alcohol use, including crime, disorder, public nuisance, and negative public health outcomes; to support the safe and responsible sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol; to improve community input into local alcohol licensing decisions; [and] to improve the operation of the alcohol licensing system.”

This bill passed its third reading on 11 December 2012, and I want to quote then Minister of Justice Judith Collins. She said, “Accessing alcohol is easier when there are more licences, and communities have been telling us that they are concerned about the proliferation of stores selling alcohol in their areas. At present, it is very difficult to successfully object to a licence application. Licence criteria are limited and licences are relatively easy to obtain. This can be frustrating and disheartening for communities concerned about alcohol-related harm in their areas. Under [this] bill, licences will be harder to get and easier to lose.”

The reason I’ve emphasised that is because in section 75 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act there is an opportunity for the establishment of local alcohol policies. These local alcohol policies were used to consolidate community input into local alcohol licensing decision-making. Currently, section 133 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—the title is “Renewal of licences where relevant local alcohol policy exists”—states, and I quote: “In considering whether to renew a licence, the licensing authority or licensing committee concerned must not take into account any inconsistency between a relevant local alcohol policy and—(a) the renewal of a licence”.

In Auckland Council’s provisional local alcohol policy, which had 2,688 submissions, clause 4.2, “Applications for renewal of off-licences states, and I quote: “1. Pursuant to section 133 of the Act, in considering whether to renew a licence, the DLC”—district licensing committee—“and ARLA”—Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority—“must not take into account any inconsistency between the Policy and renewing the licence”—that is, the policy cannot be grounds for refusing to renew the licence.

Therein lies the heart of my bill. I believe that there should not be a difference between a new licence and somebody who is renewing their licence. A licence is a licence is a licence. Since the introduction of this piece of legislation, of the 67 territorial authorities 29 have adopted local alcohol policies, and they are Ashburton District Council, which has had 207 submissions; Auckland Council, as I’ve just said, 2,688; Central Hawke’s Bay District Council; Christchurch City Council, although it’s provisional; Dunedin City Council, provisional; Far North District Council, provisional; Gisborne District Council, which has an adopted local alcohol policy; Hauraki District Council, which has an adopted alcohol policy; Hurunui District Council; Hutt City Council, Lower Hutt; Invercargill City Council; Gore District Council; Southland District Council; New Plymouth District Council; Stratford District Council; Ōtorohanga District Council; Porirua City Council; Ruapehu District Council; Selwyn District Council; Tasman District Council; Tauranga City Council; Western Bay of Plenty District Council; Thames-Coromandel District Council; Timaru District Council; Mackenzie District Council; Waimate District Council; Waikato District Council; Waimakariri District Council; Waipā District Council; Waitomo District Council; and Whakatāne District Council, Kawerau District Council, and Ōpōtiki District Council—Eastern Bay of Plenty. I read out these local alcohol policies because in Hutt City’s case they had 262 submissions, in Gisborne’s case they had 142 submissions, and in Selwyn’s case they had 67 submissions, so the community has grasped the opportunity with their local councils to create local alcohol policies.

The application for a renewal of a licence: if you have an existing licence, within 20 days of the expiry of that licence you have to make an application for that to be renewed. There is an opportunity for objections to that licence. The police and the medical officers of health have been given a specific opportunity to comment on whether or not those applications for renewal should be approved.

One of the questions that one of my colleagues posed to me was: is this going to get rid of bad businesses? Now, I want to state from the outset that it is not my intention for the consideration of local alcohol policies to rid us of good businesses. I state that because it’s also one of the issues that I’ve had to deal with, and this is particularly in reference to the support of the New Zealand First Party. They were very clear that businesses and our business community were incredibly important, and so they wanted some confirmation from me that this in no way would affect on-licensed premises, that this was in response to, essentially, communities where we have a proliferation of outlets and there is no way for us to reduce that number. So, at the end of my contribution, I will be asking for a point of order so that I can table a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that will specifically address their issue.

What I also wanted to highlight was that under section 267 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, the police do have the option of assessing, at any time, compliance of outlets or organisations who have a licence, whether or not they are complying with the regulations of their particular licence. But I have found no evidence, because under section 281 of that particular legislation the police have an opportunity to not only challenge a licence—so that results in some sort of suspension—they can also look at applying for a cancellation of a licence. And—after asking the library for some evidence—there have been no suspensions of any licence under section 281. There have been 15 cases where people have received penalties, from 24 hours to 42 days, where managers who have certificates have had those certificates cancelled or on-licences have been refused because of issues that they’ve had with the police. But there have been no instances where someone with an off-licence has had that licence cancelled by the police. That’s the only way that you can control businesses who aren’t complying with the stipulations of their particular licence. So I, obviously, am imploring the House to support this bill, at least, to select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I seek leave to table an SOP drafted by the Clerk’s office in my name, which confirms this bill applies to the renewal of alcohol off-licences only.

Is there any objection to that Supplementary Order Paper being tabled and, I presume, being referred with the bill, if the bill receives a first reading? Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Before I call the member Chris Bishop, I will indicate that because this is a conscience issue, and members on both sides of the issue have indicated positions to me, the normal back and forth party positions will not apply.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, this bill has had a somewhat tortured process into the Parliament. I think it’s the number two bill because we had a bit of an error with the original drafting of the bill. But now we find, just at the end of the member’s speech introducing this bill, that a Supplementary Order Paper has been dropped on to the House, which, presumably has been dropped there in order to get New Zealand First over the line to support the bill, otherwise it would have failed because, of course, the National Party will be voting against it.

The other point I want to make just at the start is the reference to the Governance and Administration Committee. It is a bit strange, I have to say. Traditionally, alcohol bills have gone to the Justice Committee. They’ve been treated as justice matters. I’m not just saying that because I’m on the Justice Committee. So I do find that a bit odd, and I would urge the member to rethink that. I don’t know why she’s decided to nominate it to send it to the Governance and Administration Committee. I’ve got to say that the Justice Committee is very busy, as my colleague Greg O’Connor will know, with the End of Life Choice Bill, we’re about to start the inquiry into the 2017 general election, and we’ve got domestic violence legislation before us. But, you know, we’re a hard-working, busy committee. We’d welcome the business if the member wishes to refer it to us, but we’ll wait and see.

I want to make a few points about this bill. The first is just to say that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act makes it a lot harder to get a liquor licence. If you want any evidence of that I invite members to go and talk to their local communities and some of the businesses out there that have struggled to get liquor licences for quite stupid reasons. In the Hutt, which Louisa Wall made mention of in her speech, there is a business called La Bella Italia—many members may have been out there—a great Italian restaurant, which also has a grocery area that sells Italian wine. Antonio, the proprietor there, is very fond of doing a bit of maître d’ing and introducing people to new Italian wines at the same time as people are having a meal. People like to go and pick up some of the wine they’ve tried. Because of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act he’s found it very difficult to get renewals for his liquor licence. He’s now had to set up a scenario where the liquor is essentially behind a wall inside the restaurant. If you like the wine you’re trying, you then have to go to an iPad set up in the corner of the restaurant, input the wine that you’ve tried, buy it online using a credit card, go outside, and come back into the restaurant using a side door to pick up the wine you’ve bought. It’s just ridiculous. That is essentially because of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

Examples abound all over the place: the railway station New World, which members may have gone to when they’ve taken the train out to the mighty Hutt Valley—or to Johnsonville, God forbid. They found it very difficult to get a liquor licence because they had, I think, beer bottles or wine bottles on display through a window. So, commuters going to the trains would see the beer bottles. I mean, you know, shocking, apparently that you’d see—

💬 Stuart Smith: Where’s the harm?

Exactly. Stuart Smith says “Where’s the harm?”, but there were objections made to it on the basis that busy commuters would become binge drinkers, or something, because they could see a bottle of Montana sauvignon blanc or something like that. So the point is, it’s a lot harder to get a liquor licence.

The second point is that it’s also a lot harder to get renewals. The member in charge of the bill talked about how that should be the purpose of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and she’s exactly right. She mentioned section 131 of the Act. That compels licensing authorities to take into account the suitability of applicants, the days upon which the licence will be operating, the layout of the store, what else they sell—do they sell other things? Of course, it allows the police and the local medical officer of health, and the manner in which the applicant sells the liquor—essentially, it compels the licensing authorities to take all of those things into account. The net effect of that is that it’s a lot harder to get a renewal, and that’s very important. So, it’s not the case, as the member sort of implied, that existing licences that existed before the 2012 Act came into effect are kind of grandfathered in with no rules whatsoever. That’s not the case. She said, “A licence is a licence is a licence.” That’s true and when you go for renewal of a licence it’s a lot harder to get a renewal than it was to get one in the first place, because, of course, the old Act applied.

So then we come to this bill. So what does it do? So the current law—and it’s a very finely grained bill. That’s the other point to note. This is really down in the weeds and the minutiae of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. That’s OK. Parliament deals with that sort of stuff all the time, but it’s really right on the cusp of—right on the margins of the law. The current law says licensing authorities must not take into account the consistency of a licence with the local alcohol policy, and what this bill does is it allows the licensing authority to take into account the consistency.

I do just want to point out to Louisa Wall that I think there is an inconsistency actually in the bill itself. So if you look at clause 4 of her bill, under the subheading “Purpose” it says, “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to provide that, in considering …”—etc.—“a licensing authority or licensing committee must take into account any inconsistency between any location and density matters”. But then if you look at replacement section 133(1), which is the bit she’s proposing, set out in clause 5, it says, “may refuse to renew a licence”.

So why is the National Party voting against this bill? Well, we’re not convinced it’s needed. As I said before, the existing law already allows for a large degree of latitude by district licensing authorities in considering whether or not to grant a renewal of a licence. So if this goes to the select committee, we would like to hear evidence as to how exactly it’s needed. It looks like it is going to go to the select committee—I’d like it to go to the Justice Committee, because I’d like to see its evidence, but it’s going to go to the Governance and Administration Committee, possibly. But I would like to see at the select committee evidence of exactly what problem we are trying to solve. What actually is the mischief this bill is trying to remedy, because it’s not clear to me and it’s not clear to members on this side of the House exactly what the problem is there in the current law.

The current law significantly tightens the law around renewal of licences and the issuing of licences itself. It grants to local communities the ability to put into place local alcohol policies—and Louisa Wall talked about how many communities have done that, and there is a high degree of interest in that. But we’re not clear on this side of the House exactly what problem Louisa Wall is trying to solve with this bill. We think the current Act strikes the right balance between allowing people who wish to purchase alcohol and wish to access alcohol, and preventing alcohol-related harm. It’s been in place for only a couple of years now. We’re not clear what the mischief is and because of that we won’t be voting for it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to be the first one to speak and give some clarification to Mr Bishop across the way, but before I get into that, I’d like to commend Louisa Wall for the work that she’s done on this. I know the intention of this bill is absolutely spot on and we know what she’s trying to fix. It was 12 minutes to midnight, and we were not going to be supporting this bill, when a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) came across, which has gone some way to amending some of our concerns. We will be supporting this bill through to select committee—with reservations, we have to say. I think some of the points that have been raised by Mr Bishop are genuine and real, and we want to make sure that we don’t have unintended consequences if this bill proceeds beyond the select committee.

One of the concerns that he was raising and questioned was, “What is the problem that this bill is trying to address?” The reality is, and he will know this himself if he is in tune with his community, when we go into certain parts of our community—and it’s generally low socio-economic areas—we see a proliferation of alcohol stores. They are around schools, whether they be primary schools or high schools, and the access to alcohol and the promotion of alcohol in these areas is not like you see in other areas. That’s what Louisa Wall, I’m suggesting, is trying to sort out. That’s what New Zealand First would like to see happen, also. But we do not want to see the unintended consequences of other businesses being affected by this bill. The SOP that has just been tabled—I’ve had a good look at it and it is very, very targeted and very, very specific on the intent of the people that this bill is intended to deal with, and that is off-licence premises, not on-licence premises.

We have seen in this House, even last term, when we had the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill come back to this House for discussion, and this was over the anomaly that some liquor authorities had a different view of licensing than other licensed areas. This was over the Rugby World Cup. Some licensed areas did not allow extended or special licences to be applied for, for the Rugby World Cup. Common sense prevailed, and this House unanimously came together to resolve that issue so that people could enjoy having a beer, enjoying it with friends, and watching the Rugby World Cup. These are the sorts of things that we need to be very, very mindful of, and how the interpretations from certain sectors and certain people in our community can see great events such as the Wellington Rugby Sevens being shut down because somebody’s interpretation of that was different from, for example, what’s happening in Hamilton—same event, just relocated.

So we’ve got some work to do as a Government on this particular area. New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill. We are not guaranteeing our support moving forward from here. We are very, very interested to hear from submitters—hear their thoughts on this. I know this SOP will go a long way to remedying some of these issues.

The other area of concern that we do have—and something that I think may be able to be amended through the select committee process—is enabling a grandfather clause. For example, if you have a licensed premises, an off-licence premises, which we are talking about now, in a community that has been operating for some time and inadvertently another business comes into that area, which happens to be a childcare centre or a school—for 20 years this business has been operating in a very, very mature, sensible, responsible manner, and we don’t want this bill to have an effect on that business. This is what we are very, very unsure of—how we can move forward from this.

But there is an issue here. We see it in our communities. We understand the problem that alcohol can have on our communities if it’s not dealt with responsibly and sensibly. We will support this bill through to the select committee, so we can hear from submitters. Just to reverberate what I’ve already said, this is a very conditional support. We have reservations, but we hope that we can get through with a positive outcome. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to speak on this bill and congratulations to Louisa Wall for putting it forward. I’m happy to support the bill right through to the select committee process for further scrutiny, but I must admit that earlier today I did have some reservations, and I’ll come to those shortly.

First of all, I just want to talk about the huge impact alcohol-related harm has in our community. As a junior doctor, back in the day, I used to work in A & E, and I guess the main thing I actually remember about that was that smell of alcohol mixed with vomit, mixed with a bit of disinfectant thrown in. You know, that smell now brings me back to those days. But what used to happen is about 11 o’clock on a Saturday night I used to be sitting there waiting for stuff to come in, and what we would be seeing was just large numbers of young people coming in with head injuries, because they got intoxicated, been involved in a fight, and it’s really, really hard to tell whether somebody’s got a concussion and they’ve got ongoing issues with damage from that or whether they’re just intoxicated. We also saw huge numbers of fractures—the punch fracture where you get a fracture across here. [Points to hand] Some nights we were particularly unlucky, because we got both sides of the fight coming into the waiting room at the same time, and thank goodness for our triage nurses who used to sort that out.

That was back in the 1990s, but fast forward 20-odd years and when I was monitoring youth health for our district health boards, we were also seeing hundreds of alcohol-related hospital admissions coming in: things like car crashes, intoxication, fractures, and head injuries. So it’s having a huge impact all around our regions. So when the original Act, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, came in in 2012, it was actually intended to reduce that alcohol-related harm. What it did was it put more control back in the communities, so that local authorities could introduce local alcohol policies, and what they could do was they could talk about where licensed premises could be put—you know, should they be put next to schools, playgrounds, churches—and so there were some restrictions on that. It also looked at the total number of licences granted and the density in the community. It looked at maximum trading hours and also one-way door policies. So what the Act specified was that those local authorities had to consult with the police about what was happening and with the medical officers of health, and once they designed their policies, they had to also consult with and run them by the community. When they were doing that, they had to take into account the demographics in the community and the extent of existing alcohol-related harm.

So what the current Act does is that when you’re granting new licences, it allows that to be considered and weighed up so that you don’t get that proliferation of density. But the problem is that it’s slightly different if you’ve got the current licence being renewed, because there what it says is that the licensing authority “must not take into account” any inconsistency between the relevant local alcohol policy and the renewal of the licence, which seems a bit unusual because the fact is that, actually, when you’re thinking about that renewal, you’re wanting to be thinking about what that impact is on the community and what the community’s already said about that.

The issue, I think—and this is why Louisa Wall’s raising it in this bill—is that “must not take into account” is problematic, so what’s being proposed is to actually turn that on its head. The new wording actually says a licensing authority may refuse to renew a licence if, in its opinion, it’s inconsistent with what’s contained in the relevant local alcohol policy. So it makes it possible to actually decline that renewal on the basis of what the local policy says. I think that’s really important, because the current Act can stop the proliferation of new outlets, but for communities that have got significant alcohol-related harm, it doesn’t allow for those areas where you’ve got really high density of alcohol outlets to be reduced.

The concerns I have, though, are that we need to be looking at how we mitigate the impact on good businesses that may come up for renewal, but they just might be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and also looking at whether we need more criteria for determining if we want to decline a renewal. So do they have to provide evidence of harm? Then the other thing is do we need some lag time, so that people have got time to adapt their business? I think that we really need to put that through and have a proper discussion at select committee, so I commend this bill to the House.

Matt King. No, sorry—Stuart Smith.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—second time lucky. Well, I’m actually quite heartened by hearing New Zealand First say that they have reservations on this bill, because I have severe reservations on the bill. I think that this bill as it stands will have a significant impact on existing businesses due to the way that this bill is written at the moment. So for an existing business that has had a different kind of business, like a school or a childcare centre or whatever, come in next door—which has come to the nuisance, as it were—it could cut right across their rights. That makes it very difficult for those businesses facing that sort of situation to be backed by their bank, for example, and I think that’s quite significant.

Now, I think it’s very easy, while we’re supping on a chardonnay—and I’m very partial to a chardonnay—to wring our hands about the consumption of alcohol and the harm that it does to people. There is no doubt alcohol does harm, but if we look at the statistics, particularly amongst the young, alcohol harm is declining. It’s declining. We’ve listened to the speeches around here and we think it’s actually going up, but that’s not the case, so I think we’ve got to be careful.

Every time we try to control alcohol with laws, we have the opposite effect. The 6 o’clock swill was a result of the change of the law. Prohibition in the United States increased the number of alcohol outlets during that period. They didn’t go down; they went up. They were illegal, but they were there. The amount of area planted in grapes for wine production in the United States during Prohibition actually increased. It didn’t go down.

So I oppose this bill. I think it’s well-intentioned, but misguided. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to be taking a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2), and I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall, the sponsor of the bill, for bringing it to the House. I will, however, be joining my colleagues in the National Party in opposing the bill. We oppose it not because alcohol isn’t a problem, but because we don’t see the need for this particular bill.

Licence renewals are already publicly notified, and, as we see regularly, they are challenged by people in the community, by health professionals, and by local police. In its explanatory note, the bill talks about concerns about the proximity of liquor outlets to schools, and that interested me because, actually, young people don’t see problems with alcohol in the way that we did when I was at high school and perhaps when members opposite were at high school—certainly in comparison to what it was like a few years ago.

The number of young hazardous drinkers is actually declining. For those aged 15 to 24, the proportion of young hazardous drinkers has dropped, from 35 percent in 2006 to 26 percent in 2016, so some of the rhetoric that we’re hearing in this House actually needs a reality check. Young people just don’t see this as the greatest problem facing their generation. Last year, the YMCA put out some statistics that showed that alcohol was nowhere near the top of the list when it came to young people’s health concerns.

I want to end by saying that all decisions we make in this House to target those that are harming themselves or others also impact the rest of society. We have to be very careful not to unfairly punish the vast majority of responsible drinkers in this country, who use alcohol in moderation and without harming themselves. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the work that Louisa Wall has done in terms of looking at this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2).

This is a bill, essentially, about communities, and about communities having the autonomy and the authority to make the decisions that directly affect their own people. I’ll be speaking in favour of this bill. I think that part of the need for this is that we need to respect that each of the communities and the various parts where we live are different, and there are different issues with alcohol consumption depending on where we come from. In some places in New Zealand, it is far less of a problem, but in some other places it’s a far greater problem.

I would like to talk about a problem that happens where I live, where there has been a massive problem in terms of an increase of licensed liquor stores that have opened. In Wainuiōmata, where there’s approximately 17,000 people, we’ve got seven bottle stores, seven outlet stores. In the past, there was a new liquor licence that was put up, and the community rallied around and were very strong in their view that they did not want another liquor store in their area. The place where this new liquor store was proposed was right beside a playground, a church, a chemist, and a doctor. There was another bottle store on the other side of the playground, and in that area there were ongoing issues with tagging and broken bottles.

In the submissions received, we heard from families in that area that they were tired of the damage that was being done to their youth, their mums, and their dads from alcohol. They were tired of the broken bottles on the street and the damage that they saw being done to the community. But most of all, there were submissions that they were tired of the violence that was a direct result of more alcohol stores being opened.

Through the second process of the recent local alcohol policy review, again a strong view came out, and success was had by capping the number of alcohol outlets in Wainuiōmata. So, that’s why I believe—and why I’m supporting this to the select committee—that people should also have the opportunity to say no. to the existing licences if there are too many and if they don’t want them. If that community asks, they have that right, and I don’t see why they should not have that right. That’s why at the select committee, if there are issues in terms of how this impacts on other communities different to where I come from, let’s hear about those, and let’s nut out those details if there are implications to business.

But, first and foremost, we need to remember the damage that alcohol does to some communities within New Zealand. We need to take every opportunity possible to give those communities the power and the autonomy to stand up and look after their own if they’re prepared to do so. So I would like to say that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Before I take Aupito William Sio, I just want to make very clear my concern to the Government whips, the Labour whips, that I have received a communication from them as to who wishes to take the call and their views on the call. Now, I think only one member from that list attempted to take the call and that member has expressed a view differing from the list that I have received. I just want to make it very clear that, in a conscience vote, it is my expectation that communications that I receive should be relied on, and if there is a change of view, that I should be informed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It needs to be stated for this House that the Labour Party’s convention when it comes to issues of alcohol is that it votes as a conscience issue. I want to also say to the National Party speakers, and I’d ask Mr Simeon Brown, who’s in the House and the representative of Pakuranga—can he ask his members whether they are blind or do they not care? Because I don’t think there’s any member in this House who doesn’t recognise that alcohol has a direct link to the harm that is often caused in our communities. And all they need to do is to visit their local A & E in the early hours of the morning and they’ll see that. But I think when they are so consumed with protecting the interests of the industry, protecting profit and profiteering, they seem then to be blind to the harm that is often caused and that we often see. I think every politician needs to be concerned about that.

But getting back, the scaremongering that comes from that side of the House also misses the mark. The bill that we are debating tonight is not anti-liquor, is not anti-business, this—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s not prohibition.

It’s not prohibition. This bill recognises that we have an existing culture that allows for the sale and supply of alcohol. All this bill sets out to do is to enable communities who have established a local alcohol policy to have some influence on the decisions that the liquor licencing authorities will make at the renewal of those licensed to sell.

I give you a number of examples of why it should be a concern. The 2012 Act allows for a local alcohol policy. In my community, we have a local alcohol policy that says alcohol should not be sold near or opposite a school, yet that exists. I have a school, Southern Cross Campus, who has year in, year out advocated that that licence not be renewed because of the harm that is caused and because of the practices that are inconsistent with the law by selling to underage drinkers. Despite the police being supportive of that local alcohol policy, that licence continues to be renewed, because the law, as it stands, does not recognise the interests of that local community. That needs to be made quite clear.

This is not anti-business. It is not about prohibiting liquor. It is about enabling communities who have established a local alcohol policy, who recognise the harm that alcohol causes in our communities to at least have an inside influence when those decisions are made.

I want to acknowledge New Zealand First. I appreciate and acknowledge you for allowing this bill to go to first reading. I think the evidence from those who are involved at the grassroots—community organisations, some of our academics—is important for us to hear.

The other harm that we ought to be concerned about is the disease that is caused by mothers who drink alcohol. I can’t remember the name of the disease.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: Foetal alcohol syndrome.

Foetal alcohol syndrome. That should be a concern. That is a direct link to the availability of alcohol.

The other concern is it may be—in their case, there’s probably a couple of alcohol outlets. But in low-income, hard working-class communities we have a proliferation of alcohol outlets, and those communities fight, day in, day out, to say that enough is enough. We’re not trying to ban it. It’s available all around, in our supermarkets. We’re simply saying that where there’s sufficient outlets, surely that is enough. Surely the harm that is caused in our communities should be a concern to the decision makers of this country, particularly in this House. So that needs to be made clear.

I want to thank Louisa, because I think, Louisa, that you bringing this bill forward—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

It means that the member Louisa Wall is listening to the local community. So on behalf of the people of Māngere, we support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2), going to the select committee.

Many of my colleagues have spoken of the damage of alcohol, and I don’t believe that anything other than a well-coordinated rewrite of the whole alcohol legislation will really address those issues, and for that reason I’m a little reluctant to support one small part of the legislation, which doesn’t take into account the education and other strategies that will need to be in place if we’re going to deal with the alcohol problem in this country. However, in looking at this particular amendment, it does make sense. I’m sure it is fixing up something that was an unintended consequence of the last Act, when it was passed.

I note my colleague Clayton Mitchell—the one concern you have is also a concern I have. It is the law of unintended consequences. While I will be supporting this bill to go to the select committee, I am wary that this amendment will empower local authorities a little more than we intended, if we’re not careful, although I have reread the Act and I think we do have a safety mechanism.

One thing we don’t want to do is allow this to be used to actually create dry areas. I’d hate to think that we were giving enough powers to the local alcohol policy administrators to actually shut down all the outlets in any given area, because the unintended consequences of that would be that we would end up with sly-grogging. My own experience of working in areas where licensing trusts existed and where there was very strict control of alcohol outlets was that a vacuum was created, and into that vacuum moved the local criminals. I can still remember seeing particularly those from the lower socio-economic area on benefit day being lined up by the local sly-grogger, to take their whole benefit, for the money that they had spent in their sly-grogging outfit, because they didn’t have the protections that the local trust had put in place.

So, in recommending this bill, I just need to be aware of the unintended consequences. We could end up having a dearth of liquor outlets in an area—the old dry areas in Wellington here. We remember Karori and we remember Miramar, in which I remember, as a young police officer here, there was a plethora of sly-grogging outfits. So we have to be just a little careful that we get this right, which is why I’m a great fan—that when we do actually look at this whole alcohol problem we ensure that we do join the bits up and don’t attack it piecemeal.

Given that, I think I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in this that it will be used for the purpose—it is needed. It is quite ridiculous to think that while I have been personally involved in having licences removed from individuals, the difficulties now of closing down a shop or an outlet—an off-licence, which we have now defined—becomes very difficult. The fact that it has never been done, statistically, shows how difficult it is. We can get a manager sacked, you can get individuals sacked, but that shop remains, whereas at least there has been the possibility of actually closing down licensed premises elsewise. The fact that we cannot do it now is a gap in the Act. It needs to be able to happen in those areas that have local alcohol policies, and I commend this to go to the select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I’ll just give a few brief comments on this bill. When it initially came up on the Order Paper and I was doing my research, I initially thought that it was a bit of an anomaly in the law, as Greg O’Connor, my colleague, has just mentioned. However, it is actually not an unintended consequence with regard to this legislation—this anomaly that we currently see in the law with regard to the ability for local communities to create their own local alcohol policy, yet their local alcohol policies not being taken into account with the renewal of licences. It’s actually intentional.

It is intentional in section 133 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, which reads, and I quote—and I’ll note that Dr Liz Craig previously touched on this: “(1) In considering whether to renew a licence, the licensing authority or licensing committee concerned must not take into account any inconsistency between a relevant alcohol policy and—(a) the renewal of a licence; or (b) the consequences of its renewal.” It seems a little bit like giving with one hand and taking with the other—purporting to be talking about local democracy but, actually, not really following through with it.

For those who are talking about prohibition, I think you’ve kind of overcooked it. What we’re talking about here is communities having autonomy. This is not about prohibition; this is about communities being able to decide where these places with liquor licences actually are. There are thousands of people who have submitted and consulted with their councils and local authorities around local alcohol policies, and I think that if we are genuinely, as a House of Representatives, taking that seriously, taking the voices of constituents seriously, taking communities seriously, and taking the autonomy of communities seriously, as so many of us in this place purport to do, then let’s hear from New Zealanders at select committee. I’m stoked to be supporting this bill through its first reading.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much, and thank you very much to colleagues who have participated in tonight’s debate. I just want to speak directly to Chris Bishop. It must take into consideration local alcohol policies, but it “may refuse to renew a licence”. The reason I framed it that way is that, currently, all licences are renewed with conditions only. What this bill will do is allow a district licensing committee not to renew a licence, with inputs from the community, from the police, and from the medical officer of health. Actually, in some instances, the public may support the application for a renewal because they’ve got a great business owner in their community.

What’s the context of this for me? One hundred and fifty-six off-licence premises in South Auckland. And, actually, Simeon Brown does know about this, because when he was the chair of the Manurewa Youth Council we had a huge outpouring of submissions from our community to create a local alcohol policy that started to reduce the number of outlets we had in South Auckland.

I just want to thank the Clerk’s office—particularly David Wilson, Tim Workman, and the team. You’ve assisted greatly. I obviously commend the bill to the House and look forward to the vote. Kia ora.

Members, I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue, and if members want a personal vote, I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we’re going to follow: I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce a result, and at any stage any member can ask for a personal vote. I will say, however, that I have listened very carefully to the debate and, notwithstanding advice I have received previously, the debate has appeared to be upon party lines. So it will be for members to decide whether, in the end, a personal vote is called for.

A personal vote was called for on the question that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time and that Supplementary Order Paper 14 be referred to a select committee.

Members, before I declare the result, what I am going to do is something that is slightly unusual. It won’t affect the result, but it is something that I want to see because I’ve been informed in two different ways as to the vote of a particular member. Therefore, I am going to ask for a sample of members’ proxy forms, including that member’s, to be shown to me at some stage later on. I will ask for the Hon Chris Hipkins’ proxy form, the Hon Winston Peters’ proxy form, the Hon James Shaw’s proxy form, and the Hon Bill English’s proxy form all to be given to me or to my office at the conclusion of this exercise, because I want to be absolutely certain. Clearly, one of them is of more of concern than others, but to be fair to all parties I don’t want to single out any particular set of whips at this point. I think it is important. The proxies have to be relied on, and when I’m informed in two different ways for one member, that is something that is important and I do want to check.