Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2019 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will just take a very brief call on behalf of the Green Party to again state our position on this piece of legislation. I’ve heard quite a lot of speakers talk about rugby this afternoon and say that the All Blacks are our national team and this is the game that our country loves and this is part of our national identity.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: That’s true.

I’m hearing right from my left that that is true, and that is the tone of the debate. I also hear the view from David Seymour, speaking previously, that there’s a kind of a strain of people opposing this who are the wowsers, who don’t believe in having a good time, and we’re wowsers. In this case, I’m going to sit with that. I’m OK with that in this situation, because, for me, our national game—if we think about that and the place that we’ve given this game in our culture, and for us to spend time in this House under urgency—

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s not under urgency.

—for all of the parties in this House—well, putting it forward on the Order Paper ahead of other things that really, I think, make a profound difference to our country—for the purpose of ensuring that people following our national game are able to have a drink, to me, is absolutely linking alcohol and our national game in a way that sends a message to New Zealanders that I and the Green Party do not believe is constructive when we have a culture of massive harm resulting from the misuse of alcohol in this country.

If we are going to spend our time and put legislation through again and again, we are sending New Zealanders the message that, actually, rugby and drinking are just inextricably linked. That is the subtext of this legislation. We are sending that message, and that is not a message that the Greens support. We want us to develop a healthy drinking culture in this country, and that is going to take an uncoupling of our drinking and sports culture. That’s going to be uncomfortable at times. Why will it take an uncoupling of those things? Because, actually, we want people to realise you can engage in sports and watching sports without having a drink. We’re sending people the message that, actually, this is part of how these things go—they go together—and that is what this legislation is doing.

Actually, the fact that pubs are able to open, they’re able to get special licences—

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s difficult.

But it’s difficult! They’ve had plenty of notice—I think like four years, maybe—that this was coming up. Some of them may have been turned down because their local community—the representatives in those communities who have looked at their application—have said, “Actually, we don’t think this is in the best interests of our community and safe drinking practice in our community.” That is my understanding of the grounds they get to turn down those applications. So they’re turning it down, and we are overriding that and saying, actually, we think having that drink is more important.

I’m spoilt for choice.

That is a very sad speech from the Green Party. To have come in this afternoon, on a simple process for the House—we shouldn’t be spending all this time talking on it, but I have to make a contribution because that was so distressing—that the Green Party could stand up and say that this bill is all about linking drinking to rugby.

It is not. It is all about making sure that the widest number of New Zealanders who enjoy sport can have a look at it. The Government has gone out there, failed to take games like this and declare them of national significance to make them easier to watch, and, of course, in a commercial world Spark have gone out and bought the rights and are probably not going to be able to deliver the opportunity to watch those games live to the widest possible number of New Zealanders. So this is perfectly reasonable.

I wonder if all of those who are going to turn up to bars to watch these games—there to watch the games, not to get drunk or to drink—would be more acceptable in the Greens’ eyes if they were having a couple of puffs on the old wacky backy and, rather than looking at the screen, just imagining what’s going on. They can do that in the confines of their own home. Apparently there is no problem linking the enjoyment of sport to the consumption of marijuana, though plenty when it comes to the possibility that they might have a quiet beer or a wine while they’re watching a rugby game.

All I want to say is: no wonder this is a party sliding away from 5 percent, because there will be, no doubt, 5 percent of the population who actually do have a bit of a snitch on rugby and who don’t like the idea that anyone might, for one moment, enjoy a drink of alcohol or an alcoholic drink when, in fact, they could be enjoying so much more if only they got themselves completely stoned on the illegal product—marijuana at the present time.

So I want to commend the Green Party for being bold enough to actually say that that’s where they’re coming from, but I want to say too it’s pretty darn sad, and I think it’s a shame, that on a simple bill like this that’s about ensuring that the widest number of New Zealanders do get to watch games in the Rugby World Cup live if they want to—and we do it for other sports, and I think we should—we’re having to spend this time listening to that sort of drivel.

I warned the House during the second reading that the wowsers are never far away and lie in wait to take away our fun, but little did I know they were so close that they were only a metre away, in the Green Party.

I want to clarify, because this is the committee stage, it’s important the Green Party recognises that many of the kinds of clubs and community institutions, RSAs, sports clubs, and cossie clubs up and down this country—especially in small communities—couldn’t have opened without alcohol. Because of their licensing conditions, they’re either open serving alcohol or they’re not open. So they actually had to do this in order for them to open at all. The open with no alcohol is not a legal option. That’s why this bill was necessary at the very least.

But I also want to take issue with the idea that people having a drink or two with their watching of the game is somehow indistinguishable from alcohol abuse. Ironically, it’s the Green Party who are saying that anyone being able to go to a place that serves alcohol is somehow bad and a problem. I would have thought they would be encouraging people who are able to go to a social place with other people—after all, that’s good for our mental health, isn’t it?—and actually enjoy alcohol responsibly.

On the point of the law—because that’s what the committee stage is about—not only is that desirable; it’s required by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act that when the premises are open, they require patrons to be not intoxicated, to be responsible, to be sociable, and not to be antisocial. Those things will all be required under the laws that already exist. We’re just changing the time that they do it. So the Green Party, not only do I disagree with their wowserish attitude, but they’re completely wrong on the most basic facts of how the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act works.

Now, I hadn’t intended to get quite so worked up in what should be a simple stage of passing this law. All I really intended to do was say to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, that I think he’s done a fantastic job of drafting this legislation. I approve of the way it’s drafted, and I have to say for some reason it looked pretty darn familiar as well. That may be why I think it’s such good legislation. I think he’s done a wonderful job, and I hope that we can move on and get this done so we can go and watch the ABs win the rugby.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The member who’s just resumed his seat, David Seymour, clearly hasn’t read the bill carefully enough. There was a typographical error in it. That wasn’t copied from his draft, I might add. I take full responsibility as Minister for it, but I’m not resigning.

Can I just say that this is the examination phase of the bill. It is entirely appropriate that those members who have a different view should be able to express that view. There is nothing wrong with that. But the purpose of this bill, as we already established, is very clear. There are venues around the country who want to be available to their members and other licensed premises who want to be available to New Zealanders who want a gathering place to watch some of, many of, or all of the games in the 2019 Rugby World Cup.

One of those premises who was in the media recently was the Waihī Beach RSA. I’ve been to the Waihī Beach RSA. It is an absolutely delightful venue. There’s no reason why they should be declined a special licence by their district licensing committee. It’s a great venue and a great environment. They are the perfect venue to host a late night sitting or viewing of a Rugby World Cup game so that the locals in that community can enjoy each other’s company to be there.

I do like to see good regulation of alcohol distribution and supply. I’m one of those who are of the view that licensed premises are one of the best places for alcohol to be distributed and consumed because of the safety that that environment creates and because of the obligations on licensed premises owners and managers to ensure that their patrons are kept safe and irresponsible behaviour doesn’t take place.

So that’s why I have always been a fan of making sure that for important occasions, national occasions, where people do like to come together in a spirit, as Clayton Mitchell said, of social intercourse can come together and enjoy each other’s company. Like it or not, part of New Zealand’s kind of cultural tradition is we do enjoy a drink with each other, and the vast majority of those who consume alcohol do so responsibly. There are plenty of people who turn up to licensed premises who don’t consume alcohol because non-alcoholic alternatives are available. Food is available too. I enjoy nothing more than to enjoy a good plate of salt and vinegar chips with my beer when I’m watching sporting events on TV or in public.

They weren’t available in the Walkabout, I might say. Kieran McAnulty and I had to enjoy the aftermath of the 2014 Rugby World Cup at the Walkabout without food accompaniments. It was the loud music—the throbbing loud music—and most people were less than half my age. But, anyway, we got through that experience. I don’t expect that many of the premises that will take advantage of this law change would be in that situation, but, on that note, I think this House has been able to examine this bill. David Seymour has provided the basic drafting of it. We’ve made a few tweaks to it to make sure that it fits the 2019 requirements.

To those calling for a more enduring change, I foreshadow it. I think we are at a time now, where the current legislation has been in place for about six years, that in the next couple of years we should have a thoroughgoing review to make sure that the original objectives are being achieved. One of the issues, in my view, is the conduct of district licensing committees, the inconsistency of decision making between them, and that’s an issue for a future exercise and a future debate in this House. But on that note, I think this bill has been well examined and we should now get on to the next phase.

Thank you. I do appreciate that, because, Hon Minister Little, I do want to posit a question as to whether I am right and Mr Seymour is wrong, that all clubs can open without serving alcohol under section 255 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act and that only some bars would not be able to open if it was outside the licence hours. The law, it appears, is working as intended, and if licence holders can’t get a special licence, that means a district licensing committee has found that, overall, it is not consistent with the objectives of the Act—safe consumption of alcohol, harm minimisation, etc.—for them to be granted a licence.

I acknowledge that the Minister has just referred to the inconsistencies of district licensing committees. However, what about the alternative vision of proactively creating communal spaces, including in rural areas, where we can absolutely enjoy watching sports together, socialising, without the need for this sort of pop-up, impromptu, urgent legislation for the men’s Rugby World Cup. I would appreciate the honourable Minister addressing that part in this, the committee stage.

Very briefly, as I understand it, the issue is the interpretation by some district licensing committees of “event” in relation to an application for a special licence that is an extension on a licence that already exists. Some district licensing committees are saying that just because it is, as in this case, the 2019 Rugby World Cup, that is not an event on its own. There has to be an event at the venue that is more than just a broadcast of that event. There is a difference of view about that, but, nevertheless, the district licensing committee takes that view. It is very difficult for a special licence applicant, having got that decision, to then seek to review that. Most of them don’t have the means to do that.

I just think, on this occasion—I don’t think, when the special licence part of the existing legislation was passing through the House in 2012, that anybody contemplated that it would require dress-ups and costumes and guest speakers and quizzes and all the rest of it to constitute an event around something like broadcasting a series of events like a Rugby World Cup tournament. So that is a matter that I think, for a more enduring solution, this House can come to further down the track to examine the efficacy of the current legislation to see that its objectives are being met, but in the meantime there is a widespread call to enable venues to host events around the 2019 Rugby World Cup, and I think this House should facilitate that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t going to take a call, but there was just too good an opportunity to miss to not stand up and represent the committee of the whole House stage. I think the question that was put by Marama Davidson in relation to the suspension of a licence for an on-premise to host an event without alcohol—any licenced premises can apply to have their licence suspended, but why would you need to go and do that? As the member points out, there’s nothing stopping any community getting together, or the Greens hosting a big open-air venue where families and communities can come together. Also, you’ve got facilities in those rural, regional parts of our country that are set up specifically for that, where people can enter a licensed premises even with children to go and sit there and have a plate of food and have a hot chocolate or a spider and watch soccer or rugby or anything that’s going on.

The issue that this really relates to—and it is for on-premise and club licences—is the fact that it is very much the timing of the Rugby World Cup in Japan. There’s a four-hour delay for us, which means that the 7.35 kick-off is going to be an 11.35 game kick-off. Many clubs around the country are closed between 10 p.m. and midnight, which means the finishing time for a game would be around about quarter past, 20 past 1 on any given game night where we’ve got games to go and attend. The reality is most licensed premises around the country—not all of them, because there are a number that do close at midnight—do trade up to and including 1 o’clock, but it gives them a little bit more headroom so that we don’t have to go through the arduous task of applying for a special licence, which is, as has been already articulated this afternoon, very subjective, the way the DLCs, or the district licensing authority, views what constitutes a special event or not. Then you’ve got the views of the police, of course, involved in that.

This just truncates that process, because we all understand that sports in general in New Zealand makes up a large part of our culture for New Zealand, and this event, the Rugby World Cup, is a huge part of what New Zealanders feel very, very strongly and proudly about. I myself, if I can’t attend a game live to this magnitude, I will absolutely go down to my local club, which I do attend from time to time, or the local pub to go and enjoy the festivities, and I go there without getting inebriated or intoxicated. I generally go and have a dinner with friends, and I sit there and I cheer and I enjoy and I get behind the festivities of the moment, because it’s all about that interaction with my community.

There’s nothing stopping any community going out there to have an unlicensed event anywhere in a hall to go and do that, but you’ve got to create the atmosphere for the event. You need nice fittings and surroundings, and clubs and bars are designed that way to host such events on a regular basis. So there’s nothing withstanding in the bill that would stop any on-premise or club from suspending their licence. The whole point is: why would you need to when you’ve got people, law-abiding citizens, coming along to enjoy themselves watching something that is very important to all New Zealanders?

That’s the contribution from New Zealand First, and we will be supporting this bill through all the stages. We’ve gone through this process before. We’ve taken it to select committee, we’ve heard what submitters have to say; it is very widely supported throughout New Zealand. I just hope that this House starts putting together something that’s going to stop us having a 2023 replay, déjà vu, of this very same problem that we face. Thank you.

Before I call Jan Logie, can I just apologise to the member because I cut you off a minute early, so I’m in your debt.

I had thought so. I couldn’t understand why, when what I was saying was so—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You have five minutes now to make up for it.

—compelling. I do just want to explore in terms of the content of this legislation and getting down to some of how I understand it in practice, because a lot of what I’m hearing is people saying that, one, the legislation needs updating and that there’s a broader issue. I think the Greens could be on board with that idea. Our concern is that we are again, for the second time, using the time of this House, which is very, very precious, to make an exception to our standard processes of oversight of the sale of alcohol for a men’s Rugby World Cup. I will say we haven’t done that for any other sport, which to me is a point for reflection around why it is only this code and this particular men’s world cup that we are doing this for.

But I also want to go through—so what my understanding is, what I’ve heard, is that in the law at the moment, pubs and clubs can apply for this exemption, but the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, was saying there’s an issue with the interpretation of the event that can be problematic in some areas, which may mean that those pubs would have to put on more of an event to be able to feel confident of getting that exemption—doesn’t seem too big a deal to me, I’ve got to be honest. Like, if we’re saying this is a big event for us as a country, then actually advertising for people to come together as an event rather than just a normal, run-of-the-mill night at the pub watching the rugby seems to me consistent with the intent and is not a bad thing, but that is what we are here changing.

There is additionally an option for a suspension of the license—to be open but not to serve alcohol. Again, to me, if we’re talking about this not inextricably linking alcohol and rugby, then that option is available. I don’t think that is being acknowledged by other people in the House. I also understand that clubs are explicitly exempt from section 255 so, therefore, have the option of opening outside of normal trading hours without alcohol. Therefore, the argument that this is particularly relevant to clubs in their communities, that they need exemption, my understanding is that that is only true if it is to subvert the normal process of being able to open and have alcohol. But the view that it is not possible to open without alcohol is not accurate.

I can’t help myself. A couple of thoughts—one is that clubs are not the only type of licence. There are many communities where pubs are actually an important part of the community. But even those clubs that could, theoretically, open outside of licensed hours actually need a way to cover their costs, to cover their staff. These are the kinds of practical realities that people who run businesses and run incorporated societies and clubs, face. But, apparently, members of the Green Party do not. I think it’s critical that we also bring in an element of choice. We’ve just heard from the Green members that a little bit of regulations are OK; it shouldn’t be too onerous for, for instance, a club or pub to be asked to have a guest speaker at 11:30 at night to make an event full, or to run a raffle in conjunction with the game, or to put up lots of bunting and banners to make it a legitimate event—these are the things that people have been asked to do.

I would appeal to the Green Party’s better senses when it comes to choice and tolerance, because I don’t drink alcohol but I support this bill. With biology being what it is at the present time I will never have an abortion, but I support choice there. I think it’s unlikely that I will ever take advantage of marriage equality, but I support that too. There are all sorts of things where it would be easy to say “Oh well, it’s just a little bit more regulatory burden. What does it matter if we politicians make things a little bit harder for our fellow citizens?”. We could use that argument to justify all sorts of Byzantine burdens on people who just want to get on with living and enjoying their lives, but I hope this Parliament won’t. I think it’s important that—I speak as a former Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform, no less—when this committee regulates we have regard for the freedoms and the convenience and the enjoyment of life that our fellow citizens wish to enjoy. If that means that you can have a pint while you watch the game slightly outside the normal licensing hours, then I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

I, finally, take issue with the repeated attacks on the All Blacks for being men. Since when was it acceptable for the Green Party to support a sports team because of their gender? I think that’s outrageous, and I hope that the Green Party will see the error of their ways and stop this terrible gender-based discrimination against the All Blacks simply because they are men. They can’t help being men; they didn’t choose to be men. They were, to quote Lady Gaga, “Born [that] way”, and they do not deserve to be chastised, belittled, and attacked for being who they are by the Green Party, of all parties. So I stand up for our All Blacks and their right to be men, and not be attacked for being men by the Green Party—the party that says that they believe in kindness and inclusively.

In conclusion, I hope that pretty soon some sensible member of this committee will rise up to their feet and put a closure motion so we don’t have to hear any more madness from the Greens.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.