Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill

Just in the context of the legislation in front of us and, obviously, in seeking leave, that was about attempting to try and weave together both Parts 1 and 2 with regard to the main amendments and related amendments—those are the trading hours—but also then speaking to the extended trading hours as outlined in Part 1. I was just wondering if the Minister perhaps could reflect on those points that I was making earlier with regards to the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and then perhaps unpack some of the evidence or research behind it here just for his benefit but also for the benefit of those who may be following along at home. On page 2 of the RIS, he’ll find in the second paragraph—and I quote from here—“Alcohol is a harmful drug that contributes to a wide range of health, social, and justice-related harms and subsequent costs for society. The evidence-base also clearly connects increases in alcohol harm related with both extended trading hours and sporting events.” Obviously, as alluded to before, it then goes on to say, “At the same time, the men’s Rugby World Cup likely presents a significant commercial opportunity for on-licensed and club-licensed premises, as well as being a highlight on the calendar of rugby fans.” So to that effect, I was wondering if the Minister could just make it kind of explicit to the House that the trade-off here was knowing full well that the evidence makes it clear that there is a connection between alcohol-related harm and extended trading hours, but that it was chosen here that that commerciality was far more important.

Before the Minister—if he cares to, I just need to get the procedure right. My fault, I should have done it before. So I’ll just put the question: it is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her question. And, look, she is correct: the medical evidence on alcohol, and the prevalence of alcohol in our communities and in people’s diets, effectively, is that it does pose a risk. It is the most commonly consumed drug—and it is a drug—and it is a cause of many cancers, particularly abdominal and oesophageal and like cancers. So we know that there is a risk of it.

In terms of social harms, we know it is a source of some social harms as well. I think where the presence of alcohol or the availability of alcohol, even on a commercial basis, at venues for events like this, I am confident, means there is a much more constructive and positive social environment in which the consumption of alcohol takes place. This particular law makes the extra availability of alcohol confined to a particular event that has significant social effects for pretty much the whole of the country and many of those who are visiting here at the time. I think there is some consequence, as a result of those factors, that means that the risk of harm is somewhat reduced as a consequence.

But the member is correct both on the earlier comments, and I think underlying her question is that alcohol poses a continuing risk regardless.

I appreciate the Minister’s reflection, particularly on what in drug law reform lingo would be called “safe consumption spaces”, and the ability to have a, kind of, duty of care, and impose responsibility with regards to the sale and supply. Again, I just, for the benefit of other members, make it really clear that I’m not standing here as a prohibitionist or a wowser; I don’t think anybody can accuse me of that, but what we’re standing for is an evidence-based, logically consistent approach to substances in this country which reduces harm.

So just to add the final point, as was raised in other components of speaking on this bill, I have a question for the Minister about whether—as, actually, many other members spoke to—there was consideration of actually longer-term changes to the legislation, given that we’ve had to do this several times now in the context of pretty urgent legislation in front of the House. Because it seems to me that that speaks to, at the very least, a fundamental flaw in how the majority of the House seems to interpret the legislation at present, especially when it comes to major sporting events.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member. I want to just acknowledge—no, look, we know you’re not a prohibitionist, but have always been an ardent advocate for the right health outcomes for our communities. So I want to acknowledge you and your leadership in this area. With respect to the way that we’ve approached this—there has been a bespoke approach each World Cup, depending on what’s happening. We’ve considered whether or not we do some more substantive amendment that enables us just to be able to kind of flick on a switch—turn it off. If the FIFA Women’s World Cup had been at a different time and a different jurisdiction, perhaps we would have sought something like this as well to, you know, give parity to sports and gender.

I think that’s something, I guess—as the member would be well aware, we are looking at a whole range of bespoke amendments. Something that sits probably well with me with this particular piece of legislation, in alignment with the ideological approach that we’re taking in other areas, is that this is something I asked quite extensive questions of, about how the experience had gone in previous occasions. The response that I received was that this was a really well-regulated, had been probably de minimis harm approach, and can change. So in terms of those types of issues, that was where I garnered some confidence from the advice that I’ve received. That said, as you’ll be well aware, there is more work to be done across the board when it comes to the impacts of alcohol harm and how we’re providing for licensing in communities, and we’re really committed to that.

I thank the Minister—just one question; I won’t delay the committee any further. I do note that the legislation as it is requires premises to close for the sale of alcohol 30 minutes after the end of a game. I’m just thinking of the context of a great All Blacks victory. Are you sure half an hour is right and not quarter of an hour or one hour in terms of limiting the celebration factor? I’d like you to just elaborate a little bit on the appropriateness of that time.

Thank you to the member for the comment. How long is enough time for celebrating? I can say that my personal experience was with some of your colleagues over in the UK after the Black Caps won the semi-final. We were all over in the UK, and I think it took a little longer than 30 minutes.

💬 Ian McKelvie: Who—your colleagues?

I think Mr McKelvie was there as well! Yes, sometimes celebrations can go on but we took advice and this was indeed the experience that has occurred under previous bills—that that was deemed an appropriate amount of time by police in terms of them being able to police the issue and to ensure that the festivities could occur but, again, keep a mindful eye on the least-harm approach. Go the All Blacks!

I just wanted to ask the Minister, with this mechanism—and this is for clarity, and maybe it’s been covered elsewhere. With regards to restrictions at a local alcohol policy level as well as district licensing committee rules and determinations, is this seven-day mechanism and connectivity with the police force—can that lead to any problems at a local level, or has it all been thought through?

That’s a really useful question for the committee to consider. The information and advice that we’ve received is that, given the contained nature and the period of time by which these provisions are required—so it would look different if we were to approach it on the status quo basis by which licensing occurs now, because the member may or may not know that there are provisions that local government can utilise within particular patches. I think where we as a Government landed was that it was best to take a universal approach to ensure that all New Zealanders have the same opportunity, I guess, to celebrate when our lads come back victorious. But in terms of whether we’d consider this type of approach in a broader sense or for some broader, more significant reform, I wouldn’t take it as an indication that that’s necessarily the politic of where we are going. It’s just the way that we’ve approached these things in the past.

I just thought it worthwhile addressing some of the allegations made about me as the Auckland Central MP earlier. My engagements with the police in the electorate have demonstrated very clearly that it is an area where there is quite a concentration of alcohol harm. So on the point of, particularly, police engagement and noting of course that they are one of the kind of core State organs that are responsible for responding to alcohol harm, I was just wondering if the Minister could possibly step us through the engagement with the police with regard to the drafting of this leg.

Yes. Well, look, I’ll give a high-level response then I might come back for a second bite at the cherry. So police have been engaged, essentially, at all stages. The officials from the ministry—they looked at the examples from the previous World Cups where we’ve used this type of bespoke legislative route. They engaged with them at the outset to see whether there was anything that could be done better or whether there were any changes that they thought would be useful. One of those changes which did come through that process was—a lot of people applied for these licences and then they didn’t actually utilise them. But it meant that a lot of energy from the police force was spent running around trying to check a range of premises, but they weren’t in operation. So that’s one of the changes that we’ve made to this bill, comparatively to the last.

The feedback that I’ve also received is that when the previous World Cups have been on, they felt that this was very clear to measure and clear to monitor, and they felt like they could input the resources required to undertake the policing. I might just check this, but I understand I don’t think that we saw any kind of particular rise or incidence of rises as a consequence of this legislation. I’ll just clarify that. Yes. So at all stages, essentially, police have been engaged.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading