Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That statement is on the parliamentary website—is available.

I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The alcohol licensing process is integral to alcohol regulation in New Zealand. It is the process that decides where and when alcohol is sold in our communities: in bottle stores, supermarkets, restaurants, pubs, at clubs, and at large events. It is important that this licensing process works well.

When the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act was created over 10 years ago, the intention was for communities to be able to have their say on alcohol licensing in their areas. In a broad way, it was intended that communities could help develop local alcohol policies that apply to all licence applications, and, on a case by case basis, it was intended that communities could participate in individual licensing hearings.

There are two important reasons for this. It’s our communities who can best articulate the way that alcohol affects them and their families and whānau. Despite the intention, since the Act came into force, the evidence shows us that licensing decisions are not being made with community input as had been expected. In fact, communities are having far less of a voice than intended. This is not for lack of interest. Individuals and groups are involved in the development of local alcohol policies through consultation, only for those policies to be watered down or abandoned entirely because of appeals. Many individuals and groups seek to be involved in hearings on individual applications only to be told that they don’t have sufficient interest in the application to object.

During the select committee process for this bill, it was clear that many individuals and groups consider that the way the Act is working at the moment means their voices are not being heard. Therefore, I am pleased that this bill is a champion for community voice. The bill makes it easier for communities to have their say in three ways: easier to adopt and apply local alcohol policies, or LAPs, to licensing areas. It does this by removing appeals against LAPs and restoring district licensing committees’ discretion to decline to renew licences if those licences would be inconsistent with the area’s LAP. These changes reduce delays and costs that many territorial authorities have experienced in trying to adopt LAPs, and means that LAPS can be taken into account in more licensing decisions.

Secondly, the bill broadens who can object to licensing applications. It does this by removing the test that people and groups must be able to meet to object to those applications, but maintains narrow exceptions around trade to ensure licensing remains focused on harm reduction. This practically means no person or group will have to prove their interest in the application as they have to do at the moment, which can be particularly excluding. District licensing committees will also have a greater range of information before them to make their decision.

And, thirdly, the bill also makes licensing hearings more accessible and fairer for everyone taking part by changing the way that district licensing committees’ hearings are run. It requires district licensing committees to ensure their hearings avoid unnecessary formality, including by removing cross-examination and allowing for tikanga to be recognised. These changes will make hearings less intimidating and encourage more people to have a say about what happens in their community. By making these changes, the bill recognises the importance of community input in alcohol licensing and that voices of the community are heard.

I acknowledge that interests in alcohol licensing are varied. Our communities also include alcohol licence holders running local businesses, and their voices are important in licensing too. The changes have been carefully considered with this in mind, and this can be seen through the changes the bill makes. One example relates to the changes to local alcohol policies. As a result of the changes, the status of the special consultative procedure is restored. The special consultant procedure is a process which must be used to create an LAP, and it gives everyone an opportunity to say how they want the LAP for their area to look. Removing appeals against LAPs means that different voices all have the same opportunity to contribute in the context of consultation. Community contribution to the development of LAPs will no longer be drowned out by appeals, which tend to be made by organisations representing a narrow set of interests.

The bill’s changes also respect the roles of the decision makers in the licensing system. By removing appeals, the bill respects the role of locally elected representatives to design and adopt LAPs applying to their areas. The changes also respect the discretion of district licensing committees who make licensing decisions on behalf of their area. The community voice is one factor they take into account in their decision making. They also consider other information, including from applicants and licensing inspectors. Like decision makers in other processes, district licensing committees take all the information they have, consider its relevance, and weigh it to make their decisions. The bill respects their role in this process.

As I touched on before, the changes to licensing hearings apply to everybody. It’s not just objectors that can find licensing hearings a stressful experience. We know that licensees can also find them intimidating. The changes this bill makes will benefit them and everyone who attends. All participants should feel comfortable and confident to share their views and not have to worry about getting tangled in knots through the process.

I’m proud that this bill gives communities back their voice within the system, strikes the balance between all interests involved, and respects the role of decision makers in the process. I want to thank the Justice Committee for their work on the bill and all those who submitted and contributed to the process. The changes the committee made as a result of hearing from the submitters have enhanced the bill. I want to acknowledge the previous Minister of Justice for her work in introducing the bill and the current Minister of Justice for the work to complete this. I’m confident that by making these targeted changes to the licensing process, this bill will make a big difference to those in our communities whose views have been excluded for too long. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Well, we don’t agree to this bill and we’ll be opposing it. So this is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. It was introduced by Kiri Allan when she was Minister of Justice.

The starting point is a fair concern around the slow and cumbersome process of the appeals to local alcohol plans, which allow for, in legislation, the community to have a say on what goes on in their community when it comes to liquor licences. These are for all the various off-licences and for bars and so forth in our community. So, yep, we agree with that.

It’s been a very slow process. The Government had a couple of options. They could try and improve the process so that it went more swiftly and that appeals were dealt with in a timely fashion or they could go for the much tougher option, which is what they did, which is to do away with the appeals. Now, the slight problem with the logic of that is that it kind of assumes that councils always make the correct decisions. I just think anybody who lives in New Zealand and is aware of how local government operates would struggle with that idea that the council always gets it right and that the decisions that they make in coming up with anything are always 100 percent right and should never be questioned or appealed. I don’t like to be unkind to our friends in the local government sector, but I think experience would indicate that sometimes they don’t get it right and sometimes, when it comes to reflecting the views of the community, they don’t actually reflect the views of the community but they might reflect the views of themselves and their supporters and their particular concerns, and particular interest groups sometimes have greater weight than others. So that is a very flawed sort of basis upon which to legislate, in my view: that council always gets it right, therefore it shouldn’t be appealed and it should be just accepted.

Then, as well as dealing with that, the Government has made a number of very substantial changes to how the process works in terms of the granting of licences, not just granting of new ones. So we’re talking about the hospitality sector more generally. And notwithstanding Grant Robertson, who will, like I say, be very, very happy to be pictured drinking a beer down at the pub for FIFA or for the Rugby World Cup—and he always talks about how important the hospitality sector is and tourism and all that sort of stuff—this legislation could make life extremely difficult for the mum and dad small-business owners up and down the country trying to just do their business, because it introduces an extreme, arbitrary process when it comes to the renewal of licences, and we just think it goes too far.

Because what it says is if a local alcohol plan, which is gone through by the all-seeing and allpowerful and all-wise council, determines that you should not have a liquor licence within a kilometre of a school, for example, which they might—I could just see it happening—then if you have been in business for 50 years, are 800 metres from a school, and you have a perfect record, you’re loved by the community, you’ve got a great bar or whatever, or you’re an off-licence and you’ve done well, then lo and behold, if this local alcohol plan is passed saying it can’t be within a kilometre of the school, what can happen when you come up for your renewal of your licence is that the district licensing authority may decline your renewal, simply on the basis of that change in the plan. And so the business that you built up for 50 years, gone just like that. Now, that, I think, is an overreach and very unfair.

It may well be that, using that example, there’s another shop a couple of hundred metres down the road that happens to be just outside the boundary with a terrible record, that goes on, carries on fine, but you, with the great record, who happen to be slightly in the wrong place, can be gone.

Then it flings open the doors wide when it comes to objections. It used to be reasonably tightly constrained to people who actually had a clear interest in the neighbourhood and had a reasonable proposition to include anybody or anything from any group from anywhere in the country. And so, lo and behold, you could have a big, long line-up of a well-organised anti-alcohol groups everywhere coming through and making life very difficult.

Now look, there is a place for locals to object, and I think that’s absolutely right and appropriate, but to have no restrictions whatsoever on who can be a part of the process, I think, again will be very difficult to manage in a practical sense. And then they can say whatever they like and make all sorts of allegations about you, and you’re not allowed to cross-examine them in any way, shape, or form. So I don’t think that is a reasonable thing either.

Then, of course, they can incorporate tikanga Māori into the proceedings. I worry about that simply from the point of view, in terms of the basic sort of rule of law, that it should be predictable. People should know exactly what the rules are and how it should be done. And if we’re introducing concepts that aren’t pinned down, can vary enormously, then I think that is a problem when it comes to predictability. It might be a small matter here, but in terms of the broader law within this country, that is a big issue and one that I think needs a bit more thought and care.

And then, finally, when it comes to competitors objecting, I think it’s a ridiculously naive approach taken, which is to say trade competitors can object, but they can’t object when it comes to trade competition. So the person who objects to a store opening up next door can say, “Look, I’m not concerned about the fact that they’re trading, but I just don’t feel like it’s good for the community to have two stores in this area.”, which to me seems to be a ridiculous proposition.

So, Madam Chair—“Madam Speaker” would be even better! Madam Speaker, with that, I finish my speech and we oppose this legislation. We also oppose the fact that it’s been rammed through in the very, very last days of this Government, under urgency. When the sun is sinking on this Government, they are ramming through all sorts of things at the last minute, and that’s a pity.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. We will resume after question time.

Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 2 p.m.