Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill

Urgency will continue. Before the lunch break, we were debating the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. Call No. 2 has concluded. We now have call No. 3.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in relation to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I’d like to begin by thanking select committee members for a really robust process. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to recommend that the bill be passed as a full committee but certainly the majority of the committee did. It was, however, a robust process. We received 420 submissions and heard from 80 submitters.

But I’m not surprised that we didn’t get to agreement. I think, listening to the committee stage submissions, it was clear that the Hon Paul Goldsmith was really struggling to get his head around the fact that business exists within community—that business exists within community and within society—and so, yes, we did wrestle with the question of businesses who’d been operating for a number of years and whether it was appropriate for District Licensing Committees (DLCs) and Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authorities (ARLAs) to be able to decline to renew a licence, and we landed on the fact that it was, and that it wasn’t unusual for an entity to have to comply with new rules, with new research—and, indeed, we do this all the time. We’re asking this of businesses now in terms of our climate response, as well. It is not new at all. As the Minister pointed out in committee stage, it is an essential part of democracy that we listen to people and communities to decide what the appropriate rules are now.

There was also much made about the removal of the appeals process, but there is still an ability of entities to bring a judicial review should they wish to, so it is not removed in its entirety. If I speak briefly to the Opposition’s objection to objectors, I would say there are very valid reasons why you would want people and entities from across the country submitting on these, and you only need to think a little laterally to understand who that might be. It might be that there’s a group who are focused on harm to young people, who identify that there’s a particular area in New Zealand where we’ve seen alcohol harm at exaggerated levels. Should they be submitting? Absolutely. You might have mana whenua who aren’t living in the area that they connect with who wish to submit in relation to an application. Should they be submitting? Absolutely. You might have someone who was affected by alcohol in a particular community who no longer lives in that community. Should they be allowed to submit? Absolutely.

There were objections, believe it or not, to hearings being more accessible. I don’t even know that I should respond to that, other than to say there is flexibility within clauses 14 and 15. So what the select committee did is provide a non-binding, non-exhaustive list of factors that the DLC could consider. This is all about putting decision making right on the ground levels where local authorities can be making the most relevant decisions for those communities.

This is an excellent bill. I commend both the former and the current Ministers of Justice for bringing it before the House, as communities have asked for it, as local authorities have asked for it, and I commend it to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you. Good to take a call, although it feels, I suspect, for all members, a little bit of déjà vu. Because, of course, we’re rushing this through urgency, which means we’ve done the second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and now the third reading. So in some ways I’m not going to be saying anything particularly new, including that National is not supporting this bill.

The key reason—the key reason—is that ultimately this is going to affect local businesses and good locals, neighbours and friends of ours, who run their businesses in a good, constructive way in the community. But the way that this bill has been structured is going to see some of those closed, or to create so much uncertainty into their business environment that it’s incredibly unhealthy.

I just want to tease that out very briefly. Look, first and foremost, I agree with the speaker who’s just taken her seat, Vanushi Walters: alcohol harm is a problem in our society. How we address it has been a vexed question for as long as I’ve been in Parliament, will be after I’ve left, and has been well before I got here. We haven’t got it right, but I don’t believe this is the way forward.

I just want to illustrate coming out my own electorate—the great seat of Tāmaki—there are many liquor stores throughout the electorate. Many of them have been there for 10, 20, some of them 30plus years. I’m not going to name them or particular people—they may not, as liquor store owners, want to be mentioned in the House—but they run an important service into the community. But a number of them, for example, are very close to schools. I’m thinking of one, and I’m not a cricket player but even I could just gently throw a ball from the front door of their liquor store and hit the local school—not with any intention or malice. But we know with local alcohol plans—and understandably these plans want to put guidelines in place to say, “Hey look, we really shouldn’t set up a liquor store within 50, 100, 500 metres, say, of a school or a church or a community hall, a marae, whatever.” Well, that makes sense, or somewhat can make sense, to a new facility. But it’s been very clear as this law has been progressing through the House that that could also apply to existing businesses, which is what draws me back to my original point. Those existing businesses, like the liquor store owners in Tāmaki and right across this nation, are going to find that their businesses, all of a sudden, are under threat. That at any moment, in effect, local alcohol policies could see them close down. Close down.

Again, I want to be really clear: this is not about the providers or liquor store owners who are providing poor service. Most, actually, are great. They’re our friends, they’re our neighbours, and they’re our locals. I don’t believe that degree of uncertainty should be put to them. That’s toxic—toxic—to any business.

Secondly, as I say, I think New Zealanders—certainly my Tāmaki constituents—will be very surprised and disappointed if someone who’s been there for 30 years is closed down because of this bill. So, for that reason, almost alone, we’re voting against it.

The other part of it, too—and it’s one of my particular concerns—is the vexatious dynamic which could occur. We talk about community participation—and let’s take, for a moment, that’s a good thing. I have no problem, actually, with the people of Tāmaki wanting to talk about liquor stores in Tāmaki. But I think it’s important for anyone listening at home, and probably—hello, Mum and Dad. That’s at least two of the viewers; that might be all of them, who knows?

💬 Hon David Bennett: One of them might have gone.

One of them might have gone, but—well, I hope you don’t mean literally gone. That would be a hell of a shock. Particularly to one of them. That was David Bennett, Dad, who made that interjection. You can call him later.

But no, seriously, this is about the community. But actually, people anywhere in New Zealand—anywhere within the Realm—can actually be submitting on a liquor store in Tāmaki. I don’t know why they’d need to do that, and I would argue it’s somewhat vexatious. So I think it’s too broad. But again, the fundamental reason is I think this is going to be detrimental to existing local businesses. With that, I cannot support this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure for me to speak on this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. This is a very serious issue for communities of South Auckland and it is a pleasure for me to stand up and make a short call. This bill is long overdue. In a former role that I had, I was part of a community local board. We’ve waited for 10 years, and still Auckland Council does not have an approved local alcohol policy.

This bill is legislation that is needed by our local communities, and if I could just quickly reflect, in South Auckland there are far too many off-licence alcohol shops in a very narrow proximity. I want to reflect on my local community: there are eight local licences in a 1 kilometre radius; four off-licences, which is where we have the problem. The community leaders have had a number of calls to the local board, who are the governors of our local area.

When this bill is passed, it does give the power back to our local communities to have a say. They go through some very stringent tests. What is important is the mana of our local communities, that our communities, our leaders, would have their say in local alcohol policy. In terms of objections, just to very quickly highlight: not all communities have this problem, but there are certain communities that do have this problem, so this bill will help those local communities who have to face alcohol harm. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. We’re in opposition to this bill. The bill states that the main objective is the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol—so make sure it’s undertaken safely and responsibly and the harm caused is minimised, which is all great. But protecting communities by taking a sledgehammer to a nut is not the way, we think. We believe this bill is another attack on democracy and especially the right to appeal, which is almost unprecedented in the law in the situation we’ve got around this country today; everyone has the right to appeal if they don’t agree. And it’s a sad day when a group of people is punished for defending themselves too well and being too successful in organising their case, and wearing a suit and tie should not be a factor in legislation.

Maybe we need to look at councils and try and work out why they are so poor at getting these local alcohol policies through and maybe give them some support. Instead, we are yet again attacking the businesses who are often part of that community. We’re hearing from members talking about these shops as if they’re a completely different entity; they’re actually part of the community as well. Often the people go to the school together, all of that sort of stuff. They are actually part of the community. And businesses, over the last six years, have been under attack and that’s been traversed so many times I’m not going to bother today. The vindictive and vexatious complaints by interest groups has sort of been brushed over, but it’s a very real concern from businesses, and to think that that’s not going to happen is really a naïve way of understanding how people work.

Supermarkets have indicated that they don’t think it’s necessary. They’re going to need more security, are going to be more vulnerable, and they’re worried about the extra rules that they’re going to have to follow as well.

I spoke last week to a healthcare worker who had been in the profession for quite a long time. He wanted to talk to me about alcohol harm and the abuse of alcohol and the agencies that were available in town and how to access them. We started talking—we actually had a discussion, which is something that we don’t have here very often; we just say what we think and get shot down by it. But we actually had a discussion and he was saying how he thought this bill—he brought the bill up—was a great bill, protecting communities, all of those sorts of things that it says it’s going to do. And I put my view across that alcohol use is actually reducing anyway, and the idea of personal responsibility—that people aren’t forced to drink alcohol and behave the way they do—and sort of pointed out the current rules that those in the alcohol industry actually have to abide by already. And suffice to say, I’m not convinced, but he could well be voting ACT in October.

People have had enough of being treated like they’re stupid, and they don’t want to be babysat all through their lives. This bill is an overreach of council powers and is very undemocratic. It’s aimed yet again at the lowest common denominator, and ACT opposes this bill. Thanks.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I’m glad to take a call on this the final reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, which, of course, I’d like to acknowledge had its genesis in my bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, and the community pressure and organising that we undertook to get to this point to force the Government to act.

I did also want to respond to some of the points raised by members of the Opposition, particularly the ACT Party, which I’ll get to in a minute. But I want to put it really, really clearly on the record and on the Hansard that those out there should be under no illusion whatsoever that the only reason that this legislation is currently passing through the House is because of the community organisation and mobilisation that has occurred.

I want to acknowledge members of the House, particularly those who have their roots in serving at a local board level, like Lydia Sosene and her contribution just before. I want to acknowledge those Māori health organisations who on the ground have been lobbying and working for this for a really long time. I also particularly want to thank Alcohol Healthwatch, notably and namely their former boss Dr Nicki Jackson, who I worked with over the past several years in trying to progress this kaupapa amongst many, many others, and the many hands that had their role to play in the “Pass the Bill” campaign, which culminated in a petition handover of 8,000 New Zealanders supporting the passage of my alcohol harm minimisation bill.

I also want to shout out to Students for Sensible Drug Policy, who I know are watching along at home or at university, as the case may be. Students for Sensible Drug Policy and many of those in the drug-harm reduction space have been advocating for interventions just like this for time pretty much immemorial—for evidence-based drug policy.

So what is it that we’re talking about today? We’re talking about how we can go about putting in place interventions to reduce drug harm, namely alcohol harm, because alcohol is, of course, a drug, albeit a legal drug. It’s the drug that New Zealanders like to consume the most of all of the drugs available to us. Approximately 80 percent of adult New Zealanders consume alcohol and a quarter to a fifth of them do so to incredibly harmful ends.

The question for those of us in this place should be, when confronted with a substance that can cause harm, how can we go about creating a regulatory framework to reduce that harm? As I’ve said in this place many times before—but I’ll put it on the record at any opportunity I’ve got—there is a spectrum of approaches to that regulation that we can take. At one end of the extreme of the spectrum there is criminal prohibition. At the other end of the extreme, there is a complete legal unregulated free market. At both ends of those extremes we have the maximisation of harm, because whether it is criminal organisations operating in the black market or commercial organisations operating in the legal market, you have entities that are incentivised to exploit vulnerable communities to make a quick buck by shifting as much of their product as is possible. The way to reduce that harm is to minimise the profit incentive and to rein it into a space of sensible regulation that looks like dealing with the issues of demand as well those issues of supply.

What this bill does primarily is deal with the issues around the local alcohol policies process, and, actually, I would implore members of the Opposition, particularly the National Party. Their former Government passed the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 ostensibly with the potential to empower local communities to put in place these local alcohol policies, but they at the last minute introduced this ability for special appeals processes.

Now, this goes to the core point of what the ACT Party member was just putting on the table before, saying that somehow what this bill does is get rid of the appeals process. It does not. Special appeals, as outlined explicitly in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 as it currently stands are an anomaly amongst any other special appeals that may exist—for example, vape shops, tobacco outlets, pokies, or other forms of social harm that exist. This is an anomaly; it is unusual and it exists only in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. The removal of that special appeals process, as actually recommended by the former Health Promotion Agency and a range of other NGOs that have worked in this space does nothing to remove the ability for judicial appeals and judicial review.

It is the right of any citizen in this country to appeal and take their case to the courts, to say that the legislation is not meeting those standards in the application of law in this country. It does not remove those judicial appeals. It simply removes the added special right of special appeals. I want to make that really, really clear.

The other point that was raised by the member of the ACT Party is that what we should be dealing with here or rather the way we should approach substances, particularly alcohol, is through the lens of personal responsibility. Let’s just take that to its logical consequence. Why have any laws at all when we’re talking about substances and how to go about reducing that harm? If we’re talking about how we can create a regulatory framework under the social contract—that is, this society and these communities and this country that we all live in—we all accept that there are basic standards that we want to wrap around things that can potentially be harmful, and that, of course, is the point of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and, further, the amendments that are being made to this day.

Far too frequently I hear personal responsibility being used as a rationale for an abdication of political responsibility and, indeed, for creating a narrative and whipping up this construct of choice. There is not actually too much in the way of meaningful choice and ability for community participation under the present way that the local alcohol policy process works with the ability for those special appeals to be utilised, particularly, I might add, by our supermarkets, which the ACT Party member mentioned, overwhelmingly oppose this. Well, it just so happens that they are the overwhelming entity that continues to use that special appeals process to steamroll over community willpower being implemented through the local alcohol policy process—like, these things are kind of connected, and that’s where power lies in this country.

I also want to point to some of the points alluded to in the ACT Party member’s speech around other interventions that may potentially reduce harm. When we’re talking about drug harm reduction, other opportunities to reduce that harm, of course, look like, for example, safe consumption spaces. Here I point to on-licences where there’s a duty of care for those who are engaged in the sale and supply to create a space, an environment, that is supposed to be more conducive to somewhat less harmful consumption of that substance.

The point that this bill misses—which obviously the broader campaign that led us to this point after my member’s bill, the alcohol harm minimisation bill, was drawn, and kicks to touch and does not deal with—is the issue of glamorisation and normalisation of alcohol in our communities, which actually has been identified by the World Health Organization, and one of the best buys in terms of reduction of drug harm could be to remove advertising and sponsorship throughout our communities.

So I implore the Government to continue with that piece of work. I had a lot a lot of engagement with the former Minister of Justice, Kiritapu Allan, and I want to acknowledge her for the work she did for getting this bill into shape and initially bringing to the House. This is a legacy piece of work and a really, really important one at that. There is still so much more work to do.

Finally, I just want to address some of the contributions particularly from National Party members, around, for example, how it is the case that currently existing businesses should override our consideration of not only the evidence but of community need and want with regard to reducing harm—community wellbeing. And here they were talking about, obviously, the sale and supply of alcohol. I’d ask them for some logical consistency on that point, because they could apply that logical consistency to, for example, tobacco or to vaping or to other substances that are currently illicit under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 but which we continue to see substantive proliferation of throughout our communities.

The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is the only party that can stand in this House and say that we have a consistent approach to all substances that is an evidence-based approach to reduce harm through sensible regulation, minimising the profit motive as much as is possible, and tackling the reality that right now we continue to spend four times as much money on enforcing criminal prohibition, with worse and worse outcomes, than we do on a health-based approach, and our communities are all the poorer for it.

All of that said, I’m proud to support this bill today. I want to again acknowledge the grassroots communities that have organised to build a mandate for this, and I’m stoked to see that the Government is nicking another piece of our homework. But I’d invite them to go full hog and deal with that issue of cultural norming.

It is with great pride that I can acknowledge Henare O’Keefe from Flaxmere District Council and also Des Ratima, who was the mayor of Whakatū—two men who worked tirelessly in Flaxmere to try and prevent an alcohol liquor licence being repeated in Flaxmere in a store. They fought tooth and nail, but they didn’t have the tools through a local plan to be able to fight this. They know, and I know, Des would be so, so thrilled that this bill is going through today that finally puts those decisions in the hands of locals. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The next call is a split call. I call on Nicola Grigg for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a brief call from me just to outline further our opposition to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.

I think the aim of this bill is worthy; we would all acknowledge that alcohol does cause harm to some people and communities in our society. But the fact that this bill is removing the safeguards that are currently in place for some parties and/or organisations and/or agencies to overturn community decisions, at times, when necessary—we think that that’s where the bill has, unfortunately, fallen short.

As I just said, we do acknowledge that alcohol misuse does cause serious harm in our communities and that alcohol abuse is a very complex situation that needs a multi-pronged attack to solve it. We do support harm reduction initiatives that do work alongside community institutions. But, as I said, we do disagree with removing the appeals process for local alcohol policies. We would rather see the process improved than eliminated or banned all together.

We do think that the current system, particularly with respect to the speed, is not fit for purpose. But as I say, we would rather see it improved that abandoned altogether, because it does make the assumptions that local authorities will always get it right. We’d like to think they all do, but we’re all human; people do make mistakes at times.

We do want to ensure that an appeals process remains in place, because we do think that it does bring an additional safeguard, and, yes, we do acknowledge that businesses will struggle, and to the member from the Greens who thinks that that’s a dreadful position for us to take, we actually do come down on the side of business. We’ve got to think of everybody who’s being impacted by this.

So as I said, we’d rather see solutions to where the problems are than an outright ban. We think that the current system is flawed and can be improved, but we don’t think that this bill is the vehicle by which to do that. So, with that, we continue our opposition to this bill.

I just want to take a short call and I want to focus on a colleague of mine, Lydia Lemauga Sosene, because she was a person that brought this to my attention in particular. She is a person who has spent a lot of time in South Auckland on a local board, and this is an area which mattered to her because she saw the impact on one of our poorest communities. It has a devastating impact. This is work that she’s had in progress for a long time. She has coupled it with things like looking at the needs to improve housing and make sure we have the minimum wage. This is Labour values; this is about local communities being able to deal with things—and it’s a recognition of power imbalance. I commend this bill to the House.

The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act was passed in 2012 and local authorities such as Auckland Council developed their provisional local alcohol plans in 2015—and I’m well aware of that because I was an elected member of that council as that process was being worked through.

Local alcohol plans, which are a good part of that legislation passed by the previous National Government, were a mechanism whereby local communities—with wide-ranging input from communities, residents, businesses, and experts—were able to develop an evidence-led policy to manage and minimise alcohol harm within communities. We are standing here, eight years after those plans were developed by communities, without them having been implemented, because of large players—not mom and pop operations, let’s be real. The major supermarket chains and the major liquor chains have abused their ability through the courts to delay and obfuscate the implementation of these plans against the wishes of communities.

There is much in this bill that is to be commended, but for the particular fact that it will enable local alcohol plans to be implemented that will help to minimise harm; that represent the interest of communities and will stop the big players from blocking those, I heartily commend this bill to the House.

The National Party is not supporting this bill. We did support, and we introduced in Government, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. This is an amendment to that bill, with the interesting brackets in it, “(Community Participation)”.

Throughout the debate, all through today, we’ve heard Labour members, particularly, talking about “community, community, community”. Well, I asked the Minister during the committee stages to please define “community”. And he didn’t because he can’t because this bill makes it possible for anyone anywhere in New Zealand to oppose any application for either a new licence or a variation anywhere in the country. If anyone thinks that that somehow is representative or a way of representing the views of the community, they’re wrong.

I’ve been really surprised by the way Labour members have approached this. If anyone doubts in this country that the sentiment of the Temperance Union has died, they’ve only got to listen to the debates today.

What is particularly irritating is that most of those facilities throughout the country operate without a problem. Of course there are problem outlets, but there are problem outlets in almost any activity in the commercial sector and, frankly, the Government sector. So that’s what should be dealt with—not this blanket approach to putting a sword of Damocles over any operator anywhere in the country, as this provision does.

I make that point because if we’re going to talk about the word “community”, then surely that large majority of people who live in our suburbs, who live in our cities, who live in our rural areas who just assume that, “Of course there’s going to be a local pub; of course I can buy a wine at the local cafe if I want to; of course I can go down to my neighbourhood tavern.” They assume it’s going to be there, and they assume that it’s going to be operating properly, and they assume that there is a body out there keeping an eye on how that operation is undertaken.

We have the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, which is a very voluminous piece of legislation that puts massive duties on anyone who operates in those types of outlets, and they are very seldom abused.

So here we have, really, a bill that’s salving what is, I think, a very loud group in some communities, who are saying, “We can’t have these things.” It is, as I said before, the Temperance Union sentiment on steroids. I think it’s a great shame because it assumes that anyone who opposes these things is from the community, when the vast majority of people in the community just assume the law is there to give them the opportunities that they might occasionally want to avail themselves of.

As for the Green comments today, I was staggered by that. How that Green member can stand up here and talk about the damage and harm from alcohol and then have a sentiment and a history and a policy to legalise marijuana is absolutely beyond me. It just has to really show that there is a particular bias against the operators of these sort of establishments.

I will conclude comments there, simply saying that this is bad legislation, it is selective legislation, it is pernicious; it does not look at the problems of alcohol harm and why that is prevalent in some communities and not in others. It is the sort of legislation that makes people feel good, but will make very little difference to outcomes. Does anyone really think that if a number of bars in New Zealand were just down to the same level as cigarette outlets, for example, that people would just say, “I’m not going to any more. No more beers on a Friday night for me.”? No, they’ll go to somewhere where it’s available.

So understand what “community” means, understand what society is, deal with the problems in it; don’t start putting restriction on choice on everybody because of a particular bias that someone might bring to this House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. It’ll be a quick speech.

I’m delighted to support this bill. Having worked in the family violence and sexual violence elimination space for many years, we know what alcohol harm contributes to that space. And also, having worked in the environmental space, we know that our communities of poverty, our communities that have the least resources, have the most alcohol outlets and they also have the least ability to stand up to the large organisations out there who are pushing back.

We are getting rid of the adversarial nature of people having their say in community. We’re all community members. We all get to have a say. It isn’t about us having a drink or going down to the pub and having things closed down. We all agree that there should be the opportunity to do these things, but this bill is about the whole of the community having a say and I commend it to the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legal Services Amendment Bill.