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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, in this House, in justice areas, there are many areas where different MPs from different parties disagree very strongly about policies. An example today was the Prime Minister talking about ram raids and saying, “It’s society’s fault that these ram raids are happening.” We disagree with that strongly. We believe that personal responsibility needs to be restored in this country and that we need to end the culture of excuses for crime that we see in our communities. So there’s much that we disagree on, and that’s why we fight so hard and will be fighting over the next three months to have the privilege to lead the next Government.

But when it comes to World Cups and Rugby World Cups, in particular, and allowing New Zealanders to come together and celebrate and enjoy hospitality during the time of the World Cup, we do—with the exception of the Greens, I think—come together as a House and agree, because it is important. New Zealanders love their rugby, they love their World Cups, they love going down to the local place to get a bacon butty and a beer, if required, in very late hours, to watch the game, to watch the Kiwis—well, the All Blacks—succeed and to restore the World Cup to us. And so, when it comes to the legislation that enables that to happen, we’re all for it. And so this is what the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill seeks to achieve.

It is a little bit surprising that we have to come up with urgent legislation every time and that we haven’t been able to come up with something that works every time there is a World Cup, but perhaps the priorities of the Government have been elsewhere. It would have been good if they’d focused on dealing with, well, I could name a lot of priorities that the Government—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The clock hasn’t started.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, the clock hasn’t started. Well, that’s all right, I can go for as long as we need to on this bill, Madam Speaker, if we need to. But I think the point I want to make is that when we’re out on the campaign trail, people do often make the point, “Wouldn’t it be great if you politicians could work together on issues that affect us, in unison?” And we do that from time to time on issues such as this, where we all agree that New Zealanders do enjoy Rugby World Cups, they do want to be able to go, without an enormous amount of rigmarole and fuss and bureaucracy, to the local restaurant or pub late in the night—it might be three in the morning, might be four in the morning when the All Blacks are playing or, heaven forbid, the South Africans or Australians are playing—and watch the game. So this legislation was required—and I can go into the details of it, but I don’t think anybody’s particularly interested in the details of it.

But I do make the point that we do disagree on a lot of stuff also, and that’s fitting and appropriate because that’s what Parliament is all about: testing ideas, putting forward proposals, making priorities. The Government’s priorities in justice have been clear: they want to reduce the prison population, irrespective of what’s going on. We disagree with that priority. We have different priorities. We want to reduce the number of victims of crime; that’s our fundamental priority in justice.

But when it comes to the issue of sale and supply of alcohol, we have a shared vision. We have a shared vision that New Zealanders, together, should celebrate the Rugby World Cup, enjoy it, enjoy some hospitality, as I say, and if that involves a beer, well, why not? Why not?

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about logical consistency?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Greens are wowsers. They don’t enjoy any of this. They’ll try and stop us, but we enjoy a beer while we’re watching the rugby.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What could go with a bacon butty?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And I enjoy a bacon butty as well, although bacon has a lot of salt and I’m trying to cut back on my salt, but that’s by the by. Some kind of sausage would be even worse. But I’m off topic. The purpose of this bill is to make eligible on-licence and club licence holders able to extend their trading hours to televise games for the Rugby World Cup coming up. It makes sense and I don’t think I need to say anything further about it, but we support this bill and we commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was very entertaining; I did enjoy that contribution from the Hon Paul Goldsmith. I won’t match his contribution by telling you what snacks I enjoy while I’m watching sport.

I thought I might speak to the select committee report very briefly. There are two changes that we made at the Justice Committee, and we didn’t have many submissions but they were really to point. We had 10 submissions and we heard from three submitters.

The first change we made was changing the term “outside area” to “open area”. This is new section 45E(1)(c), in clause 4 of the bill, which restricts the use of outdoor areas, and you can imagine why our first discussion was whether that was valid, given that entities were still subject to having a code or an agreement which restricted noise. We got over that hurdle and then went to look at what the meaning of “outside area” was, and, as it wasn’t defined in the Act, we then looked to a resolution. There was an interesting drafting question, which was whether a piece of legislation that’s only intended to stand for a period of time should define a term like this. We decided that it shouldn’t and we should learn from existing terminology, which led us to adopt the term “open area” instead. So that was a fascinating discussion that we had on that term.

Then the second change was—and, again, this came up from what we heard from submitters. They spoke to us about non-compliance with the notices that entities were supposed to make visible in terms of the extended hours that they intended to operate. So we proposed inserting new section 45F, in clause 4, to ensure that there was no confusion about liability in those cases.

There was another set of issues that was raised with the select committee, which was deemed to be outside the scope of the bill. I will speak to those issues as well, perhaps in the third reading, because I do think they’re relevant to the bigger areas of alcohol harm that we must, as a House, grapple with. But, in this instance, I think for our part the select committee as a whole, in terms of all the participants there, believe that this was a valid carve-out area, and I commend this bill to the House.

There are 51 days until the All Blacks and France run out on to the field of Stade de France for what is going to be a cracking good game at the start of a cracking tournament, I hope. One of the features, I think, of the 2023 World Cup is that for the first time in 10 tournaments, six, seven, or eight teams could well lift the trophy at the end of it. I think world rugby has tried to grow the game to the point where it is a truly global sport, and while it means that the All Blacks perhaps aren’t always the dominant force that they have been in the past, we get a much richer tournament as a consequence.

So I’ll be somewhere watching the All Blacks and France on 8 September, but also watching those many other teams who will be vying for the trophy. Now, if that is in a pub somewhere near the Octagon—or in the Octagon—on that morning, the greater likelihood is not that I’ll be holding an Emerson’s pilsner but that I’ll have a long black and a bacon butty. But if it is the prerogative of those patrons and me and anybody else to actually have a beer with their breakfast—or a champagne, or whatever other beverage might suit them—then this bill is going to enable that.

Now, what was interesting about the select committee process was that I think we have now become so used to the idea that this an appropriate, safe, and good thing to do that there were only 10 submissions, and I acknowledge those who submitted in opposition to it on the basis that alcohol remains potentially harmful for a small number of members of our community. I agree with that, and it’s incumbent on this House to manage that risk where it occurs. Overwhelmingly, it’s not going to be in a pub at 8 o’clock in the morning, watching the All Blacks play France, Ireland play Namibia, or any of the many other contests that we’re going to have, so I just want to acknowledge that.

Just a technical matter: we are doing this under urgency, and I note that there could be a potential issue that might need to be addressed in the committee of the whole House at clause 4, inserting new section 45D(3). This is the provision where if a pub closes or its licence requires it to close within two hours of kick-off, it is nevertheless entitled to stay open for that period rather than close and re-open. But the wording of that is, “However, if the first or only game to be televised is to start no more than 2 hours after the end of the last period of permitted trading hours for the premises, the premises can stay open after that period, and until that game starts.” One reading of that is that it then has to close, which is actually the opposite of what we want to occur. Now, if one reads it in concert with new section 45D(4), inserted by clause 4, it then says, “The premises can be open during each game televised.”—I just think there’s rather sloppy wording in new section 45D(3), which may need the word “starts” to be changed to “30 minutes after the game ends”, which is actually the intent of the bill overall.

That little technical issue notwithstanding, I think, as Mr Goldsmith says, we continue to have to do these things quickly and under urgency—and there’s another milestone in 87 days, after which a more sensible Government may actually make a permanent change to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, in order that we don’t have to keep doing this every time we have major global events.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise in support of this bill. As some members of the House may be aware from my previous contributions in this matter, rugby and sport in general are not my strong suits. I am aware that this one involves the round ball—or is it the pointy ball? It’s one of them, but it’s very important. Rugby is extremely important, and I am very supportive of this bill.

It has been a really interesting process to work through, and I do want to thank the submitters. We had some really engaged, sensible submissions from people from the industry and from hospitality, as well as some people who raised issues around the need not to encourage problem drinking. But we will, I am sure, be addressing that in the third reading, and I look forward to talking about that. But suffice it to say at this point that we are assured that in the previous runs of this arrangement—in previous World Cups—there is no sign that it increased problem drinking or criminal behaviour.

I have now, since this reading and since the last time I addressed this House on the matter, a personal reason to support this bill further, which is that my husband and his two best friends from childhood have decided that they will be journeying to France, to Toulouse, to watch the game. So I will be watching particularly, myself, not only for the wonder that is rugby but also in the hope that I will catch a glimpse of Thomas. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much. The draw for this tournament was held on 14 December 2020 at the Palais Brongniart in Paris, and the actual match schedule itself was released on Friday, 26 February 2023—48 matches in total. ACT went to work, and by 18 March, the day after St Patrick’s Day this year, we presented the Government with this bill. All they had to do was put “2023” on the title and get it into select committee.

Now, this is a bill that just needed to be fast-tracked, and now we have a matter of days before the police and publicans have to bring this together at an implementation level. Passing this under urgency is completely ridiculous. This should have been sorted the day ACT brought its bill in, and it either shows a contempt for the process in this House or it shows a contempt for the hospitality industry in New Zealand—and I would wager that that’s not a priority for this Government. ACT has always supported publicans, bars, and anybody who’s got a lounge where, from a rugby club, you can go and just enjoy yourselves and be free to do what you want.

Now, the chairperson of the Justice Committee called for submissions and there weren’t too many of them, and that sort of reinforces my point. But the bill does amend the liquor licence Act, and I can see already the agenda is coming through where it’s all about 2024, now, and rejigging the alcohol bills. So the fun police will be coming out in force for that one and they will be interfering once again.

Now, the licence for trading hours is pretty aggressive, and the extensions to the bill in terms of trading hours will show that you go in, you’ll have a fast event, and you’ll be chucked out on to the street at all hours. It sort of defies what hospitality is about. But the games will be played in a different time zone and many will be broadcast outside traditional trading hours, and that is the way it is.

Now, there is a role for the Parliament in this. As I’m heading towards retirement, I thought that myself and Sir Ian McKelvie designate, who could put on the Fred Dagg show, could come over with David Clark, who could cycle on his bike around the Champs-Élysées and the Pyrenees, and we could do a live broadcast from there and represent the nation and Parliament in a fair fashion, and really entertain the people back home in a live broadcast feed. But that way, not to pass. I would promise not to take two planes to Paris, because we only need to travel on a commercial airline and it will be 10 times less expensive than going to—and we can go via China, as well, to Europe. So therefore, I would not need two planes; I would only need one, and maybe two seats for my partner and I.

The bill itself is pretty tight now. The committee has done a good job of actually putting a fence around this. I have concerns about the implementation between the police force and the publicans, and I would hate to see anybody punished who didn’t display this properly, or who had to take the commercial decision that because either Ireland or the All Blacks were knocked out, they didn’t want to show any more games, or they were playing this on spec with regards to what they could show and what they couldn’t. Because a Sky licence is very expensive on a commercial basis, and to maximise the value of that, people have to make real commercial decisions. Therein lies another problem: the Government doesn’t understand what real commercial decisions actually mean at a local, micro level.

Implementing permanent legislation for this type of event, it makes sense over the long term. But, you know, we’ve got to embrace the fact that we trust publicans; we trust people who actually have to perform a duty of care for their citizens when they go and entertain them with alcohol, whether it’s a sports event or whether it’s something else. You know, we need to get to this basic level of trust where business can rebuild itself after what’s been a horrendous COVID scenario, what’s been a horrendous time with inflation. To get a dollar out of somebody’s pocket for a pint of beer, given the fact that it’s going up so much in terms of duties, is a hard task. Even with this legislation, they’ll be challenged to actually make money out of this situation.

So we recommend and support this legislation. We think the document now is in a state where, after a few questions at the committee of the whole House session, we should get there. ACT does support this and has always supported the industry to have this benefit, which should have been done in a much timelier fashion. We must, must get sensible about lawmaking under urgency, because this is just ridiculous. Thank you.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Just to be really clear about what it is that we’re talking about when we’re talking about this legislation in front of the House today—as many have alluded to, obviously, the Rugby World Cup, which is the context of these changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—what we’re talking about is not increasing people’s ability to access watching that game; what we’re talking about is increasing people’s ability to access alcohol sales throughout the period of those games. Currently, the law as it’s set doesn’t prevent venues which would otherwise serve alcohol from opening at the time that the games are being played. It does, however, prevent them from serving alcohol during those times.

So I kind of foreshadowed what my contribution would be from members of the National Party in speaking earlier, but I think it’s actually really important to ground this contribution in the second reading and the regulatory impact statement (RIS) on this legislation. I’d refer members there to page 2, where it says, and I’ll just quote from it, “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-related harm with both extended training hours and sports events. At the same time, the men’s RWC likely presents a significant commercial opportunity for on-licensed and club-licensed premises, as well as being a highlight on the calendar for rugby fans.”

Inherent in that is an admission of the fact, very explicitly, that there is a clear evidence base that increases in alcohol-related harm are connected to extended trading hours and sporting events. So the evidence base that the National Party was saying doesn’t exist actually does exist in the very regulatory impact statement as tabled to underpin this legislation.

But what we see in that advice from officials is pretty explicit trade-offs being made against harm and kind of commercial imperative. To that effect, I think it’s really important that we unpack one of the points as made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was saying that, you know, people have choices. They can decide whether it is that they may or may not want to have a beer with that 7 a.m. game, that that in and of itself doesn’t necessarily contribute towards harm. And I guess that is kind of the point, because, sure, that one drink in and of itself does not; the point is that alcohol harm, however, does not occur in a vacuum.

So just to zoom out a little bit and to look at the context, alcohol is Aotearoa New Zealand’s favourite drug—80 percent of New Zealanders consume it, and approximately a quarter of us do so to really harmful ends. We actually have some of the best research in the world with regard to the association of alcohol to mental ill-health, and particularly, at the most awful end of that, to suicidality. Some research out of the University of Otago, I believe it was—Dr Rose Crossin made that incredibly clear just a few months ago when releasing that research at the point in time that this House was actually debating the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill.

To that effect, we have to be really clear about when it is that we are enabling those commercial interests to override the potential for evidence-based interventions to reduce that harm. I don’t think anybody in this House could potentially accuse me of being a prohibitionist when it comes to any given substance, but the reality is that—

Dr James McDowall: Tell us more about it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —when we’re looking at regulating substances—I’d love to tell the ACT Party about it, because I’d love to tell them about logical consistency when it comes to substances. At one end of the extreme, you have complete criminal prohibition, and at the other end of the extreme you have a complete legal free market. At both ends of that spectrum, you have the maximisation of harm, because you have either corporate entities or criminal entities that are incentivised to exploit vulnerable communities in order to make a quick buck by selling as much of their product as is possible. So, Dr James McDowall from the ACT Party, what I would prefer is that we move away from those extremes into the space of what is called sensible, evidence-based regulation, and that is the logical consistency that the Greens have constantly been banging on about. Whether it is tobacco, whether it is cannabis, whether it is alcohol, we have the opportunity to be grown-ups in this country and create a level of consistency between, for example, the dog of legislation that is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

So the reason that the Greens do not support this legislation is just that fundamental lack of logical consistency, but it’s secondly the fact that the special licence provisions are actually probably working pretty well as intended to under the primary legislation at present. There’s actually not that much evidence that it’s not, and we see reflected in the RIS that this is just about simplifying that process.

Secondly, it’s that, actually, to a certain extent, I do agree with members of the ACT Party who are going to say that if we’re having to pass this under urgency every single time a world cup swings around—it’s not like that’s unpredictable—then maybe we should look at creating a framework that actually pre-empts this stuff in the first place, so that we’re not being the fastest lawmakers in the West, as that comes with, obviously, a range of downstream impacts.

Just finally, if I can just make an appeal to evidence-based law when it comes to substances, particularly when it comes to alcohol in this country, because, as the Hon Paul Goldsmith was alluding to, there’s a grand coalition that is breaking out amongst the Labour and the National parties, and it’s not just on youth justice and locking up the kids and throwing away the key; it is, in fact, on alcohol and it is, you know, as they both decided to also vote down my Alcohol Harm Minimisation Bill, although I will acknowledge those within the Labour Party who worked really hard and saw the Government take up that first part of the legislation with regards to, particularly, local alcohol policies.

There’s a lot to be desired in this debate today. I really, really hope that we take this opportunity and this moment to reflect on how we genuinely can produce evidence-based policies, evidence-based legislation, evidence-based law to reduce alcohol harm in this country, because it doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it happens as a result of us allowing through our laws to continue to see alcohol companies wield the level of power that they do, which sees all of us be inclined to have a drink on a good day, a bad day, or even just a day, and the associations that that has to mental ill-health, to family harm, to sexual violence, and everything else. We have an opportunity to do a lot better, and unfortunately, this legislation just ain’t it.

Good on the member before me, Chlöe Swarbrick. That was a great speech. But this legislation presents a good case for why, in some circumstances, the Government should act quickly to enable shopkeepers, to enable business people, to enable pubs, and to enable sports clubs to just make it easier for people to have fun and enjoy alcohol while they are watching the game. And in these cases where we make special legislation around Rugby World Cups, it’s because there is in Schedule 4 in this bill—which members of the House will be looking at now—a schedule of when the games will be, because this will all be going on in France at funny times of the day for New Zealand, which our licences don’t allow for it. There are practical reasons why we need to make law to enable people to enjoy these games in the middle of the night when these places wouldn’t usually be open and when they would need to be asking for many, many licences in one go. Is it appropriate for us to do this every time? Well, that’s a question that I hope members of the House will engage in in the third reading.

We had some great contributions in the first reading of this bill around the need for progressive change and a rewriting of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. And may I allude to the work of the Justice Committee in hearing from submitters who also called for that and from the advisers, who worked very, very carefully and very, very hard on this bill to give us some advice about further change that is needed in this area. But on this bill, I would say it’s a good one. We should pass it. It makes sense. Let’s get on with it.

Ian McKelvie—five minute call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s not often that peace breaks out across the House, but not only has peace broken out across the House but I find myself agreeing with the youngest member of the House, which is very unusual.

But her point she made about the alcohol—and, in fact, Arena Williams made the same point, I think is the crux of the matter here, because we shouldn’t have to come back to Parliament every time we want to alter a little piece of legislation to enable people to have, I think in the words of one speaker, fun. I find it extraordinary. And proof of that is that in the last couple of weeks I’ve sat up all night to watch the last day of the Ashes Test, and I sat up all night to watch the last day of Wimbledon as well. And the reason I sat up all night to watch the last day of Wimbledon was because it was the most extraordinary game of tennis I’d ever seen, but also I had to sit through a select committee the next morning and it didn’t really matter whether I was concentrating or not—ha, ha! So it was a hardship.

But I think the point really is that this bill has come back to the House simply because we don’t have our alcohol laws, and many other laws, in place in a manner that enables both our society and our business operators to operate in a manner that not only is sensible from a community perspective, sensible from a patron or client’s perspective, but sensible from a New Zealand perspective. And I think the real issue here is that we need to be able to trust those people who are entrusted with, I guess, managing the alcohol laws and then consequently of operating within them. We need to better trust them to make decisions that are in the best interests of our community, and the sooner we get to do that, the better.

I think all other issues of this bill have been touched on pretty strongly. I think that it’s eminently sensible that we should have to do this. But I think it is disappointing that this is the third time this particular issue has come up in the House—and it will come up again in four years’ time if we don’t sort it out, or three years’ time or whenever the next World Cup is. You could argue that there are many, many other events that these special circumstances should apply to as well. Properly constructed legislation with some decent—I think one member used the words “scientific basis” to the research and stuff behind it would actually make quite a big difference. I’m not going to talk for any longer, but I think it’s a bill worthy of support and it would be nice to see some changes made to that that mean we don’t have to bring it back to the House again. Thank you.

Paul Eagle—five-minute call. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to be talking about the—well, anything rugby, but the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

Look, I agree. If we can sing the same song across the House about alcohol, wow, great—but we can’t. We’ve got some issues here that have been well covered, and that’s everything from games being broadcast live outside of the usual trading hours through to during eligibility for licensed premises to be open. So the hospo sector comes to us each time and says, “Look, we have to do something.”, and this is why we’re here in the House to do this, this afternoon.

And just for those—and I was thinking of my colleague the member for Whangārei about rugby, and I just so happen to have a New Zealand Rugby magazine. Not that I was intending to read this in the House, but it is issue 223, the June/July 2023 edition. I’ll give this to the member and we can educate her about rugby and the Rugby World Cup of 2023 in France. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand up and support this bill, first and foremost. Unlike every one of the National members who have spoken on this, who said that they were going to sit down for a cup of tea and a butty, I’m going to be going to the pub, I’m going to be there with my mates, and I’m going to have a beer while watching rugby. It’s something I’ve always done. Like the vast majority of Kiwis, I enjoy it. And, unlike the Green member, the vast majority of people that I know, the vast majority of Kiwis that I know, actually drink alcohol sensibly. So to say that you don’t want to have this bill in place because there are people who have issues with alcohol just misses the point completely, Chlöe. And the thing that I would argue: it astounds me that you, as the MP for Auckland Central, can stand up in this House and say that you do not support a bill that the vast majority of your people, your constituents, certainly your businesses in the electorate, would support 100 percent.

This is a good bill. It’s a practical bill. It’s a pragmatic bill. It speaks to the vast majority of Kiwis who drink sensibly, who enjoy rugby, who want to go out with their mates and have a really good time. And I celebrate that because I’ll be one of them. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this short but sensible bill which will help folks enjoy the Rugby World Cup, which is in, I think, only 51 days’ time—the opening match when France versus New Zealand kicks off at Stade de France. So not long to go.

Look, the key issue here is that Wellington is 10 hours ahead of New Zealand. So the time the games will be played in France will not be the same time that people would be normally out and about on occasions. And so this bill addresses that point so that premises can have extended trading hours so they can open their doors, folks can get together, enjoying the sociability that comes with watching a great rugby game, and have a few drinks, which is the sort of traditional Kiwi way. It’s not just the Kiwi way, to be fair, but the traditional way to enjoy watching a rugby game for many people in this country and around the world. So this little bill makes it easier.

This has been reported back from the Justice Committee. I was not on the Justice Committee. I note that they proposed a few minor amendments, but they were happy with the legislation design and didn’t think there was anything that needed to be brought to the attention of the House in that respect.

I think I’ll take this opportunity as well just to note that we’re a country that loves sport, and tomorrow night the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 kicks off right here in New Zealand. We have our very first game right here in New Zealand, and that’s going to be quite exciting. It’s the world’s largest global women’s event and the fact that it’s being hosted in New Zealand and Australia is something that’s quite phenomenal and something that I’m looking forward to seeing. About a billion people are estimated to watch this on TV and they will, no doubt, have the same thing. Our timing schedule won’t be the same as theirs and they’ll be wanting to get together and watch the games that are happening right here in New Zealand.

So this is a great thing that brings people together both in New Zealand and around the world, and this is a little bill that helps make it happen. So with that, I’ll commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to echo the words of the previous member, Joseph Mooney: we are a country that loves our sport. I’m a big sports fan myself. I grew up playing sport—actually, I grew up playing rugby, but never got over 70 kilograms, so there was never any future for me in that game. So I switched to football—and very passionate about football. And I also acknowledge, as the member was saying, the women’s world cup—how honoured we are to have that here in New Zealand. I encourage people to go out and buy your tickets.

In terms of this bill, it’s very much a common-sense bill. We’ve heard that from previous speakers. It’s something that we regularly do. I’d be interested to see, you know, if we can look to expand at times around other sports, rather than just rugby. I mean, I remember growing up in rural New Zealand, and it was basically rugby in the winter if you’re a guy; if you’re a woman or a girl, you play netball. Then, in summer, it was cricket. That was literally it, really. Not many other options. We have a lot more diversity in our sport these days, which is a good thing. It just encourages more people to be active.

In terms of my family, we’ve got a bit of a rugby history. Actually, my grandfather had three goals in life. He grew up in Collingwood, just by Nelson. Three goals: one was to milk 300 cows, one was to produce 100,000 pounds of butterfat in a calendar year, and the third was to be president of the New Zealand Rugby Union. Pretty lofty goals for someone from a small town in Collingwood, and he achieved all three. He was president in 1984. So I’d like to acknowledge my grandfather Murray Strange—my late grandfather—and commend this bill to the House.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Main amendments