Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill

Thank you very much. I thought I’d start by making a few comments and acknowledging the role that so many members have played to get this bill to this part. I want to acknowledge the way in which the debate has unfolded thus far, because we’re talking about alcohol and it is also linked to religious views, and those are two matters that came up during the select committee. What has been really encouraging throughout the discussion of this bill is that whilst there have been opposing views aired in this House, they’ve been received with respect. I just want to acknowledge that because I think it stands out.

The intent of this bill is quite clear: those on-licensed hospitality businesses that are already allowed to operate on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day will be able to continue doing so, but under the same licensing conditions that they operate on on all the other days of the year. It also enables RSAs to be able to serve members of the public after Anzac Day services on the morning of Anzac Day without having to apply for a special licence.

I want to also acknowledge the work that was done at the Justice Committee. Every party was well represented during the select committee, and where we landed, I think, has improved the bill in the sense that it’s increased its chances of passing. I think that’s an important point, because a number of members have come to me from across the House and said if the Justice Committee hadn’t made the changes that it had—which I fully endorse—then the support that they lent to the bill to get it to select committee probably wouldn’t have been put to it at second reading. I think that’s important.

Whilst the bill was originally more expansive, if you like—not by much, but it did include those off-licences that were already allowed to operate—the select committee process drew that back to only include on-licences, and I am comfortable with that on the basis that I’m confident it will have the numbers to pass. If it does change, I don’t think it will. Given that this is the only bill to suggest some changes to trading on Easter to get this far, I would hate to see it fall over at this point. I’ll leave my commentary there.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Firstly, I just want to echo what the member in charge has just said about the legislation. When we talk about alcohol in this place, it is a really challenging topic for a lot of people to discuss and it’s important that when we do it, we do it politely, but we also do it with the intention of the legislation.

There are a number of amendments that are on the Table that I want to talk through tonight; a couple in the name of my colleague Cameron Luxton, and a couple from New Zealand First—Jamie Arbuckle and Andy Foster. I am keen to get an understanding from, firstly, the member in charge of the bill, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, around his thoughts in regard to the four amendments that sit in front of us.

I want to start with Cameron Luxton’s first Amendment Paper 532. It talks about trading hours on Anzac Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sundays, but it talks about on-licences, because when the legislation was first brought to the House, it was inclusive of both on-licences and off-licences. This was a change made by the Justice Committee. The views that we heard on the Justice Committee were: what is the intention behind the legislation? What’s the problem we’re trying to fix here? Is it the anomaly of the experiences that our RSAs across New Zealand go through every year on Anzac Day? Is it the situation of, what is a fulsome meal on Good Friday or Easter Sunday? I can’t remember the exact phrase they used there, but the—“substantial meal”. Is that what we’re trying to remedy here, or are we trying to remedy that supermarkets can open and sell booze on Easter Sunday, for example?

Cameron Luxton’s Amendment Paper 532 would allow on-licences to be able to sell alcohol through those times. I’m keen, firstly, to get an understanding from the member around whether he would support that amendment or not. I certainly hold a personal view, and I’ll share it now, while I’m on my feet. We made this fix on the Justice Committee for this exact reason: to remove on-licences and to solely focus on the off-licences and the clear anomaly we have across New Zealand around our bars, our restaurants, and our cafes, and things like that. I think I might it have the other way—you know what I’m meaning. I have it the other way around. So I’m keen to understand from the member in charge around his thoughts on that amendment and whether it’s something he would support or not, and whether we can then take the debate forward from there.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. It is an important bill and I’d acknowledge, first up, the way in which the Hon Kieran McAnulty has engaged with this topic, with the House, with the Justice Committee, and with individual members across it. I’d also like to acknowledge his opening statement saying that there is a range of views across the House and across New Zealand on these matters, and so the respectful nature in which the debate has been held and the conversation has been held, I think, has been right.

I would first like to take this opportunity, in my first address—because I am planning on having a couple here, as I have a couple of Amendment Papers on the Table—to talk about Amendment Paper 532, which my colleague Tom Rutherford has just finished addressing. The Amendment Paper is trying to make sure that what is on the tin is actually delivered.

Now, what the member, I understand, is trying to achieve with this bill is to enable on-licences to trade on restricted trading days, for the good of the patrons who frequent them, whether an RSA or a bar, to make sure that New Zealanders are no longer restricted by infantilising policies about what is a substantial meal, how long you can stay, where you can go. Up and down New Zealand, that has irritated Kiwis and visitors alike for such a long time, and my Amendment Paper 532 has the intention of making sure that this Byzantine law structure that we have around alcohol sales and shop trading is tidied up.

There was a previous bill that has come to this House to do with Easter trading, where I got a bit of a training in this. There were two Acts of Parliament that needed amending: the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, which this member’s bill addresses, and the Shop Trading Hours Act. There was a massive amount of overlap between the two, meaning that, yes, fixing this issue in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act does address it, but to actually get it done, we’ve got to make sure that the section 3, which flows on to section 4, which flows on to the interpretations in section 2 of the Shop Trading Hours Act, do not hold back the good intention of what the member is trying to do in this bill.

I’ve tabled an amendment that I hope members are supportive of, because this is trying to make sure the intentions are achieved by allowing an on-licence to remain open if it is permitted to do so during trading hours that apply to that premise. So if it’s allowed to open, it should be allowed to open, overriding anything contrary in the Shop Trading Hours Act which would kibosh that good intention. I’ll leave that there first.

I’d like to just say why this is an important amendment. This year, there is an opening of a very expensive and important and long-awaited piece of infrastructure in New Zealand. The Christchurch stadium, called Te Kaha, is about to have its opening weekend from 24 to 26 April. They’re going to have 10 Super Rugby teams from around the Super Rugby competition coming down to Christchurch from all parts of the Tasman and the Pacific to celebrate the great achievement of finally having this stadium open, and to celebrate what is another one of our national religions: rugby.

Now, after these games, people will be leaving the stadium and wanting to continue the festivities before they tuck themselves up in bed and get to the Anzac dawn parade the next morning. If this amendment doesn’t happen, what the case will be is that all of those patrons, all of those visitors to the mighty Christchurch to watch the Crusaders get trounced will have—

Hon James Meager: You want us to pass this amendment?

CAMERON LUXTON: Oh, sorry; Chiefs. Sorry. I’m surrounded by Cantabrians here.

Hon James Meager: No, Chiefs mana here, mate.

CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah—Chiefs mana. Thank you.

What we want to make sure is that all those people who have come down to watch the Chiefs win, when they go out to celebrate don’t end up turfed out on the street prematurely, wondering why a country on so much money on such an important piece of infrastructure to have such a great opening, and then call it quits. Hospitality is struggling. We need to make sure that we have a functional system that means that people can enjoy what is being put on offer. The council in Christchurch cannot fix this; only this House can. It is imperative and important and behoves all of us to make sure that this is fixed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Thank you to Mr Rutherford and Mr Mr Luxton for your contributions. I acknowledge you’ve asked me to indicate my view on the amendments, but I’m going to hold off and give the proposers an opportunity to speak to it first. I don’t want to respond before they get a chance to do that. If they don’t take that up, that’s all good, I’ll comment soon, but I do want to give them a chance to do that.

To answer your question directly, the intent of this bill, primarily, is to sort out the anomalies that currently exist where the law allows unlicensed premises to operate on these stated days. Those workers and the managers of those establishments don’t have to follow the same rules that they normally do on any other day. They also have to monitor the amount of food that people consume, at what time, and how that then relates to how much they’ve had. It’s not clear what a “substantial meal” is. The member will know from the submissions made at the committee stage that we had hospitality operators saying that it’s not clear to them. They’re pretty clear that a bowl of chips isn’t a substantial meal—

Tom Rutherford: Oh, the wedges scenario.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —but a bowl of wedges isn’t, but if you make it loaded wedges—

Tom Rutherford: Yeah, add the bacon and cheese.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —does that become—that’s right, bit of sour cream—

Tom Rutherford: Sweet chilli.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Nah, you’ve lost me—you’ve lost me. Each to their own, of course. If you want to ply on the sweet chilli, you go for gold.

Frankly, that is illogical in my eyes. Any other day of the year, liquor licensing is determined, basically, on health grounds, but, for some reason—and it seems to me the only reason that we have this is for religious grounds, historical religious grounds. I don’t think that’s a really good way to determine liquor licensing rules in this country, particularly when you consider that the vast majority of Christian religions, particularly the mainstream ones, don’t prohibit the consumption of alcohol on those days. Nevertheless, that is the intent of this bill, Mr Rutherford. I appreciate the question and being able to clarify that.

I want to—while I’m on my feet—quickly acknowledge Cameron Luxton, not only for the amendments that he’s put forward but, actually, for the work that he’s put forward, on the back of the bill that he put through the House last year, in educating people about what the intent of this bill is. He actually has no vested interest in this bill passing other than that he believes in it. I want to commend him for that. Here’s a Labour Party member and an ACT Party member working together on something where they agree, which is great. I think that, on social issues, we’ve probably got a very good chance of agreeing; economic, maybe not. But on this, we do, and that’s great.

Mr Rutherford, I’ll come back to your question about the amendments. I just want to give the New Zealand First members an opportunity to speak to it first.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the member, firstly, is referring to the member’s opening remarks. He talked about the purpose of this bill, which is addressing the issue that the RSAs have been facing when they can’t celebrate with a drink during Anzac Day. Also, I think you talked about the online sales of alcohol during those holidays, as well. Also, you mentioned, just now during the select committee process, that some of the feedback is also on the religious background.

My question to you is: instead of targeting or addressing the online sales of alcohol issue, why don’t you close the loophole? Now, you’re trying to open up more opening hours to allow more alcohol to be sold. Also, when you say that this bill is about addressing the issues for the RSA, then why include Christmas and also Good Friday and Easter Sunday, as well? I think this is not really the purpose of your own bill. You’re not addressing the initiative you tried to put on this bill.

This bill, as you mentioned in your second reading when I heard your contribution, is all about the people and about helping the RSA, but in the way you actually set out the legislation, I think that’s a little bit off track from your initial initiative. I would like to have some clarification from the member.

Thank you, Mr Cheung. I appreciate the questions and the opportunity to provide that clarity. Referencing the online sales is actually a really good point because, I’ll be honest, it’s not something I thought of, because I’ve never bought booze online, certainly for delivery, and so—

Dana Kirkpatrick: You haven’t lived!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The world’s opened up for me now. You learn something every day.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Only been to The Horseshoe, haven’t you?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah, I suppose you’re right. I could get the booze delivered and have a punt on my TAB app, but I like to go to the pub—I like to go to the pub. I’m a bit old school in that respect.

In all seriousness—it’s a serious question, so I will give it the respect it’s due—I didn’t anticipate the impact of what I originally proposed on online alcohol delivery. The law, as it currently stands, is that you can make an online purchase for delivery on these days, but the delivery can’t occur until the following day, when the restrictions don’t apply. The intent of the bill is to allow those businesses that can already operate on those days legally—acknowledging the restrictions that are on so many off-licences, excluding supermarkets—to open. There were some restrictions on cellar doors and bottle stores, and what would have been unintentionally done was we would have allowed those deliveries to occur on those days. We had this weird situation where I was inadvertently proposing that off-licence bottle stores couldn’t open but alcohol deliveries could deliver. That’s not what I intended to do. That’s why I mentioned it in the second reading speech after the select committee stage, because I wanted to point out that by accepting the select committee’s recommendations and focusing now only on the on-licences—the hospitality outlets, essentially—we don’t inadvertently open that up.

Now, what it does mean, as it’s now proposed, is that supermarkets will have to—pending the Parliament’s vote on amendments—still restrict sales of alcohol on these days. They will not, as it’s proposed, be able to sell alcohol on these days. That is ultimately because the select committee got to the point where the majority felt that we were picking favourites. Even though it was consistent with the intent of the bill in that we’re focusing on those businesses that can already operate, picking and choosing which off-licence businesses could operate, I felt—and I agreed with the majority of members on the Justice Committee—that would have been too much for Parliament.

I think that assessment is right, because of my conversations with a few members who have said that they’ve supported the bill to select committee to nut these things out, and they’ve then indicated that they’re very comfortable with where we’ve landed. If we hadn’t made the change, they probably would have voted against it. It only takes about five of them to change their vote and the bill’s lost. I think that is a pragmatic position to land in.

Thank you, sir. I want to just ask two questions to the member in the chair, and I hope I’ll get the chance to cover them both. The first one just relates to the other Amendment Paper put forth by Mr Luxton. I spent probably a good half an hour talking it through with him. This is the one about the interplay with the Shop Trading Hours Act. I just wonder if you’re able to shed a bit of light, because as I have read it—it’s Amendment Paper 532. This is how I understand it: people can sell two things. They can sell goods, and they can sell alcohol. Goods is everything other than alcohol, if you read the interpretation of that Act. In the Shop Trading Hours Act, it talks about when you can open and if you can be open on Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, Good Friday, and Anzac Day, and that you can sell goods as long as you’re only selling food and beverage. We know that bars and cafes and restaurants are selling that, because, remember, it doesn’t include alcohol. Arguably, as I read it, a bar could open now on Good Friday if they were only going to sell their bar snacks and a soft drink, and that would be perfectly OK. Of course, that doesn’t financially stack up for them—hence your bill actually addresses that by tackling the liquor one. However, there are two things that they sell: they sell goods, which are the non-alcoholic drinks and the food; and they sell alcohol.

Now, if your bill is addressing the alcohol clause, why do we need to amend the Shop Trading Hours Act, or do we? Do you have advice that says that, actually, there is a reason that we need to do it, because otherwise these shops couldn’t open on that day? I don’t want to drag this out, so I wonder if I can put that question in there and I’ll make my second point.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll go to Jamie Arbuckle, who has been waiting patiently.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just firstly congratulate the member again for getting this to this point into the House. He will be aware there’s an amendment that I’ve put forward, and the amendment does change this bill to remove Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day. I’ve done that for a reason.

Firstly, through submissions, we did hear in the Justice Committee that there is concern that opening the alcohol sales on those three days, which traditionally hasn’t been the case; there is a lot of concern. What I do want to, firstly, say is around Anzac Day: what this would mean is—yes, I do understand there is a tradition with Anzac Day where people come together, and it is an unusual thing if you’re not a member of the RSA that the RSA, at the moment, needs to get a licence for non-members to be able to have a whisky, a beer, or whatever that drink may be. I think we can get past that part, and we can understand the reasons why, on Anzac Day, the member has put this forward. It will save the RSAs that compliance time to do that.

What I do really struggle with in terms of the member is when we start looking at Easter Friday, Easter Sunday, and especially Christmas Day. They’re days that, I would put to the member, are traditional days for New Zealanders. They’re the fabric that puts our country together. I would say to the member, as I did in my speech at the second reading, that I am by no ways a religious person. I understand that side of it; that, for a lot of people, the religious significance of those days—Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas—is a big part of why they would oppose this.

But I’d say to the member: there is also a tradition where we have not been able to purchase alcohol unless there are certain reasons. Those reasons are that if a shop had opened and they were serving food, you would then be able to buy alcohol. To me, that seemed a reasonable, logical way of progressing that concern around the religious part; around the fabric of society, the tradition we had. To then say that, now, we are going to open this up and the rules are going to be different for some other financial gain—I actually wonder if we have gone too far. What is the point where, for 3½ days—well, in my case here, for the three days—we are going to protect the sale of alcohol? What is wrong with asking for our families to actually be at home with family members, to enjoy Christmas, to enjoy Easter? Maybe we’re not religious, like myself, but there is still a tradition, still a fabric around the enjoyment of those days. I would say to the member: family time is important.

I think we also had the Hon Mark Patterson—I remember in his speech, he said, “What is wrong with taking a breather?” As a country, sometimes, on the few days that we do have to enjoy ourselves, why can’t we take a breather? My amendment is taking away those three religious days, but I don’t class them necessarily as religious days; I class them, as I said in my speech originally, as family days. So remove Good Friday, remove Easter Sunday, remove Christmas Day—I’ll accept the Anzac Day part, but I ask the member to really think about why we are actually going into that family time and actually taking away that tradition that we have been born with and have always respected.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank Mr Costley for his question. Your reading of this is correct. It’s certainly along the lines in the sense that that’s how I read it, too—that the proposal from Mr Luxton is simply to allow the on-licence businesses to be able to extend into the morning of Anzac Day. But I would be interested to hear his description of that, because I think, given that this is a member’s bill, we don’t have Ministry of Justice officials here to be able to advise. That’s actually in part why I’m treading quite carefully here. I want to make sure that we are on solid ground before we consider extending that. That’s not necessarily expressing a view on it. I’m keen to have a conversation.

But it does touch on an important thing: that, ultimately, at the end of the day, unlike a committee stage for Government business, my view is only one vote. So it’s possible, theoretically, that I might oppose an amendment but Parliament supports it. I’m just going to have to suck that up if that’s what happens.

Mr Arbuckle, thank you for your proposal in your amendment. Look, I respect your commentary. I don’t agree with it, and I’ll give a brief explanation as to why. The arguments put forward, I think, would be more applicable if the proposal was to allow businesses that can’t already open to open, but, given that these businesses are already allowed to open, people have made that choice for themselves.

What is also important is that those that choose to use those days to stay at home could choose to have a drink there, but, also, this bill provides no compulsion whatsoever. It simply allows those that make a choice for them and their families, frankly, to be able to go to an on-licence. They are able to do that. For those that choose not to, it is a choice that I fully respect, but respect goes both ways. I see it as a two-way street. We respect the choice for those that choose to stay at home and not to consume alcohol that day, but currently we don’t respect the choice for people that do choose to go to an on-licensed premises.

But I would be interested, and this is a question that your colleague with the other—is it in your name, Andy Foster? I’d love to know, if your amendment passed, would that mean you support the bill? That would be a really interesting thing, I think, for the committee to understand. I think that’s all I need to say.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I know there’s a number of people who are asking for calls, but I did indicate to Mr Costley that I would allow him to do a further reply as part of his original call.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am trying to keep it quick, because I know a lot of people want to contribute and we want to see this move on. I appreciate the answer and I appreciate the engagement earlier of Mr Luxton, as well. I do have some sympathy for the New Zealand First position for the same reason I opposed off-licences at the first reading, for the same reason I opposed the bill that allowed all shops to trade last year, because I do think that having four days a year where people spend a bit of time with their family—the Government shouldn’t have to tell you to do that, but I still think it’s a good thing. I am wary of seeing this brought in too much to the point that as people are forming up for the dawn service on Anzac Day, we have other people stumbling home drunk.

I’m OK, if the net result is us not passing any amendments and the bill goes through as it is, and that means that four times a year you have to stop drinking at midnight in a public bar—I’m actually OK with that. I think it still allows every business to trade every day of the year, if it kills a couple of days—my mum always said that nothing good happens after midnight and I think she had a point. But my reading of it, as the bill stands, says that it should still be OK, but I’m just wary of this then trampling any ability for local licensing authorities to go and put their own local limits in terms of what is acceptable, what the community wants.

For that reason, and based on what I’ve heard, I’m not going to support New Zealand First’s amendments—though I have sympathy for the position—and I’m not going to support the ACT Party amendments for the same reason. I think this strikes a good balance and a middle ground. I was with the chief executive of Hospitality New Zealand last night, and she iterated her support for this bill and how important it was. I want to see our hospitality sector do well, but I think that’s the middle ground. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is hearing all parts at the moment, so it’s not just one part. There’s still a bit more to go.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate you giving me this call, Mr Chair. I indicated earlier, in my first contribution, that I had two amendments to speak to, but I feel like I need to just clarify some of the back and forth that’s been happening between the Hon Kieran McAnulty and Tim Costley, specifically about the lack of officials we have here advising us and what parts of the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Which amendments, or which amendment?

CAMERON LUXTON: Speaking to Amendment Paper 532, regarding why it is important that we have these on-licence restrictions that are inherent in the Shop Trading Hours Act addressed. Now, in the Shop Trading Hours Act, clause 3 has “Shops to be closed”, and it has a list of shops, but then, in clause 4, it says “Certain shops may remain open”, and this is the part where Mr Costley and I had a discussion earlier today. In section 4(1)(a), it says “Section 3(1)”—closing shops—does not apply in “a shop where—(i) the goods for sale include nothing that is not food, drink, a household item”. So there’s a double negative there. This is what happens when you start reaching into these laws; we have a whole lot of confusing terminology and cross-referencing. But there is a double negative saying, “The goods for sale are nothing that is not”.

And then, you go into the interpretation section of the Shop Trading Hours Act, which is section 2, and under “goods”, it states: “includes all personal chattels other than alcohol”. So now we’ve got a triple negative, in a way, but, basically, it’s saying that “For the sake of this bill, a good is not alcohol. You cannot sell if you are selling any alcohol.” So you can’t sell nothing that isn’t food or drink, and that does not include alcohol, which means if your main thing you are selling is alcohol—say, 50 percent of your income comes from alcohol—the Shop Trading Hours Act restricts you from being open. That is what is operative in the Shop Trading Hours Act that circumvents the good work that the member is trying to do in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill to loosen some of these restrictions. Hence why we need to be able to make sure that venues that are trading—and the intention is for them to be able to trade—can continue to do so by putting this amendment in place and actually achieving what is in the bill.

I know there are a lot of my fellow colleagues that would like to speak, so I am going to resume my seat and come back out for my Amendment Paper 531 a little bit later on. In the meantime, I just want to also recognise someone who I think might be watching at home, Chris Baillie, a former member of this House, who brought an original bill in the last term to deal with these issues. We’ve got multiple members over multiple terms trying to fix this issue—I hope, tonight, that we’re able to do so.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The recent changes to the way that committee stages operate allow for a back and forth if it’s been indicated to the presiding officer. Now, it’s normally not the member in the chair that initiates this, but, I think, given the lack of officials, and the interest in your amendments, perhaps I can ask you some questions, Mr Luxton, and we can get a bit of better understanding.

It seems to me that your amendment, with the pending opening of the Christchurch stadium in mind and the issues that the hospitality businesses down there are facing, which is a real one—we finally get this massive project open. It’s a project that has the full support of the House; supported by the previous Government, continued under this Government. We know how hard it’s been for hospitality at the moment. Everyone’s excited about it, but they face the prospect that the fans leave the stadium and they go to a bar, and then they’re likely to be kicked out at 11.45 p.m., on the current rules. It seems to me that your amendment looks to address that, in this instance, across the board and ongoing.

Under new section 45A, under the proposed amendment, you’ve got specific reference to the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990. You touched on it there, but, keeping in mind the intention of this bill, can you reassure the House that your amendment does not go beyond what has been stated as the intention that businesses that are already allowed to open, and only them, will be able to operate under existing conditions?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I will go to Cameron Luxton, but I do want to indicate to the committee that the member has addressed a lot of the issues in Amendment Paper 532, so if you can really focus in on the questions that you’re asking.

Absolutely, Mr Chair—absolutely, and acting as an official in this, maybe we should have co-sponsored a bill, perhaps, Mr McAnulty—we could have got somewhere earlier and things. But I appreciate this back and forth.

Look, just to be clear, those sections that I read out are in the Shop Trading Hours Act. What this bill is amending, as we all talked about, is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, with the intention of allowing shops who are able to be open, to open. The restricted trading days—Part 1 of the Shop Trading Hours Act has the sections which talk about “Shops to be closed on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day”, which are the intention of this bill to address. It’s outlining before 1 p.m. on Anzac Day and all day on the other three days. So it’s saying, “You must be closed”, in section 3.

In section 4, it gives exemptions. I learnt a lot about this during the Easter trading bill that I put through in regards to some absurd carve-outs that didn’t make a lot of sense, specifically at garden centres, rural supply stores—like, explain that when the dairy next door can’t open. It’s a bit nuts. But, anyway, my point is that section 4(1)(a) is saying that restricted trading hours do not apply to a shop where the goods for sale include nothing that is not food. If you are selling alcohol, you are selling something that is not food; therefore, you are not exempt to be open, and so that means that if the alcohol laws say you must be shut, then you must be shut, despite what is otherwise happening in this bill.

To address the part of “Does that go any further?”, my understanding of what your intention is, Mr McAnulty, is to enable shops that otherwise would be able to trade to be able to sell alcohol, meaning that they would be able to trade. These restricted days in the Shop Trading Hours Act restrict that trade through another mechanism in another bill, which is what my insertion of new section 54A is trying to address.

I thank the member Cameron Luxton for that explanation. Am I correct in reading this: in the proposed amendment, new section 45A(i) set out on Amendment Paper 532, the specific reference to “on-licences” is what restricts it to on-licence premises and doesn’t extend it to other businesses?

That is right. It specifically says “on-licences”, not “off-licences”. The other Amendment Paper that I’m going to talk about later on does address off-licence; this is not off-licence.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t drink. I haven’t drunk for over five years, and it’ll be six years coming up. So, like the reference before, I have no vested interest in this bill, except for the fact that I believe in the principles which underpin this bill. I support it. I support the bill as it was introduced. I support the bill as amended by the select committee. I support the amendments by Mr Luxton. I supported his bill originally. I supported Stuart Smith’s bill when he did cellar door.

But what I want to focus on is one key issue, and it’s to do with this amendment, which we have traversed and it has been raised before. Later this month, there will be a formal opening of Te Kaha stadium—a stadium that the Crown, on behalf of the taxpayer, has poured $230 million into; a stadium which the ratepayers of Christchurch and the wider areas have poured $453 million into; a stadium which will host probably the largest single event in the region over the year—maybe Electric Avenue surpasses it, who knows, let’s wait and see—of the Anzac weekend Super Rugby round.

I am urging those of you in the House to support Amendment Paper 532. Even if you don’t support the substance of the bill, you should support this amendment, for one reason—well, for many reasons, but for one reason: if you are at all interested in harm minimisation; if you are at all interested in the welfare of people who are going to be out on 24 April—the thousands and thousands of Cantabrians, of Australians, of people from around the world who have come to Christchurch to enjoy that round and who will be revelling in the delight of a fantastic new stadium, who, at 12.00 p.m. that night, will be forced on to the streets en masse in a sense of chaos. If you are at all concerned about harm minimisation and about the welfare of those people, you may not support the bill; you may not even support this amendment. This amendment is the single thing that will allow those bars to continue to stay open and to minimise any potential harm caused by thousands and thousands of people enjoying their night out, spilling out on to the streets all at once and having the potential to cause absolute chaos in central Christchurch. Even if you do not support the bill and even if you are going to vote against the bill at the end of the night, I urge you to support this particular amendment, if for any reason but that you think about, on 24 April at midnight, what will happen when all those bars close down and people pour out into the street.

I think this is a good bill. I think the arguments have been well canvassed for this amendment. I think the debate back and forth has been lively and has been good. I support the bill, and I look forward to its passage, with these amendments supported, at the end of the night.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. I want to thank Cameron Luxton for his explanation of his amendment and Minister Meager for his impassioned contribution, which I support. The thing here, now that we’ve had an opportunity to traverse this and discuss this, is that Amendment Paper 532 in the name of Cameron Luxton is entirely consistent with the intent of the bill, as it currently stands outside the select committee and as it was originally proposed.

Now, I’ve already said to the committee that I support the amendments that have come from select committee, and I know that Amendment Paper 531 looks to traverse that—we’ll cover that in due course—but I want to indicate that I do support Amendment Paper 532 because it is consistent, and I don’t think that, if the House passed this bill, that would compromise the qualified support that others have indicated. I’m noting the warnings from Mr Costley that nothing good happens after midnight. I do think, though, that there are a number of members that might be quietly thinking, “Well, if that was the case, I wouldn’t have met my spouse.” Nevertheless, I don’t want to cast aspersions. On that basis, I just want to indicate to the committee that, personally, I’ll be voting in favour of Amendment Paper 532.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just referring to my previous contribution, I think the member still hasn’t answered my question: if he just wanted to address the issue of the members of the RSA enjoying a drink on Anzac Day, why are Christmas, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday included in the bill, as well? This is very important because, in my electorate, I’ve got a lot of churches. A lot of people in my electorate actually quite care about this bill.

I did a survey for you. I actually asked people what their feedback is about this bill. I can tell the member that 95 percent of people actually agree that if this opened the alcohol licensing for people to enjoy on Anzac Day, 99 percent would be happy to agree with this legislation. But once I mentioned Easter, Good Friday, and Christmas, the support actually dropped to 48 percent. Obviously, I think that is a major concern—it’s also being raised in the select committee—as to why those days are being included, as well.

Also, I just wanted to respond to when the member said just now that if he accepted the amendment from New Zealand First, we are going to agree with or support the bill. I can tell you it’s not only me. I think there are a few people who say that you want to take away Christmas. We are very happy to support this bill, but as a Christian—I think you’ve mentioned that you are a Christian, as well—I think that it’s very important to honour God. Also, if you’re just talking about two days or three days without alcohol, I don’t think it’s a big ask. I think it’s good to be there to honour God and to say, “Hey, no alcohol on these days” or “You can’t buy alcohol on these days.” I would love the member to seriously consider the amendment from New Zealand First.

Also, the second point I want to raise is—I don’t think anyone’s raised it before; maybe some members have raised it before—how about you give some power to the local government, as well? The reason why I’m saying that is that in Auckland, Auckland Council actually works very hard to limit alcohol harm by trying to change the opening hours of alcohol shops to limit people’s access to alcohol. I think—as some of the speeches from your colleagues in the Labour Party also mentioned, as well—that in South Auckland, alcohol harm is a big thing. Allowing more opening hours for the alcohol shops is, I think, contradictory to all the effort that the Auckland Council have been putting in when trying to limit the alcohol opening times, but then the central government is trying to open up longer opening hours for people to buy alcohol. I just don’t think it’s a very good approach.

I think, maybe, the member should consider, firstly, accepting the amendment from the member of New Zealand First to remove Christmas in the legislation and, second, maybe also consider giving some power to the local government, as well, so they can determine things. As you can see, within just our National Party caucus, we have already got different opinions on how people work with alcohol. Some areas have actually got less alcohol problems compared to others, but in Auckland—especially South Auckland—alcohol harm is a big thing. I would like, at least, that we give some visibility for local government. They can actually do their own amendments, as well.

The last thing I just want to try to mention is that I disagree with Minister James Meager’s comment about people needing alcohol in order to enjoy their life. If someone needs alcohol so they can enjoy things, I think there’s something wrong.

Hon James Meager: I don’t drink.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: That’s right, but you mentioned just now that people in Christchurch would love to have a drink so they can enjoy themselves.

David MacLeod: Choice—choice.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Yes, it is a choice, but what I’m saying is if someone relies on alcohol in order to have an enjoyable life, I think their life is wrong, and I think that this is wrong, as well. I want to emphasise that there are a lot of things that can bring you happiness or help you enjoy life, but if you just want to rely on alcohol so that you can enjoy life or so that your night will be more perfect or more enjoyable, I think this is wrong.

Hon James Meager: You drink more than I do.

Thank you, Mr Cheung. Far be it for me to get involved in an argument between National Party MPs, but I am going to stick up for Mr Meager here. At no point did he suggest that people can only have alcohol to have fun. I’ve known Mr Meager for a number of years. He’s been sober throughout, and sometimes he’s had a hell of a lot more fun than I have, but that’s by the by.

The question that you have posed as to why to include Christmas and Easter—at no point have I ever portrayed this bill to be primarily about Anzac Day. It has been quite clearly about all of these days. The principle at play here is that those businesses that are already legally able to operate should be able to operate under the conditions that they are permitted to across any other day of the year. I’m not proposing that any business that can’t already open is able to open. That is why I’m comfortable with where the select committee has landed by excluding off-licences on that, because it got too complicated and I feared the bill wouldn’t pass. I’m hopeful that it will pass as it currently stands, but the reason that I’ve included Easter and Christmas is because that is consistent with that principle.

Your suggestion around the local-licensing ability for local communities to determine their licensing rules—that exists; that is retained. This bill does not change that at all, and I acknowledge your suggestion that I support Mr Arbuckle’s amendment to reduce this down to only include Anzac Day. I have addressed that, with respect. Personally, whilst the amendment has been ruled in scope, I believe that the amendment takes away from the intent of the bill, and I’m yet to hear an assurance from the member that if his amendment passed, he would support the bill.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Well, I’ll support you if you changed it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s good to know, but I do suspect that it would be a net loss on that proposal. While I respect Mr Arbuckle’s suggestion, I do suspect that, even if we did follow his amendment, he wouldn’t support the bill. I think that is not really the intent of this committee.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am standing to speak to my colleague’s Amendment Paper 532. I know that this has been traversed quite widely, but, because this is a conscience issue, every member has the right to speak to it. Given that I am a Christchurch-based MP, and I know there are a few of us in the Chamber this evening—I know we’ve got the current Christchurch MP on the other side, and I’d actually really like to hear his views on the opening of Te Kaha and how he feels about my colleague’s Amendment Paper going forward.

There are other members in the committee that know that this isn’t just about the opening night of Te Kaha for Christchurch but, since the earthquakes, Christchurch has not had a real stadium. We’ve missed out on heaps of different events. It has been a huge and significant loss to Christchurch. Whether it has been the economic loss post the earthquakes, and we’ve had things like COVID, it has been really, really hard, and to have this huge project, which is a massive milestone—and it’s not just for Christchurch; it’s for the whole Mainland and for New Zealand in general and for our economy—to turn around and say that we have these archaic laws that mean, come midnight, this bar or this restaurant will no longer be able to serve you and they’ll be closing is, honestly, absolutely outrageous, given our day and time.

Look, I sympathise with those that have strong personal religious views—I do—but you’ve got to remember that we live in a country where we’re really multicultural at this point. There are lots of different views when it comes to religion, and everybody should have the right to observe those how they wish to do so, but we also need to accept the fact that, for most people, they also want the right and the freedom to be able to choose to enjoy themselves, whether or not that is having a drink. To be honest, even for people that don’t drink, like James Meager or sometimes myself, you might just want to stay out and have a bit of a dance for a few hours later, and so it’s not always about actually drinking alcohol. When we’re talking about on-licences, they are some of the safest places you can drink. They’ve got rules around intoxication levels and serving, they have bouncers and people that take care of our young people when they’re out and about and they’re drinking, and it is a safe place to be.

I completely disregard my other colleague’s comment around people blasting out in the street at 4 a.m. and showing up to an Anzac parade. Sure, you might get the odd-person that might go straight from a bar to a parade—yep, that could happen—but I think that for most people, that is not what it’s going to be about, and for Christchurch, in particular—this time, it’s Christchurch—they really need that economic boost. To any Christchurch-based or Canterbury-based MPs in the Chamber tonight, I’d say that if you don’t vote for this amendment, I seriously hope that you won’t be out there enjoying a drink on the night of the opening of the stadium or, to be fair, on any other night after midnight—because what night is really different from Anzac eve, to be honest?

I support this amendment and I really urge everybody else to support it, because this time it’s Christchurch that’s affected, but it could be your electorate next time. It could be anywhere else in the country, and I do believe that, at some point in time, if this doesn’t pass right now, we will be coming back to this House to pass it in the future.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next call, it is a member’s bill. It is a conscience issue, but the normal rules still do apply, and that is that we’re still looking for relevance. While there’s always going to be context around any of these speeches, really, it’s time we started focusing on what the bill actually does. I think we’ve pretty well established the broad issues around the alcohol aspect.

My question is around community engagement. I support this bill for two reasons. The first reason is what has already been highlighted regarding the impact on businesses and employees. Previously, I was a small-business owner, and so I understand the importance of having consistency. My business was a gym, and so we didn’t have any booze there, but the same process applies. I’ve also previously worked with employees as a union representative, and consistency in the workplace is really important. It’s important for employees to have a good day at work and to know where they’re going and what they’re doing, and any inconsistency can throw people out and put extra pressure and stress on employees in the already quite stressful situation that hospitality is. The first reason I support the bill is simply that I think that it is good for the benefit of employees and business owners alike.

The second reason I support it is because of the community impact. I have a personal story here, which is that my dad was very, very passionate about wanting to be able to buy a drink on Easter weekend. He was a regular at a Hamilton bar called The Londoner, and it was really distressing for him, as a community member, to not be able to go to The Londoner at Easter and buy his glass of white wine. He wasn’t there to drink excessively; he was there to have his white wine because that was his routine, and it was part of the community for him.

The question I have is just around that community impact. We’ve talked a little bit about Anzac Day and people being able to go out for a drink then, and we’ve also talked about a Christchurch event and people being able to drink there. Has the member had any further thoughts about what other community impact that might have?

I also just wanted to respond to the questions around alcohol harm. I’m also passionate about not extending alcohol harm in our communities, and on a similar alcohol bill, I’d probably vote against it. The reason that I feel OK about this one is because it’s not extending the conditions around alcohol use; it’s just consistency with on-licences, which are already providing alcohol on other days, and so they are still subject to the existing provisions around serving alcohol. Other speakers have spoken earlier about those provisions and about what is in place. The people that are serving the alcohol have, hopefully, a good employer who has given them the adequate training to be able to serve alcohol and to know when someone is intoxicated and move them out—all of those things. I don’t see this as a major factor in contributing to alcohol harm; instead, I just needed a few things cleared up so that we have consistency across the board.

Returning to my question about community engagement, do my dad a solid and explain the thinking that you have done, because I know that, for him, this bill is vital to his engagement in his community and his livelihood. Thanks.

Thank you to Laura McClure for her contribution. The only response I have is that I agree with you. I think it’s unlikely that people that were in a hospitality establishment until the early hours of dawn on Anzac Day would have attending a dawn parade in mind, but, nevertheless, if they were that way inclined, they would be doing so out of respect.

To Georgie Dansey’s contribution, thank you for that. As a proud Irish Catholic, I wouldn’t normally make a beeline to a pub called The Londoner, but I think I will make an exception, and particularly if this bill passes, I would like you to buy me a beer, if that’s all right, in The Londoner—or perhaps I should buy you one, in fairness. But to your question around the community impact and alcohol harm, we did see some submitters were concerned about this, but with the greatest respect to them, we weren’t given evidence to suggest that allowing businesses that were already operating anyway to do so under normal licensing conditions would increase alcohol harm; in fact, the Justice Committee found that it wouldn’t.

What is, I think, an important point here—and this is why we have members who have backgrounds in working for unions and representing workers and who are staunchly defending their rights being comfortable with this bill—is that these workers are already working. It’s actually to their benefit to be able to work under the conditions that they do on any other day of the year and that they are trained and they are skilled at doing, rather than introducing a new element that actually—from what I’ve heard from the hospitality sector and those that work in it—adds anxiety to the work day because they are determining that what the customer has ordered is substantial enough, and then monitoring how long it is after they’ve finished the meal. Also, we haven’t touched on the absurdity of the rules that say that you could order a series of roast meals over the day and continue to drink. That doesn’t make any sense.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just say to the member Kieran McAnulty that I just thank you for your considered way in which you’ve been dealing with all the issues which have been raised during this, and often they’re quite complex to work out. The other thing I might do is just say that it’s been lovely to see—particularly from my National Party colleagues—the way in which the two previous bills were so quickly addressed, because that’s not always the case on a members’ day. I hope that it stays that way and that we continue to address these things and get through more legislation as a result of that, as that would be very, very good.

My amendment is simply focused on Christmas, and there are a number of reasons for that. A number of people have touched on the religious importance of Good Friday, Easter, and Christmas Day. I think Christmas Day is particularly important in the Christian calendar. The other two are, too, but I think, also, Christmas Day is particularly important in New Zealand as a day which is a family day. Whatever your background is, whatever your religion is, whatever your value sets are, Christmas Day is the day in which, essentially, the streets are quiet. There’s the odd runner going around the place, but by and large people are home with their families.

Now, the concern that I’ve got with this particular proposition is that while you’re saying at this stage—and there is a slippery slope here, potentially—it is only, as I am understanding it, those premises which are already open and able to be open on Christmas Day. At the moment, they’re only able to be open and serve alcohol to diners who come in to eat a meal or to guests who are staying in the house. This would then open them up to anybody else coming in there, so it’s not quite the same proposition. The thought that it’s the same number of people who would necessarily be needed to serve in that premises is probably wrong, because you’re likely to need more people because you’re likely to have more customers. So there are going to be more people.

It’s interesting, Georgie Dansey, hearing from you from the point of view from a union background. Quite often I’ve heard from some of your colleagues talking about the union side of things and saying, “Actually, this is a day which is special to us and we don’t want to have to be potentially forced to work in that area.”

The other issue there is that it if we’ve got a number of different premises around any given town—which are, effectively, now open for anybody—how long is it before you would say, “Actually, every other pub, every other hotel, etc., is then open slather to everybody”? It’s going to be very hard to say, “Well, these people should be able to serve to everybody. These people should be able to serve to everybody, but you can’t.” I can’t see how that will be sustainable, and then Christmas would not be a special day for quite a lot of people who would then have to work on those days. That is the reason for picking on Christmas—because it is a particularly important day; a family day for New Zealanders. As I said, I think there is a real concern about the inevitable next step.

Just the other thing I would say is that in the amendments that Jamie Arbuckle and I have moved, you will note that we have not included Anzac; that we’ve taken on board that that is a day when often people do—well, certainly returned service folk are very, very keen to have that drink in the morning, and I know that there are special rules around that. We have also taken that on board. Of course, we are all looking forward to the opening of Te Kaha in a few weeks’ time.

Thank you, Mr Foster, for the explanation of his amendment. It’s good to understand the rationale behind the proposal. Similar to that amendment of your colleague Jamie Arbuckle: I respect where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree and I won’t be supporting it, and I will explain why.

I can’t see, in fairness, the difference in why you would be comfortable with people drinking at 5 a.m. on Anzac Day but not on Christmas Day. The fact of the matter is it is a choice. My prediction is that if this bill passes, most hospitality businesses won’t open on Christmas Day, because the demand won’t be there. I think most people will choose not to go to the pub.

But I am reminded of the time when I was living in Ireland—staunchly Roman Catholic community. I went to Christmas mass on Christmas morning, spent the time with the family, and everyone went to the pub on Christmas night. It was a wonderful occasion; it was a beautiful community feel. If that is how families wish to choose their evening, I don’t think we should be the ones to get in their way.

I do want to pick up on one point. You may not have intended to or you may have—it doesn’t matter—but you used the word “forced”. The rights and protections of workers on those days remain. No worker will be forced to work on those days; they still retain their right to say no. I absolutely accept the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues when we’ve discussed this in other forums that look to expand it further—that, actually, for many small businesses it is not easy to say no. I fully accept that. But it equally isn’t accurate to say “forced”, and I just think it’s important that we use—

Thank you, Mr Chair, and congratulations again, Mr McAnulty, on getting the bill this far. I actually just want to talk about a few clauses in your bill and, if you don’t mind, maybe we could just do a few Q and As on it—and then it’s going to obviously relate to one of the Amendment Papers. But I was lucky enough to be in the Justice Committee process—and it was a very productive process. I think I was pretty pragmatic in the end and I wanted to get your bill back to the House. Obviously, I didn’t agree with everything we necessarily did, but I think we got into a good shape to get back and have this debate tonight.

I just want to focus on clause 6, replacing section 48, that was put into the bill and amended. Obviously, when you first introduced the bill, it did cover off-licences that were open on the days we’re talking about: Anzac Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day. Again, only businesses that were open, but they were all off-licence businesses. I just want to confirm: obviously, there was a change made in section 48 to allow a particular type of off-licence business to open. Can you just talk to why that was done and what this means?

Mr Chair, thank you very much. I feel like what we’re trying to do here is open up people to be able to enjoy special stadiums and places in their cities. I welcome the contributions from members around the Chamber so far, including Dr Cheung, who’s had a member’s bill to expand the days on which concerts can be held at Eden Park. I’d just like to inform Dr Cheung that, if this bill was to pass, it would actually enable the good people of Auckland to go and enjoy themselves after a big concert at Eden Park on a restricted day, in the same way that we are trying to liberalise this in time for the good people of Christchurch when they have their guests entertaining. So we can all do this.

Just one more point I would like to make, considering some speeches from around the Chamber. There are places around the world which don’t hold the same views as Mr Foster, including dear old England, where going out and having a drink on Christmas is actually part of some of the cultural practices in that sweet isle. Also, I’ve talked to a great number of South Africans who find a great lot—and I come from Pāpāmoa; a large South African population has moved to the area—

Tom Rutherford: Oh, great area.

CAMERON LUXTON: It’s a great area, and a lot of South Africans say to me, “It doesn’t make any sense. What we did in South Africa was go with our family to a restaurant or a bar on Easter, so having these restrictions makes no sense to our cultural practices.” Some of the contributions we’ve heard tonight are saying people should be able to enjoy these special days with their special people in a way that is meaningful to them and no one should be compelled to do anything—from a staffer or a patron or a business owner. That is the core of what I think Mr McAnulty is trying to achieve here.

Now, how I’d like to just finish my speech—because I think this may be my last contribution, Mr Chair; you have been gracious in giving me this call—is to talk about my Amendment Paper 531.

Now, I was not on the Justice Committee, which addressed this bill, but my colleague Todd Stephenson was, and he has been working diligently to make sure that the view of the ACT Party and of people who want to be able to enjoy their businesses and themselves without unnecessary regulation and burdens put on them—which I think was in the original intent of Mr McAnulty’s bill.

Now, the select committee put restrictions around off-licences and, also, on remote sales. In his original contribution to the House, Mr McAnulty talked about how online remote sales were not intended to be captured, and so that has now been restricted at the select committee. I think that is an overreach. This might be the one day of the week where I’m sitting down and I’m making my grocery order, perhaps; I should be able to make that order and have it delivered on a day that works with me. If you are saying I am too drunk to drive because I’ve enjoyed this day with my friends and family on the deck of my back lawn and I’m enjoying the sun, why would we make it that you have to find a different way? When we’ve got this modern technology where you can say, “Look, you’ve brought the wrong drink to the party. This isn’t what she asked for. Can we order some pink gin?”—or some bourbon and Coke, if you’re my wife.

Hon Member: Pink gin?

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, bourbon and Coke’s actually her drink of choice, but I’ll have the pink gin.

Then the final thing just to touch on before I resume my seat is the restrictions for off-licences. It doesn’t make sense that a supermarket, which can remain open, has to fence off a part of that supermarket on certain days of the year—

Arena Williams: Oh, it’s fine! It doesn’t bother anyone.

CAMERON LUXTON: —while people walk past them and go—yeah, well, you can take a call, I’m sure, but you can say it’s not bothering people. The part that I find most infuriating about the off-licence ban is the idea that there is going to be harm caused by selling alcohol on these days. We have addressed this in the House before, and I think the arguments for reducing the sale of off-licence reduces harm are erroneous. If somebody who has got an unhealthy relationship with alcohol finds out—which, we all know—you are restricted on certain days, they stockpile. The last thing that you want are people who have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol stockpiling alcohol at their house because they are so nervous they might not be able to get it.

The evidence is out there that alcohol sales, on average, do not change week on week, which means the people who are not buying alcohol are probably—and this is a supposition—not the people who have an unhealthy connection to alcohol; it’s the people who do.

Thank you very much. I want to thank Mr Stephenson for his question but, also, his contribution at the select committee stage; I thought it was excellent. I fully accept that the Justice Committee recommended by a majority, and not in line with his views, to restrict it to on-licences. I’m pleased that Mr Luxton got an opportunity to speak to his amendment, because my response to his amendment actually answers your question, in a way—

Steve Abel: Mr Chair?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —is that ultimately—

Steve Abel: I thought you were done.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just generally one at a time.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —at a principled level, I absolutely understand what you’re putting forward here in Amendment Paper 531, and what Mr Stephenson was arguing at select committee is that, at the end of the day, this is about choice.

The argument “What if someone’s been on the chop all day and they need to do an online order?” is an interesting take. Nevertheless, I’m going to give you a direct and honest response here: regardless of my personal views on this, I think, if this amendment passed, we would lose the support of Parliament. That is based on my engagement with some members that indicated that they voted for the bill to get to select committee and that they only continue to vote for it because of the changes that were made at select committee. I absolutely respect what you’re putting forward. It is consistent. We will end up with a situation where supermarkets are open but can’t sell alcohol.

But, keeping in mind that every previous attempt to change liquor licensing at Easter has failed—in fact, it hasn’t even got this far—I’m not willing to put that at risk. I’m not going to support Amendment Paper 531, on that basis. My read of the situation is that if we keep it as it stands to on-licences, we’ve got a real chance to actually finally change this; if we expand it, I fear we’d lose it. I’m not willing to take that risk.

Thank you, Mr Chair. You may be surprised that I’m taking a call. It’s going to be a brief call, because I appreciate that the Chair made a point earlier that a lot of this bill has been canvassed and it is a relatively simple bill, let’s be fair.

David MacLeod: No, it’s not.

STEVE ABEL: Morally questionable, but simple. I cast no aspersions on the member; I recognise the character of the gentleman in the chair, but I will not be supporting the bill. I think we risk being in the space of frivolous filibustering. It’s all very well to hear the personal and family drinking prerogatives of the members, but we are not making small talk at a bar; we are in the Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand, where we should be passing legislation. I think we all know the position that we hold on this bill. It has been seriously canvassed. It would be appropriate that we move to a vote on it.

I have a question for the member, to conclude. In the spirit of cross-party consensus, I agree with one of the points made in the differing view by the New Zealand First Party: “During the committee it was demonstrated that increased access to alcohol on these restricted days would increase alcohol-related harm. This is an issue of conscience, and Parliament should consider the risks very carefully—over and above … perceived commercial benefits.”—and I might add to that “perceived freedoms”. I wonder if the member could answer with his response to that question of increased alcohol-related harm; certainly a concern for Te Pāti Kākāriki. I hope that this will soon draw to a close, so that we can get on with some other legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve actually got a couple of questions which are in the body of the legislation, not relating to the amendments, because, actually, most of the speeches have canvassed the amendments but actually haven’t dived into the detail of the actual legislation.

The two questions that I’ve got that I would like to ask, firstly, touch on the point that Todd Stephenson was alluding to in his contribution around cellar doors, which are the only one that can sell alcohol on those days where they’re allowed to operate, aside from restaurants, cafes, and bars under the current legislation. On the same day that a supermarket or a bottle store cannot sell alcohol to people who would like to purchase it, a cellar door can. Why is there that delineation between the two where we’re allowing cellar doors to be able to sell alcohol—which would not be consumed, necessarily, on site, on premise, because it could be taken off site—but we won’t allow supermarkets or bottle stores to do the same, and why is there that separation that’s been created? That’s my first question.

The second question relates to a provision that we incorporated on the Justice Committee around our RSAs on Anzac Day, and the requirement for a duty manager to be present on that day. It wasn’t initially in the legislation when it was first presented, but I’m keen to understand from the member in charge why he believes it’s vital, based on the proposal put forward by the Justice Committee, to include that duty managers are present on site at RSAs on Anzac Day whilst alcohol is sold to patrons who are there. If we talk about it and we look in the legislation, under new Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA, clause 5, it says “Transitional arrangements for off-licences”—oh, sorry, that’s actually the cellar door one; it says “A condition imposed on an off-licence has no effect to the extent that it—(a) is imposed before the commencement date; and (b) prohibits the sale on or delivery from the premises, on Good Friday, or Christmas Day, or before 1 pm on Anzac Day, of grape wine or fruit or vegetable wine made—(i) on the premises; or (ii) from produce harvested from land on which the premises are situated.” Firstly, that’s the inclusion as to why cellar doors would be allowed to operate on those days but our bottle stores and supermarkets may not be able to.

Then, on the second point that I was making—under Part 2, clause 12, it says “Schedule, form 11 amended”, and it says, “In the Schedule, form 11, first paragraph, replace the third bullet point with: is a member of some other club with which the club has an arrangement for reciprocal visiting rights for members; or … is on the premises at any time during the hours from 4 am to 1 pm”—that’s around members being present there. But what about the provision to include that duty managers must be on site at RSAs for the sale of alcohol to people who are both members but, also, non-members and guests in that club to allow them to service and sell alcohol to those people who are in there?

I’m keen to hear from the member in charge on those two points that I’ve raised from the legislation.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’re getting very close. We’ve got some technical questions relating to the bill; the amendments have pretty much been done. We’ve got some questions relating to the main bill proper. I’m looking for questions of that type. We will have a standing closure motion.

Thank you, sir. I just want to ask the member one question, because there’s been some great discussions around the Chamber during this, and it relates to the main bill and the interplay with Amendment Paper 532. Are you convinced that, regardless of if Amendment Paper 532 passes, is the advice from officials back in the Justice Committee—I appreciate we don’t have them now—that the bill would still go ahead? The Amendment Paper doesn’t just impact Anzac Day before 1 p.m. but actually all of Good Friday, all of Easter Sunday, and all of Christmas Day. If we accept the argument that we need that Amendment Paper to change the law for early hours of Anzac Day morning, by default you would also need it for all the other times, and, without that, the entire bill would achieve nothing. I don’t accept that—I believe the bill stands as it is—but I’d like to hear if you have any advice on if the bill would still take effect without the Amendment Paper.

Thank you very much to the members for posing those questions. To Steve Abel: thank you very much for that question. There was certainly a common theme amongst the submitters—a concern raised—around increased alcohol harm. Looking into that, it appears a clear connection in the view of the submitters that any increased access—albeit, I would argue, in this instance a technical increase in access, because they can already access it. All it’s actually doing is not increasing the access to alcohol but removing the requirement to buy a meal at the same time—that’s the guts of it. It doesn’t necessarily relate to an increase in alcohol harm, although I respect the concerns raised.

Can I very quickly say to Carlos Cheung: I referred to you as “Mr Cheung” earlier. It should have been “Dr Cheung”. I apologise for that. I get irritated when people call me “McNulty” instead of “McAnulty”, so fair’s fair.

To Tom Rutherford’s question around cellar doors—a good one. Another anomaly that we found in this rule is that cellar-door operations—which are considered on-licence operations, essentially—were able to operate on Easter Sunday already but not the other days. If we were going to allow them to operate on Easter Sunday but not the other days, that would be inconsistent with the bill, so that’s why that was included.

The issue with RSAs is an interesting one. The ability to be able to sell—I’ll take one step back. RSAs, like other clubs, are not required to have a duty manager on site at all times, but they’re also not allowed to sell to members of the public. What this bill does is carve out a little window on Anzac Day morning so that veterans and people that attend Anzac Day—they may be members of the club or an affiliated club—can bring members of the public with them and buy alcohol. The trade-off, though, to that is that they are required to have a duty manager on at the time, and I think that is a fair trade-off.

To Mr Costley’s question, the truth of the matter is I thought my bill did this already, and that is why I’m comfortable with Mr Luxton’s amendment, because at the end of the day, what we’re saying, the intent of the bill, is that those businesses that are already allowed to operate can do so under normal conditions, but because Anzac Day was a particular carve-out for RSAs, we missed that for the on-licences. My read of Amendment Paper 532 is that it just brings it to be fully consistent with the intent of the bill. Like I said, I honestly thought the bill did that already, and perhaps if we had access to the resources that a Government bill would, we would have tidied it off, but we have the opportunity to tidy it off now. I’ve explained that to the House; that I will be voting for 532, but I’ll be voting no on the other three amendments.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Is this a technical question, Mr Stephenson?

It’s related to—yeah—section 48 and the Amendment Paper 531 and the interplay. Thank you to the member in charge: the Hon Kieran McAnulty. He’s been very generous with his time. Again, I think Mr Rutherford covered it off well. What I’m concerned about, and why I will be supporting Amendment Paper 531, which I think actually retains the original intent of your bill, is because I’m going to end up—I’m from down South, as you people will know: Otago, Southland. I come from the great wine region of Central Otago, and I’m going to end up in my area with the absurd situation where a cellar door will be able to sell off-licence, which is what’s contained in section 48 as amended. Again, I support that, because we went through this whole cellar door, Stuart Smith bill—it was excellent, and I totally support that. But I’m going to end up, in Queenstown, for example, and in Central Otago, with the absurd situation where my local vineyard and winery can sell off-licence on the days, but my supermarket in Queenstown—there’s a bunch of them—in Wānaka, and across Central Otago won’t be able to. I guess that’s why I’ll be supporting 531, which kind of addresses that issue.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It’s not quite a technical question, is it?

TODD STEPHENSON: Yeah, but it’s a technical question in the sense of—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Or are you making a statement?

TODD STEPHENSON: No. I’m getting to the question, Mr Chair. Thank you. I would really ask the member just to reflect on whether he does see that as an inconsistency and whether this Amendment Paper will actually address that issue, particularly in tourist towns.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Cameron Luxton’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 531 be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.