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

Before we start, this is a timed debate, so we’ve got two hours—120 minutes—or until we’ve exhausted all the speakers. What I would ask the whips to do is to let me know who wants to speak from either side and I’ll try and get a balance of support and opposition speakers, so if you could indicate which way they’d like to speak. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’m really pleased that we have got to this point. There have been many attempts previously to have a bill that looks to adjust the rules around liquor licensing at Easter that have not made it to select committee and therefore have not made it to a second reading. I want to start this contribution by acknowledging the work of the Justice Committee, the chair, Andrew Bayly, and members from across the House who contributed to consideration of this bill in the exact spirit that I think the general public would like to see. There were those that supported it, those that didn’t, and those that were on the fence, but everybody actually contributed. They listened to the submissions with respect and they took on board the feedback, and, in fact, I, as the member sponsoring this bill, support every single recommendation that has come through that process.

I also want to start by acknowledging Cameron Luxton because, of course, he had a similar bill that was put to Parliament that did not progress to the select committee and did not progress to a second reading. This bill, of course, is a lot narrower than that, but nevertheless he engaged with parliamentarians across the House and put a lot of work in, and I think it’s probably fair to say that the arguments that he put forward were in people’s minds when they came to consider this bill. So fair’s fair; I want to acknowledge the work you put into that.

The reason I put this bill forward is because I’ve always felt uncomfortable with the idea that for the majority—the vast majority—of the year, liquor licensing in this country is determined on health grounds, but for 3½ days of the year, it is determined for other reasons, and for three of those 3½ days, it apparently appears to be determined by religion. Now, regardless of whether people are religious or not, that is an interesting situation to be in. So the question that I think we all need to consider is why that is the case and, really, the only answer is because it’s always been that way, and is that really a reason to keep something? Is it appropriate for liquor licensing to be determined on the grounds of religion, rather than health, which is the reason for every other day of the year?

Now, the argument about religion is one that came up in submissions quite regularly, and whilst I disagree with the positions put forward, I want to acknowledge and respect those that contributed through that process. The irony from my perspective is that the vast majority of Christian religions actually don’t prohibit the consumption of alcohol on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, or Christmas Day, and yet we have these rules almost assuming that it is sacrilegious or blasphemous, if you like, to do so, despite that being contrary to the practices and the rules.

It is also important to note that this bill does not propose anything other than simply treating the days that are mentioned as any other day of the year. Now, when you consider those that work in the hospitality industry, which has had a hard time of late and which supports this change and hopes that it can be in force by Easter—and, by the way, there’s a chance that that might happen.

If the bill passes today, there are two more members’ days scheduled. As long as there isn’t another bout of urgency that pushes that out, there is a chance that this bill could come into force the day before Good Friday. That would be a really good boost for those hospitality businesses that are looking forward to a good trading Easter, where their staff and those business owners won’t have to go through the farce that they do every other Easter, where not only are they doing their normal job but they are monitoring what people are eating, at what time, and how many drinks they can serve relevant to the number of meals that they have had. Does what they’ve ordered constitute a substantial meal—is a pizza a substantial meal? A roast probably is, but what about a plate of wedges? What about loaded wedges versus wedges? This is where we’re at, and this is what people that are working in the hospitality industry are having to deal with every Easter.

Members will note that the bill as recommended—and, as I’ve indicated, I accept all recommendations that have come through the select committee process—is more narrow in scope than was originally proposed. The original proposal was that those businesses that are already able to operate on those days would be allowed to do so under normal conditions. The rationale for that was a pragmatic one in that all previous attempts to change any other aspect around trading at Easter have not passed. If we want to change the liquor licensing, I wanted to keep it as narrow as possible, and so I wanted to avoid a debate around where do off-licences sit, etc. The reason I originally proposed those that are already able to operate is because off-licences like your bottle store can’t open, but supermarkets can.

But once we started looking into it, it was actually far more complicated than I had anticipated, which is not uncommon with members’ bills. We don’t have the resources as members to get people to go out and do the research and all that sort of stuff.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Leave that to the Justice Committee.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s right, the Justice Committee sorted that out for us. But what became apparent was that with the off-licence delivery service—which is a relatively new thing—currently, the rules are that you can order it on these days, but they can’t deliver it until another day. Now, even though I was saying that the intention of the bill was for those businesses that can already operate, they can already operate, and so we’d actually be allowing delivery of alcohol on those days, but off-licences still couldn’t open, and it was getting very complex. Now, it is straightforward: on-licensed premises—bars and clubs—will be able to operate under normal conditions on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and the morning of Anzac Day.

The reason I’ve included the morning of Anzac Day is because whilst RSAs are allowed to operate on the morning of Anzac Day between 4 a.m. and 1 p.m. to allow veterans, after they’ve attended an Anzac service, to come and have a drink with their comrades, those RSAs can’t sell to members of the general public unless they apply for a special licence. Now, in many smaller communities, this is a real community event, where everybody comes—not just members—and being able to save RSAs the hassle of applying for a special licence so that veterans can share a drink with their comrades as well as their family and as well as their community will save those RSAs a lot of work leading up to Anzac Day and it will save them having to do it every year.

For those that might fear that this is loosening things too much, I want to make one point, which is that one of the recommendations is that we are also adding an additional requirement for RSAs. Clubs are allowed to operate without a duty manager, and it’s an exemption that exists only for clubs, but what we’ve said is that given that we are proposing to allow RSAs to operate to the general public between 4 a.m. and 1 p.m., on that time frame only, because they’re serving the general public, they should be required to have a duty manager like any other on-licence. I think that is a fair trade-off. That was something that came through the select committee work, and I support that.

The key thing here for me is that the advice we got at select committee was that the proposed changes will not increase alcohol harm. If anything, having a consistent approach to the sale of alcohol not only will add consistency but will ensure that the rules are being applied from a health perspective, like they are for all the other days of the year.

I respect those that feel that these days are extremely important and I respect those that feel that we shouldn’t make any changes, but I would just ask them to consider the pragmatic approach that we have taken as a committee to make the changes to apply to those businesses that are already operating so that there won’t be more workers working that are already working, and they’ll just be able to do it like they do every other day of the year. It’ll be a massive boon to the hospitality industry, who are fully supportive of this bill.

I thank those that have supported this bill at first reading and I hope that they will again, and I would encourage members, respectfully, to consider whether they would support it at the second reading. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the first time I’ve stood up to speak on this bill so far, and I want to say from the outset that I will be voting no again. I want to start off by talking about a personal, blanket rule that I decided when I became an MP because I’d thought about a number of situations that I’d be fluffed into, and this is one of them, which is when we’re voting on bills in respect of access to alcohol.

I drink alcohol. I enjoy a drop of wine here and there, and other things as well—I like ouzo. I’m not the alcohol police and I’m not the fun police, but coming from South Auckland and seeing the harm that access to alcohol does to many of our families in South Auckland, that’s what drove me to this decision that as an MP, as a blanket rule personally, I will be voting against bills that allow extra access, or more access, to alcohol. I’m grateful to the National Party for allowing me, because we are a broad church, to have this conscience vote as well.

I would like to say to the member—interestingly enough, one of the strongest points I got from the member’s kōrero just now is that apparently the lack of access to alcohol on these days appears to be determined by religion. Yep, I’ve got the ash on my forehead. It’s Ash Wednesday for Catholics and for Anglicans—we observe this. I want to say that although I practise my faith personally and I know about my relationship with God, for me, overwhelmingly, my decision to vote no is about extra access to alcohol.

About these days that are apparently religious days, who are we trying to kid? About 66 percent of people in New Zealand don’t observe these days, because they’re Christian, religious days. They happen to be originally formed on those beautiful foundations, but it’s OK. We’re in a society where most New Zealanders don’t necessarily observe them for those Christian values, but they are observed. They’re observed in a sense that they, for the most part, are public holidays.

When I was reflecting on this bill—and I discussed it with some close family members—I remember one of them got particularly frustrated and said, “Why do we have to, on these few days, give extra access in earlier times to parents? Why can’t they just hang out with their kids fully engaged, 100 percent, instead of thinking, ‘Where can we go now to get an early drink?’ ” That really resonated with me. I thought that’s kind of hitting the nail on the head for me. Not only, in South Auckland, do I see the harm that that access to alcohol brings, but I also see children that oftentimes are neglected by their parents. I’m not saying the parents are inherently bad people, but they come with their addictions. They come with their abuse—whether it be alcohol or drugs, and as a result, their children are neglected. This is why I feel very strongly about access to alcohol and access to drugs because I’ve seen, firsthand, children that are neglected because their parents are in a very unfortunate situation where they’re addicted to these substances.

I didn’t grow up like that. I’m very blessed that my parents didn’t have these addictions. We had alcohol openly in our home. The first time I tasted whisky, Dad gave me a sip. I was five years old, and I didn’t like it, so I don’t drink whisky.

Glen Bennett: Holy moly!

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes. That’s what Lebanese people do. The Christians allow their children a little bit of access, so it’s not a big deal to us—“Oh my goodness! When I turn 18, I’m drinking alcohol.” Other families are not like that, and so I do not support this bill, because I want the kids to have full access to their parents on these little few days that are left where there are some restrictions on buying alcohol and alcohol consumption. I want the parents to be fully engaged, instead of thinking about leaving or going somewhere earlier so they can have a drink. I don’t want extra access to alcohol. I’m sorry for the businesses that find this frustrating and tedious, but, for me, what’s more important is kids having their parents fully engaged.

I’m sorry to the member across the House—I know you’re fighting fervently for it—but for me personally, I do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, and I want to start with the select committee process, which I personally wasn’t a part of, not being a part of the Justice Committee, but my ever-reliable colleague Todd Stephenson did listen to submitters and did the hard work, engaging and working through these issues carefully. I know that he engaged well with Kieran McAnulty, the honourable member—we won’t go down that track again—who has been extremely helpful in conversations about how this is going through the committee.

Submitters came forward, Todd informs me, with strong support for the bill, but they also raised quite a few concerns. A lot of that is focused on the distinction between on- and off-licences and how this would be affected by the proposed changes. I think the member whose bill this is has outlined that quite well, his thinking through that, in his speech given just now. There were concerns raised about whether having off-licences trading on restricted days would increase harm, given that involves unsupervised consumption—because who could trust adults to operate in this world and grow a sense of responsibility and be punished when they abuse that? As a result, the committee recommended amendments that removed changes to off-licences. In short, these reforms that happened at select committee narrowed it significantly, and I think that that narrowing was unnecessary and quite disappointing, actually. Todd Stephenson made it very clear during the process that the original intent of the bill was the right one, and it has already been signalled to the honourable member in charge that ACT is putting forward amendments at the committee of the whole House stages to restore the intent of the original bill, because if we’re going to fix something, we should just fix it properly.

Now, stepping back from the select committee, I’ll talk about the broader ideas of this bill. The member has acknowledged religious concerns and also concerns being made about health. Now, it’s not unknown to this House that I’ve previously had a member’s bill on this topic. In fact, it’s been alluded to. The health concerns about people having access to supply—the member in his speech didn’t quite say what I want to say right now, which is if you restrict people on days from buying alcohol, they stock up. There is no drop in the amount of alcohol consumed. People stock up beforehand. I don’t know about you, but during the COVID madness, there was a certain run on toilet paper. Now, I didn’t partake in this run on toilet paper, but people overbought toilet paper. We had houses up and down the country full of toilet paper. Do you think that it is healthy and helpful for someone who’s got a troubling connection or relationship with alcohol to have piles of alcohol? I don’t think that is healthy. I think we can make a pretty good supposition that that isn’t an outcome that we want to see. Allowing a stable and predictable supply, I believe—and there is evidence to show this—leads to less harm. I think the member whose bill this is might like to take a stronger stance on that in his defence of it in the future.

The restrictions are relics from our past. They reflect an era when it was considered normal for the Government to micromanage adults who could legally purchase a product. Judging by some of the commentary—again alluding to the bill that I brought through this House and the first reading speech—that is still alive and well in New Zealand. There are those who would quite happily go back to the times of micromanaging New Zealanders’ lives. Thankfully for the people of New Zealand, and unfortunately for those who hold on to relics of the past, New Zealand finds archaic laws, and we have the ability to change them.

Today, licensed premises are allowed to open on these days and serve food. They can serve non-alcoholic drinks, and they can, essentially, operate as usual, but alcohol is restricted in ways that just don’t make sense—adults being treated like children, told what they can eat, when they can eat, and how they can eat. I talked to many people up and down this country during my engagement in the communities that are affected by this type of legislation, when I was working on the Easter-trading restrictions bill that I was working on, and I heard from people saying, “I don’t feel comfortable having to go up to people and say, ‘That’s enough. You haven’t eaten enough.’ ” You’ve got people who are working part-time jobs, university students or young people on their first job, having to go out and talk to a family who are out to enjoy themselves and spend time together on Easter, and wider families, and say, “No, that’s enough. I can’t let you have any more. It doesn’t make any sense. Let me explain this crazy rule to you.” It’s not something that a young person working one of their first jobs or a part-time gig really wants to be going through.

It’s arbitrary, it creates compliance headaches, and it places unnecessary burdens on small businesses. It’s not the big supermarket chains that feel the constrictions and constraints of these rules; instead, it’s the local cafes, it’s your favourite restaurant on the corner, and it’s the family-owned bottle store that you go to. It’s the hospitality operators who are already navigating on extremely tight margins. Most Kiwis who had ever run a business or dealt with compliance have a pretty low tolerance for rules that don’t serve a clear purpose. This archaic rule that we have in place right now does not serve a clear purpose. These rules are very hard to justify in 2026, in a modern, mature, liberal, democratic society. We trust people to vote, to drive, to run businesses, to raise families, and to pay taxes, but for a few specific days of the year, apparently we don’t trust them to buy a bottle of wine.

I’m interested in something that’s at the core of this bill: it’s freedom. It’s allowing people, when you’re licensed, to engage in commerce and operate responsibly. This is something that we should be able to do under normal conditions, even on restricted trading days. If we can find common ground across the House on cutting unnecessary red tape and trusting adults, I genuinely don’t care where the ideas originated, because ultimately it’s about practicality. But we do need to be honest; this bill is only a small change. It’s part of an issue that needs wider reform. It nudges the settings in the right direction, but it only trims around the edge of the problem. It cannot end this conversation here.

When I brought to the House the aforementioned bill that I did, it wasn’t just about alcohol service conditions; it was about the wider issue of restricting trading hours themselves, because they are a route of inconsistency. Across the country, different rules were constraining the way businesses could operate with no justification, other than, “I want to stop somebody doing something.” If we want this to mean something real in the real world, not just on paper, we need to be honest about the scale of the problem. Hospitality businesses are already stretched; a minor tweak is not going to fix that. Unless we’re willing to take a proper look at trading laws as a whole, we’re just nibbling at the edges. We need consistency in this space—consistency between shop trading hours and alcohol law—up and down this country. This bill is a step, but it’s not the destination. As a Parliament, we cannot pat ourselves on the back for passing this while we ignore a wider trading regime that still creates confusion and unnecessary restriction. That conversation has happened but still needs to happen.

Overall, I’m pleased with this bill, and I hope it passes through the House today. It moves in the right direction. I urge all members to support it, and I look forward to the committee of the whole House, where ACT will be proposing amendments to restore the original intent and make New Zealand just that little bit freer. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Congratulations to the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty for having their bill pulled from the biscuit tin. This is a personal vote, and our caucus are all on the same page, and we will be opposing this bill.

The Greens have long fought for workers’ rights. This bill would increase trading days, meaning workers have fewer public holidays, which means less time off with whānau, especially for low-wage workers in our hospitality and retail sectors. Although workers can refuse to work on Easter public holidays and Christmas, refusal to work in our current system where workers have less power compared to their employer is riskier than having a day off.

As the Green spokesperson for mental health and addiction and drug law reform, reducing alcohol harm is something I’m dedicated to. The select committee submission from Alcohol Healthwatch had three key points: one, this bill could further perpetuate the harm caused by alcohol. There is extensive research that tells us that alcohol-related harm in Aotearoa is at unacceptably high levels and causes harm to some of our most vulnerable communities. Two: this bill would increase access to alcohol. This would further promote alcohol availability, contribute to off-licence harm, and could negatively impact our communities. Three: the submission noted that the amendment bill should seek to minimise alcohol-related harm across New Zealand and prevent further harm from happening, where applicable. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. I’d like to congratulate the member for having his bill brought this far, which doesn’t happen often. Congratulations there, Mr McAnulty.

At the first reading of this bill, I voted in favour of taking it to the select committee, but I did have some concerns as to some of the content of the bill. I’ve had a good look at what the Justice Committee has recommended. I am happy to see that a number of my concerns have been addressed, particularly around off-licence trading during those specified times.

I think, in an electorate such as mine, where there is a big tourist influence and we have enormous events over Easter in particular—one coming up is Warbirds over Wanaka. In the past, the hospitality providers in the area have not been able to serve alcohol with any of the food that they provide. This will go some way to addressing some of the concerns that a number of my constituents have raised with me. I’ve been lobbied by both sides of the argument, as I’m sure most of the House has. I’ve given it a lot of thought. I believe that, really, if you can’t be organised enough to have your off-licence purchases organised prior to these few days, you probably shouldn’t be drinking at all, really.

As it stands, I think the amendments done by the select committee address a number of the issues that some of my constituents had. They certainly address the concerns that the hospitality providers throughout the western side of my electorate and the southern part of my electorate had prior to this bill being introduced. For example, I guess, there are some differences in my electorate—compared to one of the previous speakers talking about hers—where a big portion of those that would be seeking hospitality during these days are tourists and are generally used to, in other countries, receiving a full suite of what’s available from the hospitality providers, in the countries they come from or a lot of the countries that they travel through.

I guess I’m happy to commend this bill to the House, and congratulations to the member.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I just want to commence my contribution by firstly saying, I personally don’t drink alcohol. It’s not that I’ve never drunk alcohol; it’s just that—

Hon Erica Stanford: You’re not old enough!

TOM RUTHERFORD: I’m not old enough, says Erica Stanford! Point of order. Ha, ha! We’ll carry on. It’s not that I’ve not ever drunk alcohol but that I’ve just made a conscious decision that it’s just not something I want to do at this time in my life. But it doesn’t mean that I can’t look at a piece of legislation and think, “It’s not about me; it’s about we, and it’s about New Zealand, and it’s also about my community.”

Conscience issues like this are a little bit of a dilemma sometimes for local electorate MPs, because there’s the weigh- up between “Do you stand based on your own individual principles and who you were elected to be in this place, as a member of Parliament?” or “Do you stand based on the views of your community”—or do you try to find some sort of hybrid in the middle and try and do that. It’s a little bit of a challenge you sometimes face on conscience issues like this.

I took the approach to go down a different avenue, and I put out to my local community. I said, “This piece of legislation is coming up for debate. It’s going to be a conscience issue, and I’d love for you to get in touch with me to share your views on both sides of it.” It’s not that I was running a popularity contest locally—“I got 30 views one way and 25 the other, so I’m going to vote that way.”—but it’s actually to ensure that the final position I landed on was in tune with how I thought the majority, or most, of my community was feeling. For the most part, the people who got in touch with me said this is a pragmatic change that needs to happen.

The way we operate at present in New Zealand is incredibly frustrating. It’s, frankly, outdated for 2026, and the argument of a substantial meal, as the member in charge of the bill, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, rightly says—a “substantial” meal—is very, very ambiguous in many, many cases, and rightly so. I was thinking about it while I was sitting here. I was thinking, “What are some examples you could give in that case?” You could go to a pub and have fish and chips, and that probably qualifies as a substantial meal, but what about, rightly so, if you had wedges? Then, if you just had wedges, would that qualify? Probably not, but if you had bacon and cheese and sour cream and sweet chilli on them, does that then count because you’ve added to it? That’s the issue that many hospitality providers face across New Zealand, and I believe it’s, frankly, outdated.

On the Justice Committee, we heard from hospitality groups, business sectors, restaurants, cafes, and bars, who got in touch and said, “We’d love for you to bring about this change.” I credit the member in charge because he was very pragmatic about what may work, what may not work, what the intention was. I do recall him saying something along the lines of “I’ll do pretty much anything to get the bill passed, as long as we can get it into the right shape to make that feasible.” That’s why I think the off-licence change and having that removed is something I’m actually really supportive of.

When I stood for my first speech, in the first reading, I said I’d support it to the select committee and I’d be interested to hear the submissions that were made. After listening to them, I came to the view that I wasn’t supportive of allowing off-licences to operate under these circumstances. I might not go as far as my colleague Miles Anderson, to say you should be more organised or maybe you shouldn’t drink at all, but the intent of the legislation is for our RSAs, our restaurants, and our bars, on long weekends, to be able to serve to their patrons an alcoholic beverage if they so wish. Let’s just remember it’s a choice. Nobody is saying that on Easter Sunday or Good Friday, or whatever it might be, that because this may well be legalised, you are now required to consume alcohol. We’re just providing patrons with the choice to make for themselves, and I think that’s a positive step.

One of the ones that really hits home for me, though, is the operations that our RSAs face every year on 25 April with Anzac Day. Many of them either already have special licences or they have to apply for exemptions, and it’s a bureaucratic and onerous task that they have to undertake. These are the men and women who served our country, and actually just yesterday, we passed legislation that allows Anzac Day to now recognise everybody who has served New Zealand in conflict, which is a really positive step. Isn’t it only right that, if they want to recognise their service to New Zealand on 25 April, they should be able to do so in a way that they feel comfortable? We’ve also put in a really pragmatic step, through the Justice Committee, which is to say that, for RSAs to be able to serve alcohol on Anzac Day, they must have a duty manager present. I actually think that is good practice and good lawmaking because we’re saying: if you’re going to allow alcohol consumption, it is really important that you have someone there who is, effectively, responsible for the facilities that are operating and allowing that consumption to take place. In my view, this clarifies the law and makes it quite black and white, quite clear for people across New Zealand, what now can happen and cannot happen.

As I said I would support it to the select committee, and I was comfortable with the changes that we made on the Justice Committee. I actually have to say it was one of the most enjoyable pieces of legislation I’ve sat on with a select committee so far, because I felt the work of the committee really worked for the benefit of the legislation. It wasn’t a political game of back and forth, trying to get wins and scores on the board. It was actually about what was best for the legislation and what was best for New Zealand and to try to get this right. I actually respect people like my colleague Rima Nakhle, who, even though she’s a member of the Justice Committee and has an entirely different point of view to me, still engaged in trying to get the legislation to some place that she might have been able to see workable. I actually think that’s a really important and healthy part of our democracy and the way we legislate in New Zealand: that we can have members of the committee who may not have agreement with the legislation but still want to engage in the process, rather than just saying, full stop, “I don’t support it, so I’m not going to bother or put in any time.” I credit Rima Nakhle in particular for the way she worked on the legislation, even though fundamentally she didn’t support it.

The member in charge made a really good point around why it’s important to differentiate between on-licences and off-licences, because, in 2026, Uber Eats, DoorDash, and many other food or drink delivery services are available to us today on our phones. Why is it that you may prohibit, for example, supermarkets from being able to operate and sell alcohol but you could, hypothetically, have Uber Eats deliver it to your own home address and you could be able to collect it there? In trying to sort that out and make it clearer, I think we’ve done that through the select committee.

Just in my last couple of minutes, I want to acknowledge those who made the time to submit to the select committee, who made the time to make their voices heard and to get in touch with us and to share their views. I actually found it really worthwhile because many of them had worked their way through the legislation and said, “Just from what we’ve picked up or what we’ve seen in it, we don’t think this may work the way you think it may work or that you had intended for it to work.” They provided some really pragmatic solutions, which I think we endeavoured our best, as members of the committee, to take on board and to bring about pragmatic and practical change.

As I said at the start of my contribution, my role as a local electorate MP is, I feel, to listen and understand the views of my local community, to be their representative in this place, and to stand up for their views that they shared with me. The overwhelming feedback I heard was from people in support of this legislation. That’s not to say that I dismissed those who got in touch around their opposition, particularly those who got in touch based on religious points of view and how they feel around alcohol consumption, particularly on days like Christmas Day, for example. It’s just to say that this enables people to have choice. These people are adults. It gives them the opportunity to make a decision based on the circumstances for them.

We recognise the harm that alcohol plays in our communities, and that’s always something front of mind with this legislation, but this is ultimately about allowing people on days like Anzac Day and Good Friday to just make their own individual choices around whether they would like the opportunity to have a beer or a wine or something else if they like to enjoy the hospitality of our community. I support and commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in this personal vote on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. Some of the views that I’ll express through this speech are some that also would be expressed by my colleagues if they were here to speak tonight.

First, I congratulate the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty and the way he dealt with this through the Justice Committee—being a member of the Justice Committee myself. It was highly skilled, in a way, your experience of just trying to manage this the best you could. It is a subject, in thinking about it today and how I would even speak to it, that kind of pulls at your heartstrings, because you’re torn in different directions.

My reading on this has been a little bit different from what some of the other members have spoken to. My feeling through the select committee process was that we actually heard the majority of people oppose this legislative change. We heard, yes, from hospitality in particular, and their support for the bill. But through agencies, such as the Salvation Army, it was very clear how they opposed this extension to these 3½ days.

I want to say, from the start, that there is a significance around these days, and I would never stand in this House and say that I’m a very religious person at all, but I respect the fact of where the tradition, especially around Easter and Christmas, comes from. I think, regardless of religious background or beliefs we have, and I know from my childhood, we believe through tradition, even if it’s not religion, just that those days hold significance. And for those thoughts, especially when I think around Christmas Day, it’s, for me, family day—it’s as simple as that. It’s around families spending time together.

The one disappointing thing I did take from, as we did try to massage this through the Justice Committee, was whether the bill was too wide or too narrow. I’ve heard the sponsor of the bill say that this is a more narrow approach, but I’d actually say this is still quite a big bite of the cherry here because we are talking Easter, Anzac, and Christmas Day. I thought, maybe, the member, through select committee, may have gone to the approach—and, maybe, if it got to this point of the committee of the whole House—of actually dropping out Christmas Day and Anzac Day. Not saying that would still get my support, but I think it would have been a slightly different discussion if we were discussing just Easter and some of those anomalies around the meals and trying to get the hospitality side around Easter sorted out.

But, at the moment, as we sit, the legislation as we have it, and in this bill, was really touching on on-licence, and I think that got confused. I, again, to the member, that off-licence stuff—obviously, on Christmas Day we’re not going to see supermarkets and that kind of stuff opened anyway but it was trying to massage it through on the on-licence and on those businesses that were already opening. But, again, I would say, through our legislation that we’ve got at the moment, even though it may frustrate some people, there is a balance between practicality and serving tradition. In that sense, I think, as much as some hospitality owners may struggle with aspects of the legislation, it does give that balance. At the moment, at least on on-licence, you can have a meal, and you can serve and can buy alcohol. It’s not like there isn’t a way not to get that scenario. This scenario here, basically, opens the floodgates a lot wider than what we already have.

If we go to something like Anzac Day: on Anzac Day, their members already have the ability to consume alcohol, and there is the ability for RSAs to have that special licence. We heard, through RSAs, actually, quite a concern—even though the member was trying to do the adjustments—that RSAs got into a routine of already doing that special licence and managing that situation. I think, for a lot of Kiwis, a lot of New Zealanders, that 4 a.m. to 1 p.m., how important—if the licence can be obtained, the fact is I don’t think you’re going to see many people wanting to sit in those situations consuming large amounts of alcohol anyway.

To the hospitality industry—there has been a lobby around this. I think all MPs would have seen that email today. I understand what they are asking for, but you’ve got to ask yourself, too: you’ve got 361½ other days of trade; where do you draw the line? I think where I stand is you draw the line in our tradition and in our values. We already have, as I say, the balance of the legislation that is already in place.

I do want to touch on, again, the Salvation Army around some of the other submissions we’ve heard around addiction and harm. No one can take it away that alcohol is the number one drug for causing harm in our communities. I think, over time, we understand that, and trying to add that opportunity for a lot of members of our community, this would actually make that situation—especially for those organisations that are dealing with this at the coalface; they are the people that are picking up and having to look after and treat people and help people. So, again, I don’t think that that is the way to go.

On summing up, I personally oppose this bill. I know the member has tried very hard to massage this through. But again, I just want to make the point that this bill has not narrowed; it has, actually, widened. If you actually read it, even around the cellar door exemptions, we’ve now gone from restricted days being on Easter Sunday to actually opening that up to every day. So the restriction hasn’t got narrower; it’s actually got wider. On that, I think the legislation as we have it at the moment, there is the balance, there is the practicality, and we are serving our tradition. It is significant days that we are trying to muddle with here, and from my point of view, we should keep what we’ve got and use that the best we can.

Well, thank you very much. It’s a great pleasure to speak on this sale and supply of alcohol on special days—we call it in shorthand. Everyone’s been congratulating the Hon Kieran McAnulty, and he deserves the congratulations. It’s a great bill and it fits very nicely with my cellar door bill. I think, for me anyway, and I do respect the views of others—that’s why we have conscience votes—this debate has been approached in a very adult way. I think it’s fantastic to hear the different views, and we should celebrate that. But, in my view, I support this, not only because it actually assists wineries and cellar doors, and broadens it out a bit, but, for me, the practicalities, which have already been touched on, are really quite important. If you’ve ever been in that business, you find out how difficult it is to actually manage. We are a tourist economy—one of our big export earners is international tourists—and they don’t know what Anzac Day is, mostly. It’s not disrespectful; that’s just what it is.

While we are a country built on Christian values, we still are a Christian country, and I really respect and celebrate those values. But, over time, things change and it’s not as strictly observed by people as it has been in the past—some other Christian countries have quite liberal alcohol laws, so I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. I think this bill has been, obviously, very well thought out. I note that the member in charge has, I’d say, bent over backwards to make sure that this has been successful. The select committee has done fantastic work on this and it’s been cooperative—it may be tightened a little more than, perhaps, the member would like, but I think it’s in pretty good shape.

I just want to give you one small example, which I know that Miles Anderson, my colleague from Waitaki, touched on in terms of the major event that’s coming up at Easter in Wānaka. In Marlborough, the classic fighters at Easter—it’s very frustrating for international tourists who’ve come around the world to celebrate these classic fighters in a wine region, our biggest wine region in New Zealand, and they’re not able to go to a cellar door or a winery to have a glass of wine on Easter Sunday. So it’s frustrating from that perspective, and you can explain it all you like to them, but basically it’s impacted on their tourist experience while they’re here, and I think this is going to fix that. I don’t need to take up any more time in the House. I just want to congratulate you, Kieran; I know I’m supposed to use your full name—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Stuart.

STUART SMITH: —and I think it’s a great bill and I’m supporting this with great pleasure.

Thank you, it’s a pleasure to take a short call on this bill which I will be supporting, and I did just want to make a small contribution to explain why I’m supporting the bill and also just to correct a few comments around what the bill actually does and doesn’t do.

Can I congratulate my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty on a bill, hopefully, tonight getting successfully through its final reading. I just want to take a short time to speak to it. I’ve supported this bill all the way through. There was one concern I had at first reading, though, which has been addressed, and I probably wouldn’t have supported it tonight if this hadn’t been addressed. That was around—it’s been mentioned by others—the off-licences, particularly supermarkets. That is where real harm can be caused; when we hear from people who have to mop up the mess as a response to people who have consumed too much alcohol. The ability for people to buy large amounts at a supermarket is a big part of that problem, and I do not support extending to supermarkets when they currently can’t sell alcohol. So I think there has been a really good change and that is why I’m continuing to support the bill.

I just want to be clear, though, what the bill doesn’t do: it doesn’t extend trading days. I just want to be really clear that those who can operate and sell alcohol will be able to continue doing that. Those that currently can’t operate and sell alcohol won’t be able to. There has been some concern raised from some members tonight that this is going to extend out those trading days. It’s not. Again, if it did, it would also lose my support for the bill. I want to be really clear about that. All it does is say that if you want to buy a beer at a pub, you don’t need to buy a massive, large meal to go alongside it. If you’re a person who has literally decided that you want to pop in for a drink and you don’t actually want to buy the enormous, big roast, you’re now going to be able to do that. It’s a small pragmatic change which to me makes sense.

What really makes sense is the changes around Anzac Day. I do have to disagree with the members from New Zealand First. Attending Anzac Day events every year, as I’d say probably all of us in the House do, an important part afterwards is actually having the yarn and we drink. It’s a day of the year where I normally leave my car somewhere and take a taxi home. I won’t be this year—it’s election year so it’s a non-drinking year for me—but it is a tradition and, actually, it’s one day of the year where RSAs won’t have to apply for a special licence, and I think that’s quite a pragmatic, reasonable response that will ease some administrative burden on our RSAs, on a day that’s really important for veterans and those who support them and where we acknowledge them. So, to me, that’s a really good change in the bill. I don’t need to take up any more of the House’s time and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, sir. Look, bottom line up front, I’m standing to support the bill and more wholeheartedly than my vote indicated at first reading. I voted for it at first reading but I didn’t get the chance to speak, mostly because I think votes that come down to a personal vote like this that have a range of opinions deserve to get tested at select committee. I had some questions and here’s the day I’m agreeing with Rachel Boyack, particularly around the off-licence—

Hon Member: A lot of agreement.

TIM COSTLEY: Easy now. I didn’t think it was that bad! I’m agreeing with you: it’s fine, very cordial. [Interruption] But I think—easy now. I think they deserve to be drawn out and the off-licence was of particular concern.

Now, I guess, cards on the table; if I go back two Easters, two years ago, we were away for the night with the family on Good Friday and went out for dinner, took the kids out for dinner and it was a bit early to eat and we said, “Oh well, we’ll just have a drink while we’re waiting.” And they said, well, “You can’t have a drink.” I said, “Well I’m going to have a meal in half an hour but can we get a drink?” “No.” I said, “Well, we were after some garlic bread as well, so—”. “Well, that’s not really enough.” And then we came into this weird negotiation where I was like, “Well, what about two garlic breads?” “It’s not really because you’re getting two drinks.” “Two garlic breads and fries for the kids.” “Well, they’re not drinking.”

I just thought, this is crazy; you’re going to sell me the drink eventually. I’m going to have a quiet gin on Good Friday, eventually, with my dinner. Does it really matter? So it seems crazy that in a country where tourism is one of our biggest exports—and we heard Stuart Smith speaking about the local experience in Marlborough, certainly on the Kāpiti Coast where we love seeing visitors come in and spend their tourist dollars in our region. It seems crazy that we will be putting people off.

Now, I get that we want to hold some days as sacred and I agree with that. I am right into Christmas and Easter being special days, and it was one of the reasons, again, I wanted to see Cameron Luxton’s bill to select committee; I didn’t support shops just being opened every Christmas and Easter, but I thought there were bits that were worth teasing out in there for the same reason. So I do want to keep these days as special, but as other members have said, if they’re going to be open anyway and they’re going to be selling a drink anyway, what are we actually gaining by doing this?

The point of difference I would make is I was less concerned about the supermarkets and more concerned about your other off-licences—the Bottle-O down at the shops that was open. I would argue that potentially there’s harmful drinking that can come out of there, but if harmful drinking is the reason not to do it, I get that that’s a good thing; we don’t want to see harm that comes from alcohol. I fully understand that. But if they’re going to do that, they could have bought it the night before; they can buy it the next day. I’m not convinced, and, in fact, when I read the select committee report, the evidence that they were presented—and it’s written in the select committee report—says that actually the impact on harm by passing this legislation is negligible, if any.

Please correct me if I’ve read that wrong, but, actually, there is no impact to harm here. It was kind of maybe to make ourselves feel better and they go and cover it up in the supermarkets and we feel like we’ve suddenly hidden the problem for a day, but I’m not convinced that pragmatically it actually made a difference.

Now, I support the change. In fact, removing the off-licence in total is something that gets my support for this bill because I was worried about people—on Anzac Day morning, I don’t think you need to be going down to the local bottle shop to buy a drink, but I do think that it’s completely reasonable that people would be able to have a drink on Anzac Day when they’re at the RSA. Look, maybe it’s a means for another member’s bill to go into the tin, but it seems crazy that every RSA around the country—where it’s an official RSA—has to apply for their special licence. Couldn’t we just write in legislation? Maybe it can’t fit in this, I don’t know. If I get advice that it can, I’m happy to put an Amendment Paper on the Table at the committee stage, but couldn’t we just say that every RSA is allowed by law to sell drinks between Dawn Parade and whatever the time is—1 p.m.?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: This sorts it out.

TIM COSTLEY: But they still need a special licence, I believe?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: No, no.

TIM COSTLEY: Oh, they won’t even need a special licence. That is fantastic. I vote for it twice, in that case, because it seems so nonsensical and it’s kind of our tradition; it’s an Anzac thing—maybe not in the liberal way that Australians might like to celebrate it, but it’s the right thing to do and it’s the way that a lot of people will actually spend time to remember their mates. Certainly I think of going to Anzac Day parades as a kid and seeing the old diggers in there reminiscing over a beer. Maybe it’s a generational thing, maybe it’s not, but over a beer, people relax, they unwind, and maybe can share some of those memories and let their guard down just a little bit.

So I think there is a pragmatic balance that we can find between recognising a day, keeping it as sacred, whether that’s because of our Christian beliefs and wanting to support Good Friday and Easter Sunday—

Hon Member: Christmas.

TIM COSTLEY: —sorry, and Christmas Day—and say that these are special days for us, but at the same time acknowledging the reality that, actually, the bar’s open anyway, the shops are, the restaurants are open anyway. You can buy the drink. There were just kind of rules that maybe at one point in time made us feel better about it, but didn’t make a meaningful change. I think this is a sensible way to address that issue.

The other perspective, which is the Anzac Day perspective, is it just feels like the right thing to do. It doesn’t change—what I like about this compared to, say, the member’s bill that ultimately didn’t pass a few months ago is it’s not carte blanche, it’s not every shop can open, it’s not tackling everything; it’s very focused. Ultimately, that’s what I think should earn the support of all members in the House, but certainly of our communities. The consistent feedback I hear is there are some rules that just don’t quite seem to make sense, and if we can work together and address that, then that’s fine.

I hear a few members down in this corner that maybe take a different view, and that’s fine. That’s the great thing about a rare bill like this, where we get to have a personal vote, come and share our perspective, speak truly on behalf of the community that we represent, but also to speak as members that were elected here sometimes just to have an opinion and to stand up for the things that you believe in, to draw the line where you think it should be drawn, and in that process to work across the House to deliver good legislation. The Easter trading bill didn’t get through, but the more nuanced, focused bill about drinking—based on the speeches I’ve heard in this House—looks like it is set to progress, and I think that’s a good thing.

I want to leave time for others to contribute as I know there are a number who are keen, but I just want to reaffirm, as I think I probably won’t get the chance to speak again on this bill as it moves through the stages, that I’m giving my support to it not because I don’t hold these special holidays as sacred—as a serviceman, I hold Anzac Day as sacred; as a Christian, I hold Easter and Christmas as special days—but I believe that people that are going out anyway to a restaurant should be able to have a drink, whether or not the dinner has been served. I believe that you should be able to drink responsibly, as you would for any other day, noting that you have to have a responsible manager at the RSA on Christmas and noting that it’s really targeting what you can do. Most critical for me was the removal of the off-licences. I didn’t want to see that; that went too far for me.

I commend the work of the Justice Committee in refining this bill, and it’s now something I can stand with and put wholehearted support behind. I’ll be voting in favour of this bill and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Can I recommend the member only vote once. There is a Standing Order against plural voting.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the bill this evening. I want to start off by just acknowledging the process that we have been through through the Justice Committee, and the rational improvement to the bill that that process delivered. I think my colleague Tom Rutherford spoke very well about what that process was like. I think when we are in select committee—when we aren’t in our party colour corners, where we are able to ask questions and work towards an objective as a team—we end up with better legislation. I felt the select committee did that. I felt the member Kieran McAnulty approached the select committee and engaged in that process really well and I just want to acknowledge the member for that. I certainly learnt a thing or two about taking a complex—in that it isn’t unanimously supported across the House—bill to the select committee and being willing to negotiate changes that would make it more palatable to the House.

I think the RSA component of that is part of the bill that clearly has support across the House and maybe as a standalone would unanimously find its way through the House, because I’m sure members have all been at RSAs on Anzac morning where drinks have been consumed—and that is part of Anzac tradition here in New Zealand.

I take, potentially though, a slightly different view to my colleague Tom Rutherford about being elected an MP and what the role of an MP is to do on a conscience issue. That’s not to say that he’s right and I’m wrong or vice versa. It’s that I take the view that we are elected to this House as representatives, with people knowing who we are, what we stand for, where we come from, and the sort of approach that we’re likely to bring to a discussion. I think anyone that knows me in my part of the world knows that sometimes I bring the contrarian view to the table, but also that I am, at heart, a traditionalist. I think that there is somewhere in the conversation about Christmas and Easter that I get nervous. I get nervous that while it is rational, potentially, to make some of these changes, and while it is broadly acceptable to many members of this House, it’s one step further towards views that have been expressed as part of this debate about why have any restrictions, ultimately, around Easter and Christmas Day at all. That is a concern to me.

I think that there is a respect that we can have for differing views, for different perspectives, around what built this nation. On Monday afternoon and Monday evening, I spent time taking letters around to Chinese constituents and businesses wishing them all the best for Chinese New Year. It was really clear in some of the conversations I had with business owners of Chinese descent about what they would be doing if they were with their family, potentially in other places around New Zealand where family members were, or back home in China if they’d headed home. A couple expressed to me that this was the time of the year that normally they would like to have travelled home and been with family.

It made me take pause around what some things do in the context of being at the fabric of a nation, and part of the fabric of this country is Easter and Christmas. There’s something special about Easter and there’s something special about Christmas. Now, for some of us, that specialness comes from a view we have as Christians. For others, it comes from a view of that being part of the fabric of New Zealand. As I’m sure other members in this House have, I’ve been lucky enough to spend time overseas to have Christmas overseas and experience Christmas in other places, and I was sharing this with a colleague earlier this evening. I remember one Christmas Day when I was living in South Africa, where I met my wonderful wife and we had our eldest son Angus. On Christmas Day we’d forgot something we needed for Christmas dinner and I hopped in the car and I went down the road and I bought it at Woolworths. While I was standing there in Woolworths looking at the team at the checkout—not many people in the Woolworths at the time—I just took a pause and went, “If I was in New Zealand right now, I wouldn’t be able to do this. And, actually, that’s a good thing.”

There is a good thing about us having times where we as a nation say, “This is part of the fabric of our country.” I know that this bill is not allowing that to happen, and I understand that. But there are New Zealanders who are legitimately concerned that any changes around Easter and Christmas taking us a step further to the views being expressed while I’m standing speaking in this House, trying to be respectful about something that I know different people have very different views on—and we should be allowed different views on. But there is a place, I believe, for us to say this is the way things happen, have happened, and will continue to happen here in New Zealand.

Without going over the details of the bill that have been traversed widely by members already this evening, what I wanted to make sure was added to the discussion is that in my view, and in the views of constituents that that I’ve talked to about this issue and in the view of many New Zealanders, you can’t—“you shouldn’t” maybe is a better word—stand up in a debate in this House and simply say Christmas and Easter should be open slather.

I acknowledge that the member Kieran McAnulty has been very respectful about the way he has traversed this part of the question through the select committee. But there are other members who have expressed the wider view on where this should lead. I feel uncomfortable not standing up in the House this evening, along with some of my colleagues who share this view, and saying there is a line and it is OK for us in New Zealand to draw that line and say, “This is the way we do things here.” I therefore do not commend this bill to the House this evening, and I think I’ll leave it there.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to give a contribution. For the past hour, I’ve been listening really closely to members across the House to provide a view according to the wishes of their constituents or their beliefs or their own personal circumstances. I really appreciate that we’ve had a really wide view of contributions. I do want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty for bringing this forward. In the first reading, again, I listened and also had discussions with colleagues in terms of my own community.

I’m just going to give you a little bit of background as to working in the space of listening to contributions when I was with council, and also just give you an illustration of what it’s like in South Auckland, of what it’s like in Māngere when we’ve had to deal with alcohol consumption, alcohol harm, workers’ rights, and especially with our young people who unfortunately have had too much wide access. Some of the young people have been quite creative as to how they have purchased alcohol, even though they’re minors. Then, there have been a number of issues that they’ve had because of consumption and other things that they’ve taken home, problems in the home, getting police involved. So there’s a whole sort of raft of issues.

My experience with alcohol off-licences and on-licences in South Auckland and in Māngere is we actually have a big business community who are very responsible for the product of alcohol around trading laws and also the restrictions and when you have to request identification. So there’s been a raft of issues.

I was really interested in listening to members’ contributions and understanding the conscience vote, because there is a place for alcohol. The community that I serve, that I come from, is quite religious. That’s how I’ve been raised: in the church, in the community with very strong views from parents, and then I’ve grown with a lot of professionals. I just wanted to give a little bit of an illustration of where I’ve come from and the strong Christian background and also religion. The reason why I say that there is a place for alcohol is because people in my family and people in my rohe enjoy a bit of happy juice, whether that’s low alcohol beers and the like. Once upon a time, I was in that case, but I no longer consume alcohol; I’m having a few health challenges.

I wanted to get up and raise the strong beliefs that I hold as a member of Parliament and that some of those views are not reflected by members of my community. I’ve had quite a wide conversation as to the impact of the legislation. I also was interested in the select committee and just listening to some of the contributions, but also the amendments.

I really appreciate that my colleague Kieran McAnulty has had a very open conversation and I’ve listened also as to why he’s brought this bill forward. I really appreciate that there is always another viewpoint. I will be voting against the legislation, in particular because of my strong views. I arrived here in Parliament because of the support from my community and also just the different things I’ve done in my journey to get here.

Unfortunately, alcohol has been quite an awful topic to deal with in my local community. I’ve seen far too many bar fights. I’ve seen far too many young people in my local community really affected and really impaired in their decision making. But I do stand because members of my own family really like happy juice. We call it happy juice because we restrict our young people that are not of age to consume.

I welcome the contributions that I’ve heard from across the House from members that do support and from members who will be voting against. I welcome that, in this process of a conscience vote, members get to have the opportunity to say their views in a respectful way. Up and down the country, it’s really helpful to listen to those views because not everyone lives in South Auckland, so it’s really helpful to understand the pros and cons and then be able to come forward and stand and be able to give a contribution because of my personal beliefs and because I’ve listened to the wishes of constituents.

Māngere has a very high youth population, and members of the police do an amazing job in my local community. Last weekend, I attended the Pacific Wardens dinner to acknowledge the service that they do. The Māngere Pacific Wardens has been going for nearly 40 years. One of the things that the wardens shared with me last weekend was the severity of our young people in terms of when they’ve had alcohol consumption and the like. It’s not just that type of substance that they are taking; there’s much more things worse than alcohol. Listening to them in terms of safety of our community members—and it’s actually quite unfortunate that in my electorate, we’ve still got a number of off-licences which we seem to have the biggest issue with in my electorate office.

But I really appreciate and I want to acknowledge the work that my colleague, the Hon Kieran McAnulty has done. I’ve really appreciated listening to all the contributions. However, one of the things in my local community is I have an obligation to serve our young people, and our young people have got some big challenges in terms of their decision making, in particular when they consume alcohol. That might not be relevant for the bill, but I wanted to stand and just acknowledge every contribution in the House tonight, and acknowledge my colleague for all of his work in the community and also for talking to our members as to why he has brought forward this bill and his views. It’s really helpful to understand. However, given that I have quite strong religious beliefs, I appreciate getting the opportunity to stand up and give my contribution. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I just want to clarify for members—I think the previous speaker mentioned that this was a two-hour debate. Every second reading is a two-hour debate. Being a personal vote, there was an allowance made for sharing of the speeches to make sure everyone got the opportunity to speak who wanted to speak. It doesn’t have to go for two hours, it’s not a timed debate—just so if members were keeping an eye on the clock. But, of course, the two hours will mean that we’ll be voting at about 10 o’clock, from the time we started. So, members, just to make sure we’re all working off the same knowledge base.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it gives me pleasure to rise tonight and speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. Quite a title, Mr McAnulty.

I want to say, first up, you will be getting 11 votes from ACT in support of this bill tonight. I hold the proxies for our entire caucus. So, again, you should take some delight, maybe, that ACT will actually be voting for a Labour member’s bill tonight. Again—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Like the good old days!

TODD STEPHENSON: Thank you. Yeah, Roger Douglas would be proud.

I want to say, again, I was lucky enough to be on the Justice Committee. Again, I actually sat by Mr McAnulty quite a few times when he would come to the select committee when we were hearing evidence and discussing his bill. I do want to say he engaged constructively. Again, I think earlier in the night my colleague Cameron Luxton obviously talked about the disappointment that he didn’t get his own bill up, but we do see this as an opportunity to advance freedom and advance, actually, making New Zealand just a little bit easier to do business and live your life the way you want to. So that’s, again, why we’ll be supporting it as we indicated in the select committee report.

Again, as Cameron Luxton said earlier, we will be putting in some amendments at the committee of the whole House. Mr McAnulty, I know we already signalled that earlier, and that’s, of course, our prerogative because we do have a concern about this off-licence, on-licence issue, and that’s been well canvassed tonight. In fact, during the select committee process, we actually discovered—because, again, last year we actually passed Stuart Smith’s bill related to wineries, and them being able to sell alcohol—

Tom Rutherford: Cellar door!

TODD STEPHENSON: Yes, the cellar door bill. We actually discovered that if we didn’t make some changes, we would actually undo the good work that we had done last year. So we’re actually in the situation where the bill that is coming before the House tonight does allow off-licences in very limited circumstances related to wineries. Again, being from Central Otago and Southland, that’s obviously a great advantage.

But I have the concern—and, again, I think many towns and communities around the country have the concern—that a supermarket that sells alcohol will have a problem, because, again, in Queenstown, it can trade on these days, but it will have to kind of close its alcohol section just on these days. So, again, that’s where we see some issues. We’ll see what we can resolve in the committee of the whole House.

Another thing I picked up tonight, and I just want to make sure people are crystal clear—and I’d actually ask the Greens to maybe reconsider their position—that no one is going to be forced to work any more or any less than they already are. Again, we talked about this in select committee: these are businesses that are already opening. Employees are already turning up to work. They’re already going to be there serving their community, and that might be a restaurant or a pub that is already going to be open.

So they’re already there. They’re not being asked to work any more. But what it does mean—and, again, Cameron Luxton talked about this, as did others tonight, and in fact the member in charge of the bill talked about it—is that they’re not going to have to make arbitrary decisions about whether people ordered enough food or didn’t order enough food. So I just want to be clear: no one’s going to be working any more or any less than they already were, and so we’re just trying to make it easier for these businesses to operate under fewer restrictions and actually just carry on like any other day of the year.

The other point I would make is that there’s been a bit of talk tonight about respecting people’s beliefs and what they think. And, look, in ACT, we totally agree with that, right? It’s what our party is actually about: people living the lives the way they want and being able to think about things differently maybe to others. But having your own views doesn’t mean you should actually impose those views on others, and that’s where we obviously have issues with these restrictions. We’re saying: absolutely, if you don’t want to go out for a drink on Christmas Day or Easter, that’s absolutely your choice. But if I choose to, or my colleague Cameron Luxton chooses to, or someone else in this House chooses to, they should have that option. If a business chooses to be open on those days and serve people who want to take that up, they should be able to. So, again, we very much see this as being about freedom and choice, and it doesn’t mean we’re going to be disrespecting the way others think about issues or want to approach issues. But we don’t think you should be forced to live a particular way.

The other thing I just want to cover off too is, again, obviously we’re not dealing with trading restrictions, but in Cameron Luxton’s bill we actually didn’t touch Christmas Day and Anzac Day; that was actually out of scope for his bill while it’s in scope for this bill. It was literally around trying to sort out the Easter holidays—it’s actually Good Friday and Sunday—which is very confusing across the country.

Again, in a sense, Mr McAnulty’s bill actually goes a little bit further, which we’re quite comfortable with, in terms of dealing with Christmas Day and Anzac Day. Again, there’s been a bit of talk about Anzac Day. A lot of us in the House will actually attend our local Anzac Day commemorations and turn up for a drink, which is all great, but, again, I think people are choosing to actually partake in that, and I think that’s actually a really strong illustration of why we want more freedom. Interestingly, obviously, Anzac Day has now become a really great celebration across the country, and people choose to partake; we don’t force them to partake. What we’re doing is actually allowing them also to enjoy a drink on that really special day.

I’m not going to go on too much more, because I’ve kind of ensured that ACT’s position is on the record. You know, we are for more freedom, this bill is in the direction of more freedom, and so we look forward to continuing its debate through the Parliament, and we look forward to delivering you 11 votes tonight, Mr McAnulty.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t certain that I would take a call on this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill—or “special days” is another way of putting it—because I actually found myself quite torn around this, initially. Part of my instincts as a medical professional is to immediately try to think of every way we can to restrict people’s access to alcohol because of the harm that I’ve seen through my professional career, even just for everyday people who you wouldn’t expect to struggle with their addiction to alcohol—and then we see the impact in the community.

However, this bill is not about this; this bill is about personal freedoms and choice. That is actually one of the underlying values of the National Party and one of the things I hold very dear. It is what brings me to this side of the Chamber, because I believe in autonomy and that the individual should be able to make their own decisions.

When it comes to choices around alcohol, for people who are adults, even though they may make decisions that we don’t agree with or approve of, and even if we think that they should be making different choices, the key thing is that it is their choice to make. The imposition of the moralistic views of other people, whilst I respect people’s values and the position that they hold from a religious or other point of view—for me those have benefits in their own way. But applying those perspectives to other people’s choices in a society where we consider ourselves to be not actually that bound by religion—although it is a part of our society, we are a secular society, and that’s something that we value, and that’s something that I’ve always valued. Even though I would consider myself a Christian, I would not consider myself a particularly good practising Christian all the time, and I wouldn’t hold those positions over anybody else. Having the ability to make your own choices in life is a key part of being an adult and a human. It is strange for me to be agreeing so much with Cameron Luxton over here—we often disagree on many things—but, again, this is a really interesting debate where we do get to see where people stand.

Another reason that I was a little bit torn on this debate is, of course, around the Anzac Day thing. I personally have never bought a drink on Anzac Day.

Tim Costley: You’ve had a couple.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: I’ve had quite a few, though, so to me it’s not about—I’ve never been aware of whether there’s a licence or not a licence or what’s going on.

Hon Member: How many did you have?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Well, we start at, you know, dawn with the rum and coffee, and it goes from there!

Tim Costley: Do you remember much after that?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: I don’t have many good stories that I can tell from Anzac Days because not all of them are worth telling and, you know, I can’t remember all of them. That’s not necessarily a good thing.

We do have a culture within the Defence Force of overconsumption sometimes, and so I have been tossing up where I stand on this. But when it comes down to it, ultimately, for me, it’s about personal freedom and choice. It is about respecting the autonomy of individuals to make those choices for themselves. It’s about the fact that this bill is not going to increase alcohol-related harm. It’s not something where making these restrictions in this way has done anything about alcohol behaviour. It doesn’t do anything about the amount that people consume. It doesn’t do anything about the fact that in our society, we have a poorly set up response to the medical problem that is addiction in this country, whether that be through alcohol or other drugs. We have insufficient services to be able to deal with people with chronic addictions, and that is not going to be fixed or influenced in any way by this bill. So when it comes to talking about the harms of alcohol, I don’t believe it’s a relevant point to this question.

When I think, “What does my community think?”, well, my community of Banks Peninsula is extremely varied and a cross-section of New Zealand. It’s also a really engaged electorate and we had the highest enrolment at the last general election and one of the highest turn-outs. I know there will be many of my constituents who will be interested in what’s going on and watching these debates and wondering where their local MP sits. I will be voting in favour of this bill this evening. Although nothing relating to alcohol is simple, this is a bill where I think it’s more clear to me where the direction should go, and I hope that there’s enough support around the House to be able to get this bill through this evening.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I’ve decided to take two more five-minute calls and then we’ll go to the vote.

Look, at one level this seems to be a fairly innocuous bill, taking a bit of the sand out of the gears of commerce at Christmas, Easter, and Anzac Day morning. So you could look at it that way, but to me that is a very esoteric way of doing it. Freedom of choice—this is about more than this. Is nothing sacred any more in this country? Is there no day that we’re not prepared to commercialise to the hilt? Are we making that much sacrifice under the status quo? We are a nation built on Christian values. We do have reverence around Anzac Day and remember it’s there, as we absolutely should, but these days, whether you’re religious or not, these are the values that we’ve inherited and we’re cultivating and are the stewards of now.

Carl Bates made the point earlier about the slippery slope element to this. There will be bracket creep. I recall the debates in this House over the End of Life Choice Bill, where, of course, the stakes were much, much higher. But, inevitably, we’ve now got a member in here wanting to expand the scope of that legislation. This is what will happen. This is bracket creep. For me, it’s a line in the sand. I don’t see that there’s any major imposition with the status quo. I like a drink as much as anyone else. In fact, the member bringing forward this bill—we’ve enjoyed the odd tipple; only an orange juice with you, Mr Speaker, but that’s not the point. It’s not a great sacrifice that we make under the status quo. I think our values are worth more than that. There are those 3½ days where the world doesn’t stop but it slows down a little bit, and I think that’s a good thing. I think that’s something we should cherish and it’s something we should protect.

I think that to grease the wheels of commerce just a little bit more or to take some esoteric freedom of choice argument is completely missing the point. It may be moralising, but I make no apology for that. I will stand up for what I believe is an essential part of New Zealand’s culture and values, and certainly my values. So despite knowing the good intention of the member, I will be voting against this bill. I will be moralising and I make no apology for it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much—I know there are a lot of people keen to talk on this tonight. I think that with a surname like mine, Mr Speaker, I come in here with a very open mind to this debate. On balance, I see this member’s bill as pragmatic, moderate, sensible, and, frankly, as overdue.

I know that some of our very good friends over here have talked about open slather and commercialisation to the hilt, but this is fixing up a couple of anomalies that have been there for too long, particularly pertaining to our servicemen and women and Anzac Day.

One thing I would like to commend the Justice Committee on, other than all their hard work and conscientiousness, is that they have “recognised submitters’ concerns about the potential increase to alcohol-related harm. … We therefore consider that the existing off-licence restrictions should be retained.” So we are very much talking about the on-licence operators here and that they are still able to operate under their normal conditions, that it removes the substantive meal requirement, and it supports RSAs with costly and often time-consuming special-licence processes. Frankly, given the often ageing membership of them and given the often ageing state of their assets and the soaring operational costs to run our RSA clubs up and down the country, they need every help that they can get. The last thing they need to be is tied up in knots trying to get a special licence every year just to have a tipple on Anzac Day.

This is long overdue, and it’s part of the spirit of members’ days, and I think it joins the suite of members’ bills recently that have helped to tidy up our sale and supply of alcohol legislation. We reflect back to Ian McKelvie, a great member for Rangitīkei and a former National Party MP, and his picnics at race courses amendment bill, and that people could BYO to country race courses for those courses that have three meetings or fewer every year. And, of course, Stuart “Sauvignon” Smith had his cellar door bill, which too was pragmatic, moderate, and sensible.

So, again, this bill is tidying up the sale and supply of alcohol legislation. There has been obvious support in the sector for this tidy-up, clarifying trading restrictions and service restrictions across those last four restricted trading days, not opening it up but just enabling those that are open anyway to serve their patrons in a sensible way. Let’s not forget that this is one of the most, if not the most, regulated sectors that we have, and, frankly, if people are drinking, we want to encourage them that arguably the safest place to be in many instances is at an on-licence, and all those restrictions of normal trading days remain.

Hospitality New Zealand have said that the current restrictions and anomalies are not fit for purpose and are a point of frustration and confusion, and they have urged parliamentarians to support this bill, and I suspect that a clear majority will tonight and we will go on to the third reading.

As others have mentioned, there is other work to be done around tidying up legislation on these four restricted days so there are not so many inconsistencies and anomalies. As Cameron Luxton from the ACT Party has alluded to and tried with his own member’s bill—

The member’s time has come to an end. Members, just a reminder that we’ve been operating, shall we say, on the edge of the Standing Orders for some speeches now. I determined, as I said before, there would be two more five-minute speeches and, unfortunately, I will be sticking to that.

I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we’re going to follow. I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result, and at that stage any member can ask for a personal vote.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.