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

Thank you, Mr 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 third time.

It’s quite a special moment that this bill has got to this stage when you consider that all recent attempts to adjust the liquor licensing at Easter have not got to select committee. I think that a big part of why it’s got to this point is the way this House has conducted the debate but also the way in which members have worked together in the Justice Committee and outside the debating chamber.

The intention of this bill is extremely simple: it proposes to change the rules that currently exist for on-licences on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning, and Christmas Day. As it currently stands, on-licensed premises—bars, clubs, and restaurants—don’t operate on these days under the same rules that they do on every other day, and the question has to be asked: why is that? If it were a case that they couldn’t open at all, then that, it could be argued, is consistent with the rules that are in place for the likes of retail and most other services, but it’s not. These businesses are allowed to open on these days, but they have to follow different rules, and those rules, I would argue, don’t make sense.

Why is it that on these days, if someone goes and wishes to buy a pint, they have to buy what’s deemed to be a substantial meal. Why is it that a substantial meal isn’t actually defined? If someone is ordering a bowl of wedges, it isn’t clear whether that is a substantial meal, but if they made that loaded wedges and added cheese and sour cream and bacon, is that a substantial meal? Is a pizza a substantial meal? It is ridiculous that this is where we are at, and those owners and operators and workers in hospitality have to guess what is a substantial meal before they can serve someone a pint of beer. What is even more ridiculous is that, actually, they’re not required to eat the meal; they’re only required to purchase it. It can sit there while they drink, and it could also be argued that they then can go and buy another substantial meal in order to keep drinking. That doesn’t make sense. This bill clears that up.

Now, it’s important to note that the bill as originally drafted actually went wider than that. My intention was only ever to focus on those businesses that are already allowed to open, because I have seen the debate in this House up to this point. It is clear that there isn’t a majority in this Parliament to change the trading laws at Easter, and that is exactly why I have not proposed that; in fact, I have voted against that, myself. But when all we’re talking about here is businesses that can already open, this is not expanding access to alcohol. When we’re only talking about those workers that are working anyway, this is not taking anything away from those workers that would otherwise enjoy a guaranteed day off. All this bill does is concentrate on the rules for those businesses that are already operating.

The problem with including all businesses that are allowed to operate is that that includes supermarkets, and I was comfortable with that to begin with. But, as we’ve found out through the select committee stage—and I do want to acknowledge the work of every single member from every party in this House for the collaborative and constructive way in which they dealt with that—we found that, actually, what would have happened was that these days, for those businesses where you can order alcohol online and get it delivered, the current rules are that you can order on the day but it can’t be delivered until the next day, and they would have actually been able to deliver on the day. So bottle stores couldn’t open, but online deliveries could, and there was no way to get around it. Basically, we either had to include all off-licences or none at all, and I supported the select committee’s view that we include none at all, because if we had included them all, it would have gone beyond the intent of the bill to focus on those businesses that are already allowed to open and we would have lost the debate, like it has been lost every other time before. By bringing it on to on-licensed premises, it becomes extremely clear and extremely simple.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge Cameron Luxton because his amendment at the committee stage actually did what the bill was intended to do in the first place—and this is always the risk when it comes to members’ bills. Most members have submitted a bill to the ballot and they will know for themselves that we don’t have the resources that Governments do when it comes to drafting bills, and so it’s quite common for select committees to identify gaps, etc., and look to improve it—basically, that’s the point of a select committee. When it became evident that in the absence of Cameron Luxton’s amendment, there still would have been anomalies, I was very happy to support it and I was very pleased that Parliament chose to, as well, and so now, here we are, with this bill, which is extremely clear-cut and extremely simple.

I do want to acknowledge the way in which this debate has been conducted, because this is a conscience vote for a reason. Parliament treats these issues as a conscience issue because it recognises by convention that even within parties, who will share the same values and share the same principles, it’s quite possible or probable that you may have different views on this matter, and, indeed, that’s how it has played out in the various stages of this bill. But it’s not just the way in which the debate has been conducted in a respectful and courteous manner in this Chamber; it’s also the way in which it’s been conducted through the submissions process of the select committee, and also the various correspondence that I’ve received from people either thanking me for bringing this issue forward or expressing concern and urging me either to withdraw the bill or to not support it.

Those that oppose it can broadly be put into two camps: those that have genuinely held and legitimate concerns around increasing access to alcohol and the harm that that might cause, and those that hold these days to be sacred and wish for this change not to go ahead on that basis. I respect both of those views. While I disagree, I do recognise that they are legitimate and I do respect them, and I will respond to them briefly.

Because these businesses are already allowed to open, we’re actually not increasing the availability of alcohol. People can go to these premises on these days anyway, but they have to go through, basically, a farce of a process to be able to purchase a drink. There is no evidence that has been provided that what is being proposed in this bill will actually increase harm, and increasing access to off-licences would have had a much larger chance of increasing harm because that doesn’t come with the restrictions and monitoring that it does when people are purchasing on-licence.

To those that hold these days to be sacred, again I say that I respect that view. When I go to Mass on Easter Sunday, that should have no bearing on the choice of others. If they choose to go to Mass, fine; if they choose not to, fine—that is entirely their choice. But why should people feel that their perceived views that people should not go to the pub—that’s fine: don’t go to the pub, but let’s not stop others from making that choice. Also, let’s recognise that, actually, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not prohibit the consumption of alcohol on those days.

We’ve got to ask the question: why have we got these rules? We will still hold Easter and Christmas Day and Anzac Day in high regard and as having a special standing in our society. Enabling people to purchase a drink at the pub will not take away from that.

This bill also—very finally—enables RSAs to serve members of the public that are joining veterans after an Anzac Day service on the morning of Anzac Day without having to get a special licence. This is a change that has been welcomed by the RSAs. They have had to jump through hoops to welcome in their community after an Anzac Day—a very special day for this country. RSAs are the focal point of the community, and they will no longer have to go through this burden.

I thank everybody for their consideration of this bill. We’re on the third reading. On the verge of passing it, I would strongly urge you to continue your support for it, and thank you for it thus far.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to reiterate for those people who have just come into the House that we are taking five-minute calls from here on, for those people who have actually indicated to me that they want to take a call. If you wish to take a call, please, come up and indicate to me. At this stage, I will say the question is that the motion be agreed to. I’m going to try to balance it up, so I’m going to call on Dr David Wilson.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Hon Kieran McAnulty for laying out some of those issues. I fit into both of those categories, so thank you, Kieran. Yes, I believe and we believe that access to alcohol has many harms associated with it. I won’t go through all the evidence, because I think most of you will have covered a lot of that evidence. I wish to add one little one that I found in the US, and that was called “Holiday Heart Syndrome”. Simply put, access to alcohol increases arrhythmia and stroke. It’s a lot about the access, and whichever way you cut it, you are opening access through this bill.

I wish to switch now to the kinds of values that we hold. In my understanding around Anzac, Christmas, and Easter, things like remembrance, reflection, reverence, respect, and tradition are important. I’m reminded of when my wife and I were in a beautiful place in France called Amiens. We walked into a church, and in that church—it’s a beautiful church, of course—which was over 500 years old, it had pillars reaching to the roof, as high as you could see. Then, when we walked to those pillars, we realised that those pillars had names carved in them all the way to the roof. We also recognised that they were New Zealand names. Two wonderful women who were there that day came up to me and Anna, and said, “Where are you from?”, and we said, “We’re from New Zealand.” She said, “Thank you. Thank you so much for defending our city.”, and we said, “Thank you so much for remembering us.”

We think these things are really important. I’m lucky to have such a beautiful wife who actually adheres to tradition. In fact, she builds traditions for our home. She has brought into our household the tradition of Christmas every year, and it then falls to me to find a relevant 12-foot tree to get into our house and make sure it doesn’t fall down, decorate it, and then do something with it at the end of the break. But, yes, I have taken that on board, and it is a wonderful tradition. I think that what we’re dealing with here is that these are really, really important traditions for us to own and have, and to carry forward.

I’m thinking about the Māori Battalion, and the new memorial and museum at Paihia. You must visit this. The warriors and what that Māori battalion had to go through, in terms of how they had to become noticed and accepted, and their bravery—it warms the cockles of your heart to understand how important these people are to us, to us as New Zealanders, and in their case, as Māori. It’s part of our inheritance, it’s part of our nationhood, it’s part of our values: fairness, empathy, respect.

Most of all, these holidays are part of us. They’re part of our history, and part of who we are as a nation. They all have meaning, and that meaning goes far beyond having a tipple or a few drinks. I think it’s a small price to pay for us to actually take that meaning on board and think through carefully what it means to us—what these things mean to us in this day and age. Remembrance is so important for us, and it is so important for our youth to know who they are and where they stand in this nation.

It’s not much to ask to take some time to reflect, to revere, and to respect, and then to celebrate with friends and family. A small degree of restriction for a few days, to reinforce shared traditions and values, is a very small price to pay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. As members may know, I had a crack at something similar early in the term, but, back then, I got some sage advice from the Hon Kieran McAnulty. He told me I was biting off a bit too much, and, as it transpired, he was right. My bill was voted down. It was dealing with a much broader issue around restrictions on Easter trading. It was defeated at first reading, but here we are with a much narrower bill reaching its third reading. I have to say Kieran McAnulty has done a bloody good job in getting his member’s bill to this point, and I really do give him all my support.

Why are we here? Kiwis have matured a great deal in the 110 years since prohibition was so very nearly the law of this land, and if it were not for the votes of the soldiers overseas, it well would have been. We recognise the harms now, and increasingly, that alcohol can cause, and have developed laws and norms which regulate ourselves. These keep us safe for 360 days of the year, and so this is not a vote for having no laws; it is a vote to expand the laws that work on all of those days to the 3½ restricted trading days.

As Kiwis, when we are asked to justify or debate the minor points of a substantial meal or are turfed out with that classic song playing too early in the night—you know it, members—“You Don’t Have To Go Home (But You Can’t Stay Here)”, we can all recognise the absurdity of treating responsible adults this way; the absurdity of treating licensed venues, the operators, and the managers this way, as not worthy of hosting their guests for celebrations with friends and family in a way they choose and on a day that matters to them.

Then there’s the celebration that will be cut short in Christchurch on what could be the biggest celebration of the year, a spectacle of rugby long-awaited with the opening of Te Kaha One New Zealand Stadium. There will be much of memory and revelation, I’m sure, with teams from across the Tasman recognising our shared Anzac past.

I realised that this bill as originally drafted, while making important changes, would unintentionally leave out many bars and pubs across Christchurch and force them to close at 11.59 p.m. on the day before Anzac Day, as a restricted trading day. For a city like Christchurch, which has been through so much and waited so long, that would have been devastating. The House has backed and voted for my amendment to fix up that part and I am grateful for the support of the sponsor of this bill, and I think that might be why it got over the line.

I’ve had many questions asked of me about this, and so I want to take this opportunity to address precisely what my amendment does. The amendment says, “The premises for which an on-licence is held may remain open during the permitted trading hours that apply to the premises.” Some have questioned whether the words “may remain open” refer to a bar being allowed to open on that day, or whether it means that they must remain open and stay open past the 11.59 p.m. deadline on the day before. So, Madam Speaker, if you’ll forgive me, I’ll go into some detail and read a little bit, not only for the benefit of honourable members but also to ensure that Parliament’s intent is absolutely clear when interpreting this law.

The wording “may remain open” is deliberately used because it reflects the established terminology of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990. That Act uses the same phrase as provisions such as “Certain shops may remain open” and “Garden centres may remain open on Easter Sunday”. In that context, “may remain open” has never been understood to mean that a business must already be open immediately prior to the restricted trading day, rather it is simply meaning that those businesses are permitted to open and trade on those days. The same meaning is intended here.

New section 45A in new clause 4A is intended to allow a premises holding an on-licence to operate on restricted trading days in the same way that they would on any other day of the year, subject only to their ordinary licence conditions. That includes both remaining open if already operating and opening at a time permitted under their licence, even if the premises was not open immediately prior to the restricted trading date. To be clear, this provision is not limited to allowing trading past midnight; it is enabling a licensed premises to open the day and close and reopen in accordance with their usual licensing hours.

Should this bill become law in time for the weekend, an on-licensed business may, subject to their licence conditions, open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday or remain open. That is the intent. It is clear, and it is aligned with the original intent of the bill. If this—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution. I do want to acknowledge the member, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, for his considered, respectful approach in terms of this bill. It has been helpful to understand the components and the aspects that’s he’s strongly supporting, and he has explained that today.

I speak on behalf of our community members across Aotearoa who have emailed me to continue opposing this bill, and I have a number of reasons that I just want to outline the reasons for that. In my hood in South Auckland, specifically in Māngere, we have got the most faith communities across South Auckland, with a number of churches and mosques and those who come together. Whilst they do acknowledge that there is a time in their busy diaries when they do appreciate alcohol, for the sale and supply with this specific bill, a number of them have said to me in their personal views verbally and personal views in writing that they want to keep Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday—specifically, Good Friday and Easter Sunday. For many of the faith communities, they hold those days quite dearly.

We have a number of challenges with alcohol in Māngere in South Auckland. A number of our youth, unfortunately, are not as respectful. We have quite a diverse group of young people, which is colourful in many ways, but some of them just cannot handle alcohol and overconsumption.

I have appreciated the different view, or the respectful way in which my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty has explained this bill, and also what is written in this bill. However, I need to stand up and say something for those who oppose it, because they want protection, specifically, for those Easter days, and also for Christmas Day. I think with Anzac Day, the issue there is we have had many soldiers and the families of returned services members and they deserve to be respected on Anzac Day, and so there is provision there. However, for those three days, one of the things that I’ve heard from submitters is the cultural significance of faith communities, and why is it important? They want to see that there are continued restrictions in terms of protecting those specific four days, and also Easter is very important to Christian communities.

I take the opportunity to speak out and continue opposing this specific bill, and even if we get to the point where we lose the vote, that’s all good—at least I’ve managed to voice our concerns from people across Aotearoa. They might be small in numbers, but it is significant that they want protection and preservation of those specific cultural days, and the significance is that with a 24-hour, seven-day open dairy online and all the different platforms, people do need to take a rest and acknowledge the significance in different communities.

I’m not saying that’s all communities, and, like I said in another contribution earlier, there is a place for alcohol. People do like to relax. They do like to go to a place where they can feel comfortable and where they’re able to purchase, but, on this occasion, I do have to stand with the members of my community who are saying that enough is enough. In my neck of the woods, there is far too much accessibility to alcohol and we have a real problem with some of our young people who are probably only 15 years old and look like they’re 21, and so they get away with purchasing different things at different times.

The last point I want to make is about the significance of Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday. Those are really important times for different members of our community. We have a very diverse community in Māngere and across South Auckland, and so it is important to highlight those reasons because they want to see that members of Parliament hear both sides. Whilst there is a large group of our members who will support this bill, there are those in our community who have opposing views. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[XXX 16:46:32 – audio is from 1 April 2026]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand and take the first opportunity for a call from the National Party, which is proudly a party that is a broad church. And there are a variety of views on this side of the House on this specific piece of legislation. I think it’s really important that members of the general public get the opportunity to hear that representatives from different political parties, just like we’ve heard from the member that’s just taken her seat, can have differing views within their own party on a specific piece of legislation, based on whether it may be religious values, whether it may be cultural values, whether it may just be something that is on their own conscience, whether it may be the views of their wider community. But I think it’s really important that through this debate you’ll hear a variety of views from this side in support and in opposition to the legislation.

From my perspective, I am in support of the legislation. I have supported it from the first reading, through the select committee, at the second reading, and now at the third and final reading. I had the privilege of being a member of the Justice Committee where we considered the legislation, and alongside particularly my National colleagues Carl Bates, the Hon Andrew Bayly, and Rima Nakhle who, in and amongst ourselves, held different views on the legislation. We listened intently to those who made submissions on it, whether it was hospitality groups, the retail sector who said, “Please tidy this up; make it more workable for us. It’s confusing. We are the ones on the front line who have to let the customers down. Please just make it more straightforward for us.” And then we heard the other side of the argument, those from church or religious organisations who said, “These are cultural or really important religious days for us and please give us the opportunity to breathe on those days.” And I think David Wilson was articulating that in his earlier contribution as well. The reason I settled on being in support of the legislation is not for self-interest. Last reading, the Hon Erica Stanford said I wasn’t old enough to drink alcohol, but I don’t actually consume alcohol. It’s a personal decision that I’ve made.

Hon Rachel Brooking: You’re a married man.

TOM RUTHERFORD: “A married man.”, Rachel Brooking says. Yes, but I make my own decisions. Sometimes. [Interruption] It was going so well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I couldn’t possibly adjudicate that.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah. I must not tell lies in this place, Madam Speaker, but I don’t—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And withdraw and apologise.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, thankfully it’s 4.50, she’s definitely not watching. She’s got far better things to be doing with her time.

The reason why I support it is because there’s no self-gain from it, but who am I to stand in the place of someone who on Good Friday or Easter Sunday or Anzac Day, wants to go down to the pub, wants to go to the restaurant, to a bar to enjoy a beverage with their friends.

Suze Redmayne: Can’t be bothered cooking.

TOM RUTHERFORD: And that’s right, Suze Redmayne. It might just be that day that they go, “Actually, why don’t we as a family or as whānau or as friends just go out and have a nice time and not have to face that hurdle that we often face of—oh no, we better order a substantial meal.” Well, someone’s on a diet and they were just going to order a side salad, but they can’t have an alcoholic beverage now, and now they must order the entire Caesar salad so that they can enjoy having the cider they were going to have to accompany it. It’s just ridiculous. It’s outrageous. In 2026, it’s an anomaly that I think, ultimately, this piece of legislation is going to tidy up.

One of the really good things that we did through the progression of this legislation is remove the ability for it to focus on supermarkets and bottle stores, because that’s not actually the intention—what this legislation is aiming to remedy and fix. It’s not about people being able to pop out to the bottle store, because they had opportunities to be more organised or to have things at home or whatever else; it’s for those who go out to the pub, to the restaurants, and to the bars.

The other thing that is really front of mind and is coming up near the end of this month is Anzac Day, which is a really, really important day for us as a country. We have heard from numerous RSAs across the country who face rigmaroles all the time around the challenges of having to be able to serve alcohol on Anzac Day to their patrons. Now, it’s not about everybody getting intoxicated, but it’s about having the opportunity to remember and to be with one another on a really special day for New Zealand and for our history and for where we are going as a country.

As I said at the start of the contribution, the National Party, on this side, has a variety of views. We are a broad church. You’ve heard from me in favour of the legislation, you’ll hear from colleagues opposed to it, but, ultimately, I think that’s what makes politics really, really important in this place and why this conscience issue is really important for us all to take a stand on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a bit of a roster going here, and I’d like to now call the Hon Mark Patterson.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just start by acknowledging the member Kieran McAnulty for bringing the bill forward and carefully and skilfully, actually, shepherding it the House to this point—a little too skilfully for my liking, because in an hour’s time or so, or less than an hour’s time we face crossing the Rubicon. Individual members will be voting according to their conscience. Will they vote to uphold their traditional New Zealand values, history, and traditions? Will they respect our Christian heritage, sacred Christian celebrations of Christmas, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday? Will they acknowledge the solemn commemoration of Anzac Day morning? Or will they sacrifice that heritage at the altar of consumerism and consumption?

Do members fully understand the cultural shift they are being asked to endorse? Are they comfortable that on these sacred days people will be spilling out of bars and night clubs at all hours. It’s a slippery slope—making them just another day. Don’t get me wrong; I’m no wowser here. I’ve spilled out of my fair share of pubs and night clubs over the time, but it does not have to be those days—those 3½ days where the world doesn’t stop, but it slows down. It’s time for families, it’s time for commemorations, it’s time for celebrations of very important events. The status quo might be a bit clunky, but it is not the end of the world. Business has found the ability to perfectly work through that in the past. It’s a very small sacrifice to make.

I will be voting to protect these important days from the scourge of consumerism, and I’m proud to stand by my New Zealand First colleagues in standing up for our Christian heritage, standing up for our traditional Kiwi values, and voting against this bill.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. First of all, can I acknowledge, as my colleague Tom Rutherford did, the complexities of this and acknowledge the range of views that are present in this House?

For me, this has been an interesting bill. I am the cofounder of, I think, New Zealand’s only conservative public policy think tank, the Maxim Institute, and many years ago I would have voted against this bill, but I rise today to vote for it. As a conservative, I’m not opposed to change. I am in favour of incremental change, and that is one of several reasons why I do support this bill. I think it is a wise and incremental change to legislation that does need adjustment, and I want to speak to that very briefly.

I have found sometimes as I’ve sat through the earlier stages of this bill—and this is the first time I’ve taken a call on it, because I’ve been thinking about it carefully—when I have considered what the content of this legislation is, my mind has turned to the joke of the ham sandwich that walks into a pub, goes up to the bar, and orders a drink and is told by the publican, “I’m sorry mate. We don’t serve food in here.”

At the heart of this legislation is a very simple and, as I mentioned, incremental change. It is simply an adjustment to 3½ very special days of the year, 3½ days that are very special to New Zealanders, and particularly to some—including myself, and I’ll speak to that in a moment—where it is currently the requirement, as has been spelled out well by a number of colleagues, including in detail by my friend and colleague Cameron Luxton, for one to buy a substantial meal if they want to consume a beverage.

All that this bill does is remove that requirement. It doesn’t change the liquor licensing laws. It doesn’t change shop hours, and all of that has been laid out. It just makes that simple change. I believe that that is a good and incremental change. I do not believe that that change in anyway affects the sanctity, the sacredness, and the specialness of those days. As a keen follower of Jesus Christ, my Christian faith is absolutely the foundation of my life and it’s the prism and the lens through which I see the world and understand what a human being is and what we’re here for. I love particularly three of those days. I love Anzac Day as well for different reasons. But those three days, Easter Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day are, for me, the most special days of the year. I will most certainly be at church this weekend and at the end of the year as well.

Whether my colleagues and friends, whether they are church attenders or not, are having a steak and chips with their beer that afternoon, does not in any way affect the sacredness of those days, and, in fact, I’m very likely to be found to be having a drink on those days as well.

The final reflection I want to share is, again, as this conversation has been going on in this House now for a few months, that I was reminded of a time many years ago when my wife and I were first married and lived in London and we went away to a church conference one weekend in north London. At the end of the meeting on a Friday night, a guy called Nicky Gumbel had finished speaking and he invited people to the front for prayer while the musicians played softly, and then he said, “For those of you who aren’t in for that, if you just look around behind you now, you’ll see that the bar is open.” It was a memory that I haven’t had for a while, but it spoke to me quite powerfully of, I think, a very healthy relationship with alcohol. I do think that this legislation, amongst other things, is an opportunity for us to make a considered incremental and mature step forward in terms of a healthy relationship with alcohol, a healthy respect for differences, and not be fearful of what this means to our sacred days.

For all those reasons, I thank the member for bringing this bill to the House. I thank all members for their careful and respectful consideration of this bill. My favourite time in this House was the committee of the whole House. It was us working together—it was something else; a vision of what this place can be. So I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to call Kahurangi Carter next, and I want to indicate that I’ve only got two further names of people who have indicated they wish to speak. If anyone has come into the House over the recent little while and wishes to add their name to the list, please come and see me.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, we’re talking on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. There is a drug that is the leading cause of preventable death and morbidity around the world and here at home. It costs our country upward of $7 billion annually, according to a leading economics firm. This drug features significantly in emergency service callouts, many times where violence and aggression are involved. We know that prohibition doesn’t work. It has never worked and only makes those drugs far more harmful because of the circumstances it creates.

This drug, the nation’s most harmful is, of course, alcohol. Drugs, like alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis exist. The question for legislators should always be: how do we create law to reduce harm? There’s a broad spectrum of approaches, here, and at both extremes, you see the maximisation of harm. At one end, you have criminal prohibition, and, at the other end, you have an open slather free market. At each extreme, whether it’s criminal organisations or commercial entities, you see those making money exploiting vulnerable communities by selling as much as these substances as possible.

The evidence shows New Zealand has among the highest rates of alcohol harm on almost every metric. The law is a complex and unwieldly beast for both communities and small operators to navigate and this tells you that the law is not fit for purpose. We need a common-sense approach to drug and alcohol harm reduction and we, as a country, won’t fix these serious issues the way successive Governments have approached it—like Luxon’s Government, this term of Parliament, who have done nothing to advance drug law reform to make our communities safer. In fact, the only drug law reform has been to make purchasing alcohol easier. We need bold leadership to do what successive Governments have been too scared to do, what communities and public health experts, the ones at the front lines, have been calling on politicians to do for decades: to overhaul the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The Law Commission told this House that in 2010, and they told us about the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2012. When are we willing to do the logical and consistent thing and regulate according to reducing harm?

As our communities wait for sensible laws, the Government does less than the bare minimum and in ways that is cheered on by industry—probably gives you a hint as to who amendments like this actually benefit. The Greens have a long history of fighting alongside communities through alcohol harm reduction laws to minimise drug harm. In 2022, our current Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick’s member’s bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, was drawn from the biscuit tin. This bill had extensive support from Alcohol Healthwatch and local councils, including Christchurch and Auckland City councils and many other local councils supported it too.

In June 2025, the Christchurch City Council agreed on a new set of rules for how alcohol can be sold and supplied across the city—the Local Alcohol Policy, or the LAP. It took the hard work of our communities who, throughout the process, consistently told councillors that the wider community wanted sensible local alcohol policy. The key aim of this LAP was to address the harm caused by alcohol in our Christchurch communities. The result of the LAP is a focus on making alcohol less available at certain times, particularly in areas where easy access to alcohol can increase harm in community.

During the select committee process, the Alcohol Healthwatch said this bill could further perpetuate the harm caused by alcohol and that extensive research tells us alcohol-related harm in Aotearoa is at unacceptably high levels.

The Green Party is united in our position that we cannot support this bill. The Green Party have always stood for sensible evidence-based drug harm minimisation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s certainly a fascinating debate. I listened intently to the contribution of the member Greg Fleming, who talked about incremental changes being a positive, because I, also, recognise that this is very incremental. For that reason, in fact, I am going to vote against this bill because my vote is really a protest vote.

I do want to add my voice to those acknowledging the work of the Hon Kieran McAnulty and acknowledging the very, very, very small incremental change this bill would make. However, I can’t, in good conscience, continue to see bills come before the House that incrementally change, small, nuanced parts of a wider architecture that urgently needs reform. My protest vote is to say that, while I don’t have an issue with the content of the bill, I do have a very big issue with the way that this House approaches alcohol. The need for reform and some of those evidenced-based statistics we have heard around New Zealand’s relative harm profile, around the impact on communities, including in South Auckland where there is evidence that some school children are going past five or six alcohol stores every day on their way to school. Saturated in the visibility, saturated in marketing and advertising through sports clubs, that might not otherwise be thought to be able to survive without that advertising. I did support Chlöe Swarbrick’s reformist member’s bill, that was referred to by Kahurangi Carter, for those reasons.

This is not a moral stance. I believe that we have wonderful Christian people in this country; we also have people of many other faiths who may not acknowledge those days or those traditions. So, for me, this is not a Church versus State kind of debate; this is about what we can do responsibly to try to respond to the issue of legislation that is well out of date, as has been said. The fact that it is so difficult to bring reform to this House that even the cross-party mental health group cannot get a discussion about alcohol harm reduction and a meaningful piece of work onto our agenda because some political parties will not support that. Yet at the same time, we have the Online Casino Gambling Bill going through the House, not as a conscience vote, yet with all indications that there is extensive harm to be caused. The admission that this is a bill, which, essentially, not only opens and regulates a market but expands it and makes it competitive, which incentivises marketing to our young people.

So there are all sorts of contradictions that take place in this House, and, today, we have seen the best of the good parts, which is collegial and really thoughtful and well-considered debate and respect about something complex. But I do worry that we are not having the real conversation, which is about how we have a proper comprehensive look at alcohol reform that might do things like tweak the Easter and Anzac Day rules in the way that this bill does, but that might also reduce the harm and exposure on our young people. I question the reason why we are not able to have that debate. That is a very big issue for me.

Finally, I don’t have a problem with our Anzac people having a tipple on Anzac Day. In fact my understanding from insiders in the Defence Force is that it’s quite normal to do that prior to the Anzac Day services. So again, this is not a moral position; it is merely a protest vote. But I think, wearing my mental health spokespersonship hat and my commitment to wanting to make laws in a good way that are transformational and that are reformist and not let incrementalism stop us from having the big debates, I will continue to vote against all incremental alcohol bills, including this one.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like my colleague Tom Rutherford just mentioned, the National Party is a very broad church—we have different views. I think they’re very similar to my electorate as well, which is Mt Roskill, they are very diverse as well.

I am here to stand on behalf of the people of Mt Roskill to oppose this legislation. The reason of it is not only because this is about faith, community, but I think this is also about alcohol harm, as well about the failure of our country. When I did my survey, I asked my constituents, “Are you guys opposed or do you agree with all this legislation which will allow alcohol sales on Anzac Day?” I think the majority of people said, “Yes, we are happy to allow people to buy, to have a drink, to enjoy themselves on Anzac Day.” It’s no question asked on this one. But once I say, “How about on Easter and Christmas?” Oh, the result is actually completely opposite. The majority of my people said “No”—they say no. This is the reason I’m standing here to oppose the bill.

Let me give some of the comments my constituents have been mentioning. One of them: New Zealand has long been a country of faith and many of the founding laws and policies were instituted for those core moral reasons, and having alcohol sales at Christmas and Easter is against that feeling. Another constituent actually emailed me, saying, “Alcohol is definitely not contributing to the spirit of a composed or reflective state of mind. Those guarded memorial days deserve, or are probably even required to help us to understand ourselves; our shared culture.” You can see that a lot of feedback has been sent in—I appreciate it was not only to me, but to a lot of our colleagues here as well—to stand against this legislation. As I say, those 3½ days are special days for our faith communities, and I think most of the people will like it to remain the way it is.

Let’s talk about the business side. A lot of people are also lobbying and sending us emails saying, “Hey Carlos, allowing us to sell alcohol on Easter or even Christmas will help us to go through the tough times”—to allow the business to be in a little bit of profit. I’ll share a story with you guys. One of my friends actually opened a takeaway in my electorate. He’s a Christian. What has happened is that he believed that, “Yes, I need to open seven days in order to maximise my profit.” What’s happened? That’s led to his health going down. He’s not feeling well and is going to hospital. Then, after that, he changed. He talked to God and he asked God for advice. He changed the opening hours to only six days a week now—he takes Sunday off. Everyone was telling him, “Hey, if you do that, will that mean that your income will be less? Is this sustainable?” I asked the same question. The answer for him was, “Carlos, no, actually, my profit is pretty much the same, because people were willing to go to the shops to buy food on the other days. It’s not really affecting the business.” They don’t see any growth or drop in business turnover.

I think this bill doesn’t really help businesses to get a little bit more profit, but that actually creates a problem, which is called alcohol harm. I think, with alcohol, as has been mentioned, a lot of family violence, physical or verbal abuse, is caused because of people intoxicated, or alcohol harm. Also, I think one of the many things here is that we want our veterans to have a glass of wine. Yes, I think the intention of it is very good, but one thing I know is that they have sacrificed themselves fighting for a better country. Is that the country they’re actually fighting for, with people suffering from alcohol harm or other alcohol-related abuse? Is that what they’re fighting for? Has the member actually talked to them and said, “Now, I’ll give you an option. You can choose to enjoy having a glass of wine on Anzac Day or you can see someone actually suffer due to alcohol harm.” I’m sure the answer for our veterans is, “No, I want a better future for New Zealand. I don’t want anyone getting hurt or being harmed.” For that, this is why I’m here to stand opposed to the bill.

It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in this debate today, at the third reading. I wasn’t actually going to take a call, but I listened to a couple of my colleagues who, I felt, made really good speeches, so I thought I’d come down and make a contribution so that it is on record. It’s not where you stand in moments of calmness; it’s actually where you stand in moments of controversy that matter, and I want it to be known for the electorate of Northcote—the people I represent—what my position is. I am supportive of today’s legislation.

I want to start out by saying I am a person of Catholic faith—my priest will say I’m probably a lapsed Catholic, but that is the perspective that I bring to this place. I don’t talk about my faith because I believe in a separation of Church and State, and I don’t think that that should be brought into the debate in this House in any way whatsoever. It is the perspective that I bring but, for the reasons that my colleague Tom Rutherford outlined, I don’t believe that I should be telling others, and this House should be telling others, what to do on those special days. “Who am I?” is what you said, and I reflected on that and I thought, “Well, actually, who are we as a House?” We’re no better than the people of New Zealand. The Ministers have the same flaws as members of the public, so we are no particular gurus and we have no higher authority to be telling others how they live their lives. I don’t think that we should be telling others, if you want to have a beverage on those days, what type of beverage it is.

Tom Rutherford: There’s no obligation.

DAN BIDOIS: There is no obligation, so I think that’s what brings me to support this bill.

I have a personal view that I think New Zealand is far overregulated for the size of our country. If you look at why we are low income, low productivity relative to the rest of the world—and I’ve lived all over the world and seen that actually we are well overregulated. We go to the nth degree where we shouldn’t do, and I think this bill goes some way to rectifying that. I did actually support some of the amendments to widen the scope of this bill. I don’t actually know if they made it through, but I was broadly supportive of giving power back to the people, from this House, for them to determine the way they go about their conduct during those special days.

This bill updates the law for, I think, current society. I think, to the member who has spoken from the other side who talked about alcohol issues, if I can just indulge the House. I lived in France for a few years and I was amazed at how liberal the alcohol laws were in France but how the attitude of the French actually—[Interruption]—yes— how the attitude of the French played out. I got speaking to a number of my French colleagues, who said that the attitude in the way they bring up their kids with respect to the respect of alcohol is very different to what I would term “Anglo-Saxon culture”. It was only a weekend trip to London via the Eurostar where you realise the Anglo-Saxon culture. It is very similar to New Zealand’s culture—and Australia’s, Canada’s, and the United States’—of binge drinking. I think, actually, that’s at the heart of the discussion. It is not legislative; it is cultural, and I would love a debate about how we improve the cultural attitude towards alcohol in this country.

I just want to end by acknowledging the member who has brought forward this bill—congratulations—but I do want to acknowledge the previous member, Cameron Luxton, for your bill several months earlier, which we had an opportunity to vote on, and I supported, but that was voted down because of particular party positions. It is great that we’re here today—I do hope this bill goes through—but it would have been great to have been here six months ago. To play politics with things like this is utterly unacceptable, and I do hope that members on the opposite side reflect that with future debates. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the fact that I’m also getting an opportunity to share my views with respect to this bill in the name of the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty. As I mentioned during the committee of the whole House stage, I do oppose this bill and I continue to oppose this bill, notwithstanding the fact that I respect the views—particularly from my colleagues in the National Party and Government and also across the House—on this.

For many years now, I’ve attended Papakura Marae on Christmas Day. What happens on Christmas Day at Papakura Marae is there’s a charitable trust called Whaitiaki trust, which is run by many very good, decent folk, including my good friend Whaea Anne Kendall. What they do is they provide a Christmas lunch for many families that are otherwise in need or people that just want some community or to be around community. Papakura Marae is a no-smoking and no-alcohol venue, and there’s a reason for that. That’s why they’re no-alcohol. I suspect that one of the reasons is because alcohol is a very big problem for families in South Auckland and all around New Zealand.

I love the fact that my colleague Dan Bidois spoke about the attitude to alcohol, which I touched upon in my last speech with respect to this bill. Attitudes are different around the world, and I see very clearly that in New Zealand—and I grew up in Australia—our attitude towards alcohol is one where, “Let’s all get drunk. We can’t have a good time”—not for all people, of course—“we can’t have a good time unless we get drunk.” Unfortunately, the maturity towards alcohol is not necessarily the case here in New Zealand.

That’s why I do oppose this bill; it is, as I said before, allowing extra access to alcohol on days, particularly, where children have a right to have their parents fully present—on these days that, to many, are sacred and, to many, are not necessarily sacred but are days where they get the opportunity to switch off from everything else and just allow themselves to be in the presence of their kids, or for their kids to have their presence, unhindered by the desire to go to the pub, to go to a restaurant, and “Let’s start going on the booze.”

It saddens me—it saddens me that the quiet moments that a lot of us reflect on when we were younger—I reflect very clearly on days when mum and dad would go start off our Sunday at church and we’d come home and we’d have a kind of lunch underneath the fig tree at the bottom of the yard, all together. That was our family quiet time. I reflect on some of the kids I see coming to Papakura Marae and to other places around South Auckland, kids that love their parents so much. Sometimes, I’ve seen the parents obviously hungover, obviously coming down from just taking drugs, and I reflect on them, Mr Kieran McAnulty, when I think about whether we couldn’t just leave these 3½ days alone for these kids to have their parents fully present.

It saddens me, because it’s maybe confusing for some businesses and patrons to have to figure out, is a bowl of hot chips the same as a substantial meal? But what I worry about more is the confusion of kids this coming Christmas, where they’re used to their parents just being at home, and now, where are the parents?

Laura McClure: They can stay at home.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yeah, they can stay at home, my good friends say, but what about those parents that don’t have control? I’m not talking about the parents that have self-control. I’m talking about the parents in South Auckland that don’t have a lot of self-control because of their unfortunate addiction to alcohol.

I want to reassure members of the public that the National Party values families. Indeed, one of our 10 values is strong families and caring communities, and notwithstanding this bill perhaps going through today, our party values strong families and caring communities. I don’t commend this bill today.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wish to take a short call in response to some of the issues that have been raised. I think it’s important to acknowledge that this bill is about on-licence that are already able to operate on these days, so it’s not that these days—which, I acknowledge, are very important days—are being opened up. That’s the first point. People can already drink at the on-licence on these days.

The change is that, at the moment, if people want to drink in the on-licence on these days, they have to have a meal, and that is what this change is about. It’s about the meal, not about whether you can drink on these days or not. And, of course, when I say “on-licence”, that means somewhere where you go into a building and you buy your drink and you consume the drink in that venue. So it is different from an off-licence, and we have huge problems in this country with off-licences. It’s not about the off-licences, where you go in and you buy your alcohol and you leave and you drink it somewhere else. So it is discrete in that manner. This is about meals, and whether or not a meal has to be served on these days. It’s not about the days themselves, which are, of course, very important days.

I want to just comment now on two other issues. One was a contribution from my friend and neighbouring colleague Ingrid Leary, and she was talking about the need for a fulsome reform of our alcohol laws, and I agree with that point, as well. We do need that rather than lots of piecemeal conscience votes, but that needs to be done on a first-principles basis about alcohol harm, and there is some legislation floating about at the moment, and that legislation is not what we need. So that is a piece of work that needs to happen in the future.

My third point is I noticed that New Zealand First is opposing this legislation because it is the—and this is to quote the Hon Mark Patterson—“the scourge of consumerism—consumeralism”—I’m struggling saying the word. So there’s going to be too much people consuming too many things. I do wonder what their policy position then leads to. I think a lot of issues are being conflated here. I very much respect the position that these are important days, particularly—well, they’re important days to Christians and there is a lot of history in New Zealand around these days, and they are days that are important to me. But alcohol can already be sold on these days, so that consumption is already happening. There’s no change to the consumption of alcohol. The change in consumption is not having to have a meal provided. That is the consumption change. So I respectfully disagree with that point. And, on that note, I’ll sit down.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill.

I have listened today to the arguments for and against, and I think there’s some things that people in this House have forgotten. I rise on the fact that, in reality, you could think Kiwis should enjoy a drink—and I think that’s the discussion that we’ve heard from people that are for this piece of legislation. But it’s the consequences of that happening on these days, and we will unleash far-reaching harms on our society. We’ve heard through the Justice Committee that heard the submissions on this that there was really powerful testimony from our healthcare community. On busy holidays such as Christmas and Easter, hospital emergency departments (EDs) are overrun with alcohol-related cases.

The reason I rise after listening—because I wasn’t going to rise tonight and speak on this, because I have spoken in other readings—but one survey found that one in eight ED admissions on Christmas Day was due to excess drinking. Why I say that is one in eight on Christmas Day—and we have healthcare, we have people, I believe, that deserve a break on Christmas Day. They deserve not to have to be dealing with those types of issues. It’s Easter, it is Christmas Day. They are special days.

I stood in this House in the second reading, and the religious side of this, the Christian values of that, I understand, and that’s a really important part of not allowing alcohol sales on those days. For me, it was, I said, about the fabric, and it was about the importance of those Easter holidays. It was the importance of Christmas Day and protecting those days as the fabric of New Zealand.

We’ve heard through speakers that we’re talking about 3½ days here where we just slow down a little bit and we can enjoy those days. Now, we’re putting that extra strain on our police and on healthcare. I just think that’s unacceptable. Like other speakers in this House, I actually feel saddened and disappointed that we’re here today at this point.

There are, as I can hear across the House, those that have got the mentality that this has to happen. Unfortunately—I’m going to say this; I’ve been thinking about whether I would say it or I wouldn’t, but I will—we’ve almost got to the point that this bill has to be passed because of a rugby game. I love rugby, and it is our traditional sport, and I understand there’s a brand-new stadium in Christchurch, but the rush and thought of having to get this through for a rugby game has actually disappointed me more.

We have heard from the promoter of the bill that this isn’t a major change, so following the first reading, where it was said that these are minor changes, the Amendment Paper on this opens up the shop trading hours. What I put to this House right now—and people that may be thinking, “How do I vote?”—is that, on Boxing Day, there will be bars and restaurants open. They can now open to normal shop hours. Those shops, those restaurants, and those bars could be open to 3 a.m. on Christmas Day. They could be open to 3 a.m. on your Fridays or your Sundays. There is no restriction. To me, that is absolutely wrong, and the bill has been opened up so far that it goes away from looking at this to help businesses. It has actually opened up that so far that we have now got the health issues, but we have also got no restrictions, and no one is looking after those sacred days. On that point, I just think we’ve gone down the wrong path.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution on this. I just note, for any of those watching who might wonder why we’re focusing on this, this is a members’ afternoon, and this is a member’s bill, so I congratulate the member for having this pulled, as is tradition.

It’s a relatively simple one, and I’ve certainly heard a variety of views from my electorate, but I’m comfortable voting in support of it. The reason why I’m comfortable voting in support of it is because this is a minor change which affects those on-licences that can already sell alcohol on these days. It just changes quite a minor thing, which is that, unlike every other day of the year, they don’t have to sell a substantial meal with the alcohol; on these days, they do. I think this is just a bit of a regulatory thing that’s been in place for a long time and hasn’t really been looked at. I don’t see a good reason for it. It doesn’t change the alcohol consumption. It doesn’t change the hours or times. My understanding is that it is being sold on these particular days, so I’m comfortable supporting it.

I do note that reasonable minds can disagree on this, and certainly we hear that in this House. I do acknowledge the longstanding history and importance of these days, which are also important to me. It does not stop anyone, and I don’t think it would result in behaviour changes, because these are on-licensed premises that are already opening. It is not allowing additional ones to open. Like I said, the alcohol can already be sold from these on-licences on these particular days already, so it’s pretty simple, from my perspective. Although I note that there are some strong feelings about this, I do think that this is one of those things that I can comfortably support. With that, I will be voting in support of this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this piece of legislation. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Kieran McAnulty for having his bill drawn. I think it’s like a 1.6 percent or something chance of getting a member’s bill drawn from the tin, and so congratulations on that. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Cameron Luxton for his efforts in liberalising this part of our liquor laws that we think has been inconsistent and not sensible for quite some time.

I wasn’t going to take a call, but I thought that I will, just based on some of the conversations that we’re having. The great thing about conscience votes is that we all kind of break rank a little bit from what our party normally may think on an issue. It means that we can actually discuss them openly. I really do want to acknowledge all of the members and all of their views, because I do know that there are quite a lot of different views on this.

For me personally, I think there are a couple of things. For these premises that are already open, particularly pubs and restaurants at the moment, it is just absolutely ridiculous that they have to decide what a decent meal is in order to serve alcohol with it. I know that Jamie Arbuckle mentioned that this is going to go into shop trading hours. These bars will be able to stay open all kinds of hours. It doesn’t actually affect their normal trading hours, and we are not changing the Shop Trading Hours Act. I get where that concern may land, but this piece of legislation doesn’t actually do that.

Talking about some of the alcohol harm, my colleague Rima Nakhle gave a very powerful speech about thinking about children and those that are exposed to alcohol harm and addiction harm. I know, first hand, my mum grew up in a family where her father was an alcoholic, and she had all kinds of issues that came with that. One of the key things she learnt was that no matter what, when you’ve got an addiction, you will find a way in order to get your hit. That doesn’t change just because our trading hours have changed.

It’s completely discredited that people are going to go out and get drunk in bars and restaurants on particular days, like our days of, say, Easter and things like that as opposed to getting drunk at home. What we know has actually been happening is those that do want to, those that might have an addiction, for example, they tend to stockpile, they tend to go harder. I know that Jamie also talked about the hospitalisations. Well, that is happening right now without the safety of our bars and our restaurants. I know our licensed premises have to adhere to really strict rules when it comes to intoxication. One of the safest places you could probably have a few beverages in is a licensed premise like one of our pubs, one of our restaurants.

While I do appreciate that there are concerns about alcohol harm, I do think that keeping it in the on-licences is actually a really smart first step. I’d like to see it actually go a bit further to the off-licences, as you’ll probably hear from quite a few of the ACT members, but I do think this part in the bill is sensible and it’s a good change to be making.

It would be remiss of me to not discuss Christchurch and what is happening. I know a few members have said that these amendments have just been passed in a hurry to open up a stadium for the sake of a football match. That is actually not true. I think there has been more interest from the public and the media because of this anomaly that we have found ourselves in, but I do think that this would happen anyway. Whether it happens right now—it was going to happen anyway, and it’s just standard process. But because it is happening, I can’t wait for Christchurch to see the punters coming in. I hope our bars and restaurants—actually, all of our shops—do really well on that weekend, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next speaker, I’ve had some queries about how long, if we go to a personal vote, it is likely to take. It will probably be about 20 minutes, and we will be voting before dinner.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. I won’t take my full call. I spoke in the second reading, and my position remains the same as I shared in that second reading speech. However, there have been a few comments that have been made in this third reading that I thought needed to be put on record in terms of the way we could address some of the challenges that have been raised without changing the law and without taking a step on a slope towards these days ultimately ending up being free rein. I don’t have any issue with the changes to Anzac morning, as I expressed in the second reading, but there’s a lot that’s been said in this House this evening about this idea of a substantial meal. Well, we could clarify that through regulation. We could make it clear that a burger is a burger and a salad with a glass of champagne is OK.

We could make clear that a big bowl of chips with bacon and cheese on it is a meal if you’re having a beer with it. The idea that the only way to solve this problem is to remove the law—to take a step on that slope towards removing the importance of these days in New Zealand’s history and in its culture—is in itself absurd. So rather than continue to make that argument and share again the points made in the second reading, I just wanted to put on record that the idea that the only way to solve this problem is to remove this piece of legislation, in my humble opinion, is not accurate nor correct. Therefore, I do not commend this to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise and have a speech in this debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. I’m very privileged to be able to speak again. I actually think I’ve spoken in all three stages of this bill. I want to again acknowledge Mr McAnulty. It’s great that he got this bill to the House. Obviously, initially, we had some disappointment, because we wanted to kind of make reforms in other areas related to this. But, look, we were very happy to come on board and actually get something done.

This is really a very practical bill. Again, Mr McAnulty calibrated it so it could get support across the House. I really do want to acknowledge that, because he is actually about getting something done, which I think is great—just as we would be in ACT. This is a very sensible change. I’ve had the opportunity to listen to some of the contributions while I’ve been up in my office. It’s been a very respectful debate—people putting forward their different reasons for or against voting for the bill. But this does really address an issue—one of inconsistency. Again, as we’ve already heard, we had places opening on these days but having to serve what was called “substantial meals”. There was a lot of discussion and submissions at select committee about what constituted a substantial meal.

But this bill, if passed today, will give a lot more options for premises already with on-licences to continue to operate as they would on every other day of the year, except what is currently the protected days. So that’s very exciting. It’s going to make things a lot clearer, both for the public, but also for businesses and operators. We’ve obviously also had agreement across the House to make a small amendment to make sure it’s very clear around trading hours, and so I think that was great. Again, Cameron Luxton worked with people to get that across, and so that was excellent.

But I reflect on it in two ways. One is, of course, I’m a member of ACT, so we always want to increase people’s freedom. What that means to us is that’s freedom for people to make their own decisions and their own choices to decide whether they want to go out to an establishment to have a drink with their friends and family or not. We’re not forcing people to do anything. Again, that’s very much how we think about things in ACT. We’re not forcing people to do anything but we’re allowing them choice and responsibility to do it. So that’s very exciting.

But the other thing I think about is from where I live down south. I’m lucky to live in Queenstown—one of the premier tourist destinations of New Zealand.

Hon James Meager: One of.

TODD STEPHENSON: Well, yes, Mr Meager is yelling out behind. I know Timaru is very important, Mr Meager, but Queenstown is regarded as one of the premier tourist destinations of New Zealand. Of course, we have a lot of tourists, and they come all times of the year, but including Easter and Christmas Day and Anzac Day. Again, this will just make the establishments in places like Queenstown but also Wānaka, Tauranga, wherever you are in the country that are catering for overseas visitors, it will make it much easier to cater for those people.

The other thing which I’ve heard referenced is about, obviously, the Christchurch stadium. I think, again, this is a sensible change for actually boosting events and things that we actually want to encourage in our cities. Again, this isn’t being done just because of the Christchurch stadium, but, look, if the timing happens to fit, let’s actually get this done so we can celebrate the wonderful stadium in Christchurch, which I, hopefully, look forward to attending sometime in the future, and giving them the opportunity this Easter to actually operate in a way that’s going to cater for the guests.

So, look, I’m very happy to unite with other people across the House in favour of this. It really is increasing people’s freedom in New Zealand, and that’s the reason I’ll be supporting it and also other ACT MPs will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I’ve determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who will 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, at that stage any member can call 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 third time.