McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to oppose the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill in its first reading. It's been quite a robust debate across the House—I think mainly because Labour on the other side are not taking their 10-minute calls but rather doing 30-second ones so perhaps that's why there's so much yelling across the way. I think when you actually take the time to listen to some of the debates that are coming about from the Opposition you might understand the concern. Because while the Government believes that they are fixing a problem with this piece of legislation there are concerns about what the legislation actually does. That's why Opposition parties are opposing it not actually potentially opposing the entire concept of the bill but aspects of the bill. And that's why we have debates in the House in a robust way.So if we start off by looking at what these changes will actually achieve—because it's going to amend the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and we're told it's going to improve the community's ability to be able to influence alcohol regulation—the Government says that the reason why they're putting this bill through is because what we currently have is not working. Aspects that members have highlighted include going into court and having people in suits going up against individuals because the individual is trying to come against big business and they can't afford to be able to get lawyers in to debate their cause as well. So this is seen as being unfair and something that is needed to be amended.I point out though this is not the only piece of legislation where individuals find themselves in that situation. The coroner's court is a really good example of where individuals who appear before the court end up having industries or lawyers for Government agencies actually fighting against what the individual has to say. They also find that intimidating.It doesn't mean that we can introduce a law that takes away certain rights for people to be able to have robust debate but it also means that we do have to introduce some laws where we make sure that there is fairness that the individual that comes along has a fair hearing without feeling like they're being intimidated by a bunch of lawyers in suits representing big business. We just don't agree with the way that this law is going to go about achieving that. We acknowledge that there is potential harm in alcohol abuse. We see it especially when we look at young kids with foetal alcohol syndrome kids being born to alcoholic mothers. This is a problem that this bill isn't going to fix. We need to have a look at how we can address some of the issues from alcohol abuse but this may not necessarily do it. However we are looking forward to that robust discussion and debate—and of course submissions that come in from all sides—because that's the fair process and the fair way to ensure that we come out with good legislation.The problem that we have—and I hope I get this correct—is we have territorial authorities who draft local alcohol policies (LAPs) and they go through a special consultation process. The Government keeps saying Well this isn't working because that consultation process is being held up with debates and with reviews and it's causing delays and as a result we're not getting those local alcohol policies actually going through the system. So we have some councils that don't even have any because they're getting tied up with the debates and the reviews around them."So that's preventing the territorial authorities from introducing what the communities want as part of their local alcohol policies. The district licensing committees approve those LAPs and they also approve the new and renewed licence applications.Andrew Bayly: Nude or renewed?NICOLE McKEE: Both. The new and renewed alcohol licence applications. But the district licensing committee process cannot account for any inconsistencies in the local alcohol policies if they have not yet been approved. So there's a bit of a conflict going on there. You've got this intent to ensure that the process is aligning with what the community wants but the community voice isn't being heard because they can't get through the process because of all the hold-ups. So we do have to look at how we can make sure that everybody gets a fair hearing the processes go through quickly and the community is heard.The problem though is that the bill that's introduced here removes a particular voice and that's the voice of the business owner. So when the business owner then has a conflict with what a policy may introduce—wants to have an argument I guess or a debate about what the community perceives—they're being restricted in their ability to do it because they are being blamed for holding up the process.So while we say "Let's have a look at the process then to make sure it moves a bit quicker" actually denying somebody the voice—especially when it comes down to their business—I don't think and neither does ACT that that is the way to work through a situation where we have such major conflict.The other party the Labour Party across the way are being very vocal about this. We get that; we do understand that. But there's this other side the other influence on this bill. And that means those people that are going to be affected and that is the people who own businesses.How can they know from year to year whether or not they're going to have a viable business every time they go to renew their licence? They don't. So what does that mean for the staff that work for them? What does it mean for the families of those that work in the industry? What does it mean? It means that they don't have any certainty around employment. In this day and age where we have a cost of living crisis we need to make sure that they do.So ensuring this also means looking at the evidence and it was really hard for me to try and garner what the evidence was because there was so much of it missing. When we look at policy framework and whether or not we're going to make sure that pieces of legislation are able to be implemented and implemented well we have to make sure the ducks are all in a row.The regulatory impact statement for this bill has not been prepared in time and the reason why is because it's been done under urgency. How can we make sure good laws go through when it's done under urgency? In the departmental disclosure statement on page 4 in the sub note it actually says it was done under urgency—page 4 paragraph 2.3: it was done urgency and then we don't have the regulatory impact statement. A Supplementary Analysis Report was produced to go to Cabinet because they could not do the regulatory impact statement.When you look at some of the stats as well we're seeing that we're actually reducing our alcohol intake in New Zealand. Stats New Zealand tells us this. They tell us how much people drink every year; they measure the alcohol consumption. For example a 150-millilitre glass of wine at 12 percent alcohol by volume is 18 millilitres of alcohol. A 330-millilitre bottle of beer at 5 percent is 16.5 millilitres of alcohol. It's in the Stats New Zealand evidence.In 1986 the average Kiwi aged over 18 years old drank 12.2 litres of alcohol per annum—that's about 1.85 drinks per day. The figure today is 9.2 litres per annum which is 1.4 drinks per day. So the alcohol consumption in New Zealand is falling. We can do better with this but it is falling.What we also need to look at is whether or not we are going to allow businesses such as our bottle stores to continue to offer low- or no-alcohol products which is also on the rise. Not everybody is drinking but everyone should have the ability to make the choice. And everyone should have the ability to be able to conduct their business or at least debate the reason why their business has been taken away from them.So in this first instance we will oppose this bill and hope we can sort out a resolution through select committee stage. Thank you."