Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I appreciate the chance to have a contribution to this the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. As the Hon Michael Woodhouse has already said on behalf of the National Party we don't support the bill in its current form; therefore we won't be supporting it at the first reading. But we do look forward to a discussion and a debate at the select committee process. We'll hear from submitters no doubt on various different sides of the issue and we'll see if there's a shape that the bill can be worked into that will make it worth supporting.Of course the starting point is that we acknowledge that alcohol is a dangerous drug—or at least it's a drug that's used dangerously by some in our society; of course it's capable of being used in a way that's not dangerous it's capable of being consumed—Simon Court: For hand sanitiser for example.CHRIS PENK: —in moderation. Our colleague and friend from the ACT Party points out that hand sanitiser contains alcohol.But if we're talking about sale and supply and actually I'd add consumption" of alcohol—that's word's not in the title of the legislation—we can distinguish this from some other drugs that are not capable of being consumed in moderation. So that's the starting point: an acknowledgment that there is harm caused in our community by the way that some of our fellow Kiwis consume alcohol. If you doubt that there's the press gallery party tonight and anyone who wishes to head along and gain any content for their submissions at the select committee process—you know if they've received an invite—would be able to do so.But actually this isn't really a bill about alcohol; this is a bill about civil procedure. This is a bill about processes that currently allow participation by various different groups community and otherwise in terms of the way that local area plans are made by territorial authorities—aka councils—in relation to local ways of allowing outlets to operate and so forth. It's actually really important lest anyone should think that this is merely a bureaucratic or a technocratic matter to ensure that there is a robust process by which these plans are made because if an enduring solution is to be reached that will provide for the long term a community with a plan and a set of processes—for example as to the location of liquor outlets—then actually there needs to be a process that is respected and respectable in terms of the way that is made.Now it might be the case—indeed I don't dispute that it is the case—that at the moment the process is capable of abuse by those who have a vested interest of a commercial nature. But the solution as the Hon Michael Woodhouse has pointed out is actually to enable and facilitate indeed provide a process that people can have their say much more quickly and effectively than is currently the case so that communities can have in place plans that are appropriate for them rather than to say "Well the way that we achieve such a process is by saying that half the evidence won't be brought out." If we doubt the basic nature of what's happening here we should look at all the other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in this country also beset by delays heartbreak and frankly the ruin of many lives as across the Family Court the District Court the High Court the Supreme Court the coroner's court various authorities and tribunals—absolutely disgraceful delays.Yes there are some longstanding fundamental problems but yes they have got worse in the last five years. Yes they have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 response. But no there hasn't been enough imagination there hasn't been enough technological ingenuity even to the point of providing a reasonable level of facilities of audiovisual links for example. And so there—Arena Williams: Don't blame the courts. These appeals are brought to delay the courts.CHRIS PENK: Well we hear that it shouldn't be the court that should be blamed. I'm not blaming the court; I'm blaming the Government that presides over a system that doesn't provide the leadership and—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! Go ahead Chris Penk.CHRIS PENK: —thank you Madam Speaker—a forum in which voices can be heard. How ironic that the other side of the House is shouting down these points that are being made. We have a major problem with access to justice in this country. Justice delayed is justice denied and we have in this case the notion that the communities are denied justice in the sense of having the plans put in place that they need to have because of the systems being overly slow legalistic we've heard—well it's a legal environment. I mean we do need to have an environment where we have a robust process where everyone can be heard and then an enduring solution can be reached.So if we look for example at what exactly is proposed—and as I say I look forward genuinely to hearing the ways in which this is going to operate at select committee—we hear that there'll be the removal of ability to appeal provisions provisional local alcohol policies—LAPs so called—and requirements to consult on discontinued ones. Well the requirement to consult is probably a good one. But the removal of the ability to appeal: well unless that's an abuse of process—and I accept actually the point that my colleague and friend across the House makes sometimes it can be an abuse of process and appeals can be made merely to delay and that's again a problem in the justice system more generally. It's often been said that an incompetent lawyer can delay a trial for weeks but a good one can delay it for months or years. These are things to which we should be aware and alive but to say then that there shouldn't be a right of appeal and if we're interested in evidence-based policy then to preclude the evidence from the process whereby the community and those affected by these plans—if we're precluding those voices and precluding that evidence then actually as a House we're not interested in evidence-based policy and that's exactly what we should be looking to and allowing and with the result that will apply in each individual community going forward.So we hear then that the bill will have procedures that avoid unnecessary formality. Well that's a good thing in itself. I've given that a little tick for what that's worth.But I put a question mark next to the next two bullet points: "do not permit those who appear at hearings to question any party or witness". So it will be possible to put forward a view or an opinion or a feeling or a vibe or a prejudice that may or may not be backed up by evidence. Without the ability to ask questions and say "Actually where did that come from?" and actually to test that and not to permit cross-examination which is the next bullet point which is a related point but to not allow the discussion to be tested by either side actually asking questions of the other such that the impartial decision-maker can come to a conclusion it just seems absolutely extraordinary to me. I mean they're going about it in the wrong way.Within my remaining time I will simply point out the obvious which is that that there are many good ways of reducing alcohol harm—"minimising harm" as the phrase goes. One of these the alcohol and other drug treatment court for example was established by National it's been extended by the current Government to various places—that's a positive thing. There are lots of things that we can do in the communities and it might be that there's a better process that can be put in place—Anna Lorck: There is; it's in the bill.CHRIS PENK: —for the local alcohol plans. The other side say "it's in the bill." and that's fine; we can have that discussion and that debate. But in the meantime there's no evidence—and we're interested in evidence in this law—that this is going to be a better process that actually enables enduring solutions to be reached. It doesn't appear to us that's the case. That's why we do not support this bill."