Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10133] 
Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 This bill started off its life as the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) and it was originally a National Party bill. Its primary purpose was to deregulate licensing trusts. Fortunately there was a change of Government in 1999; common sense prevailed and the Labour-Alliance Government brought forward a Supplementary Order Paper to take out of the No. 3 bill those provisions that sought to deregulate licensing trusts. That No. 3 bill was making adequate progress through the House until several Supplementary Order Papers were moved in the Committee stage. The first was in my name and it was to enable wineries to be able to sell liquor on Easter Sunday. This had previously been in the Sale of Liquor Act but had been knocked out accidentally when we made the changes to that legislation in 1999. 
 That came to light only after the Sale of Liquor Act had been amended. It was my view that Parliament having accidentally taken this provision out of law should restore it. I campaigned around this Parliament to have everybody agree that this would be the case. So with the leave of the House I moved to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to have it amended even though it was outside the scope of the bill. The House agreed to this. 
Following that Mr Goff moved a Supplementary Order Paper No. 139 from memory which was to make changes to the Sale of Liquor Bill (No 3) to introduce transitional provisions for training of managers. This had not had tick-off by the industry and there was no consent. The National Party then started to filibuster the bill. With pressure on the time of the House the bill was then discharged back to the Commerce Committee and sat on the Order Paper for some time. 
Following that I became the Associate Minister of Justice responsible for the sale of liquor. I went around the parties to see what could be done. The parties agreed that they would like to see some progress on the bill but we had to resolve the transitional provisions. I consulted the Hotel Association licensing trusts and clubs and we got an agreement on a new provision. This was to be incorporated in Supplementary Order Paper 139. At this stage we had Supplementary Order Papers to remove sections Supplementary Order Papers to put new sections in and Supplementary Order Papers to substitute new sections. It became very complicated. So in consultation with other parties in the House I withdrew the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) and replaced it with the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The No. 2 bill is exactly the same as the No. 3 bill with a number of exceptions. The first is that those provisions in the original No. 3 bill seeking to deregulate licensing trusts have been removed. In addition to this the transitional provisions which have been agreed to by the industry and with the Ministry of Justice have been put into the No. 2 bill and do not require a Supplementary Order Paper. 
The third aspect of this bill is that those provisions will allow wineries to sell at their cellars on Easter Sunday. That is also written into the No. 2 bill. The rest of the bill has been through the select committee. There are changes about accountability and transparency. There are provisions to allow trusts to become community trusts and so on. They are all in the bill and there has been no change to that. The bill has been through the Commerce Committee before subject to consultation subject to discussions with parties and all the rest of it so it is all agreed. There is no controversy. 
But there is one additional item that I have advised all other parties of in the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) which was not in the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3). That is to allow for controlled-purchase operations. A recent judgment criticised the police actions in having control of purchase operations. In the control of purchase operation the police have someone who is under age—16 or 17 or whatever—to go into a particular establishment and seek to purchase alcohol. If the proprietor sells alcohol to the young person the police then prosecute. 
The court has criticised the police because they say that there is no provision for this as there is in the smoke-free legislation. The defence lawyers raised the case of the prospect that the police by encouraging people to purchase alcohol when they are under the age of 18 are in actual fact aiding and abetting the commission of a crime. So I think it is very important that we have these protections to enforce the legal age—18 years of age—in the selling of alcohol. I am very keen for an official provision to have controlled-purchase operations so this has been included in the bill. Being a very consultative person I have ensured that this has been advised to all the political parties in advance and I am sure every individual in this Parliament would agree with that provision. 
It is my intention to move that this bill go to the Commerce Committee. That is where all the submissions on the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) were heard. It is only appropriate that it go back to that committee. 
I also intend to move that the Commerce Committee report this bill back by 12 February. I do not think it needs the full time. It has been through and all the parties have heard it. All that needs to be done in the Commerce Committee is to ask for people to check that what the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) states is the same as what the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) stated beforehand and to deal with those issues. It is only a matter of clarification and checking. 
Having said that I have a small confession to make. This strategy of dealing with it has been hatched by none other than Mr Roger Sowry. He thought that to consolidate the bill into one was a good idea and thought also that it did not require the select committee to have a lot of time. I expect that all parties in this House will agree with it because it is such a sensible thing to do. 
I have gone over the provisions of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) to say that it is a morph of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) Bill with several additions all of which have been agreed by industry with the exception of the controlled-purchase operations. I am sure every member of this House would wish to ensure that the police have all the necessary tools that they desire to have to enforce the liquor legislation particularly about under-age drinking. I expect 100 percent support from this House for the bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The Minister has given us once-over-lightly the difference between the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). I was on the Commerce Committee that heard submissions on the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3). Indeed there is a very significant difference between the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). In the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) one of the major provisions was to remove the exclusive trading rights of the seven licensing trusts. At that stage members of the Commerce Committee heard extensive submissions from people who argued whether the monopoly trading rights enjoyed by the seven licensing trusts should continue and because of that the report back for that bill clearly stated that the committee could not agree that the bill be passed as amended. 
I cannot see how the Minister can try to mislead the House and also the public by saying that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) is substantially the same as the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3). If this bill gets past the first reading the Commerce Committee should revisit the submission process. The hearings that the committee originally heard are on a very different aspect of that legislation. 
The reason the committee was split was that the original bill included the term of removing the monopoly right and that was upon the recommendation of the 1997 report of the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council. It said that maintaining monopoly trading rights of the licensing trusts does not actually contribute to the purpose of the Sale of Liquor Act which is to establish a reasonable system of control over the sale and supply of liquor to the public with the aim of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse. 
Jill Pettis 
: This is a good impromptu speech from Pansy Wong. 
PANSY WONG 
: If the junior whip kept quiet she might learn something instead of babbling away as she always does. It seems to me that in his introduction speech the Minister has given a very misleading impression of the relationship of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) being likened to the current Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). We intend to draw that to the attention of the public. 
Debate interrupted.