Nash Stuart: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Nash Stuart: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14265] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Before I start my speech Mr Assistant Speaker could you please indulge me when I say “Good evening sir.” to Barry Goggin. On the 9 September Barry retired as one of the parliamentary gallery staff after 17 years’ service. He is a fine chap a very good bloke and I hope he is enjoying his retirement because it is well deserved. 
I stand in support of the second reading of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker Cam Calder who said he is based in Manurewa—even though he lives on the North Shore—has decided to vote against the bill. I am quite astounded by that because he stood up and outlined the real problems faced by people in the electorate of Manurewa and then proceeded to say he was speaking against the bill. That is not a good stance. 
In my time tonight there are only two questions that I will pose and then answer. First of all I ask what sort of society we want to live in and secondly I ask what sort of message we as members of Parliament want to send to our communities about alcohol. But before I discuss those questions I compliment my colleague the Hon George Hawkins on bringing this member’s bill to the House. Mr Hawkins is an example of a Labour MP who understands his communities who talks to his constituents and who acts on the recommendations of those who come to visit him and offer their counsel. I congratulate George. He has undertaken wide and varied consultation on this bill. I congratulate him on seeking to amend the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. When George decides to leave this House—and I know he has a few more terms left in him yet—he will be sorely missed by his constituents and he will leave huge shoes to fill. 
But I remind the House that this bill does not relate just to Manurewa; it relates to the whole country. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that under the Standing Orders a member is not allowed to barrack in the way that Mr Quinn is doing without sitting in his actual seat. If he really wants to interject in that manner he should go to the back of the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member—and I presume he has heard me say this on a number of occasions—that yes the rules according to Speaker’s rulings are that members may not shift their seat for the purpose of interjecting. However I note that the member has shifted because members do drift down to this end of the House and there is interjection. It helps to make shall I say a more engaged place. The interjections were light and friendly but were a little lacking in humour I might say. I did not think they interfered with the member’s speech and I just invite the member to continue with it. 
STUART NASH 
: I will provide an answer to the first question I posed about the sort of society that we want to live in. As politicians we have a unique opportunity to help to define the types of communities that we live in and our children grow up in. We have opportunities to send messages about the sort of society we want to create for our families and friends and for the country’s citizens. For me a number of messages are important in terms of creating safe and secure communities. 
The first message is that it is not acceptable to have a liquor store or a store advertising and selling alcohol on every street corner. We have enough problems with alcohol in our communities and more advertising in dairies where children buy their sweets is hardly the type of message we want to send to young children who are growing up. This bill deals with that problem. Alcohol causes more harm than almost any other drug in society and we need to send the message that drinking to excess is not normal healthy or acceptable and will not be tolerated by the wider community. 
The second message is that in a fully functioning and democratic society we need to have laws that respect the views of all who participate in the health and wealth of our communities. Let us be honest: alcohol sales affect many more people than those involved in the actual transaction. Alcohol for example is often drunk near to or at the point of sale. So we should let those who may be impacted by the drinking of alcohol comment on where and when a retailer can be located. This bill deals with that problem. It does so by granting any person the right to object to the granting of either on-licence or off-licence applications provided the objector can produce evidence that he or she would be adversely affected if the application were successful. 
The third message is that this bill requires that a report on the social impact of granting a liquor licence must be provided by a person who applies for a licence. Again that forces applicants to take responsibility for their proposed actions. This measure is a sea change. It is long overdue and it is most welcome. If the evaluation shows there will be harm to the community I have no doubt that under this legislation the application will be turned down. This bill is an example of democracy as it should be practised: with the input of all citizens and the applicant showing responsibility. It is about time we had that I say. It makes absolute sense and I fully support the ability of those in the community to have a say on activities that have an adverse impact upon them. 
My second question asked about the sort of message that we want to send as members of Parliament to our communities about alcohol. This year the Law Commission chaired by Sir Geoffrey Palmer put out a huge volume entitled  
Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
. The report was tabled in Parliament. I will read out a couple of points that make very disturbing reading. Members probably know about them but they are some of the elephants in the room that we just do not like to mention. Well the time has now come for us to be absolutely aware. The report states: “New Zealand has a pervasive culture of drinking to excess. National drinking surveys consistently show that around 25 percent of drinkers—the equivalent of 700000 New Zealanders—typically drink large quantities when they drink. Despite the incontrovertible evidence linking intoxication to a range of serious harms as a society we have developed a dangerous tolerance for drunkenness. The latest drinking survey shows … Ten percent or the equivalent of 224000 adults consumed enough to feel drunk at least weekly. … for a large sector of the population there is a dominant pattern of heavy intermittent drinking episodes the worst pattern for the drinker’s own health outcomes and the worst for damage to those around them.” Is this the sort of society we want to create and leave for our children? 
In the report a section entitled “What’s the problem?” states: “Alcohol is the backdrop to so many issues. Issues which New Zealand is not addressing very well issues like obesity suicide sexual health injuries and so on. … for a significant number of young people today drinking is not merely an adjunct to their social lives but the focal point drunkenness is not an occasional by-product of drinking but an end in itself.” Is that the sort of society that we want to create? 
The report further states: “Research suggests that a discernible relationship between a high concentration of outlet numbers (usually referred to as high outlet density or outlet ‘clustering’) and alcohol consumption at a neighbourhood level. … The Committee pointed in particular to an apparent relationship between outlet clustering and the extent of underage drinking.” 
I say this is the sort of harm that the Hon George Hawkins has witnessed in the Manurewa electorate this is the sort of harm and the sort of behaviour that the Hon George Hawkins does not want to see all around this country and this is the reason for this bill. Earlier I posed two questions. The first was about the sort of society that we want to live in. The answer to that is a society where all citizens have a say. George Hawkins’ bill allows for that. The second question I posed was about the sort of message that we as members of Parliament want to send to our communities about alcohol. The answer is a new message: responsible drinking is the only way forward. Drunkenness is simply not cool; in fact it is downright stupid. 
I congratulate the Hon George Hawkins. I think this is a wonderful bill. It does a hell of a lot to address the concerns that many people in New Zealand have about the state of drinking in our society and about the prevalence of alcohol outlets in our communities. I commend this bill to the House and I hope that all 122 members will vote for it. Thank you very much.