Hague Kevin: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 August 2015. Volume:708;Page:6212. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to start this contribution with one of the points that Jono Naylor has just made in that speech of his where he says that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill does not undermine or cut across the purpose of the principal Act the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The purpose of the principal Act is harm minimisation. The Law Commission and this House were clear that one of the ways that that needed to be done was by restricting the hours that alcohol was available for sale. So it seems to me kind of cutting across that. Then what we said in the debate around the original legislation when it went through the House in 2012 was that we would deal with events that fell outside of normal licensed hours by means of special licences. We specified that the Rugby World Cup and indeed international sporting fixtures more generally were precisely the kinds of things for which special licences were created. What that does of course is it enables licensing committees to assess an application for a special licence according to the circumstances of the applicant and enables the licensing committee to impose conditions that are able to meet the primary objective of the principal Act to minimise harm associated with that extension of licensed hours.It seems to me that when Alastair Scott said in the second reading that what this Parliament is doing is going over the heads of local government and imposing a blanket special licence to almost everyone that is actually precisely what cutting across the intent of the original Act is all about. It would have been possible—if we are creating a special licence for everyone effectively then the onus should be on this House—to set the conditions at the level that those licensing committees would have chosen to set them at the most restrictive level had they been assessing individual applications for special licences. This House in this bill is choosing not to do that. Submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee in large numbers told us what the conditions ought to be; this House is choosing to ignore most of what they said.I want to come to the issue of whether or not this bill is necessary because in a number of the contributions this afternoon and this evening I have heard members continuing to quote the same kinds of statements that we have heard from proponents of the bill—that a special licensing regime would have been the right way to do this but sadly it just is not working that people are not getting licences or that the licences that people are getting have onerous conditions. I just want to put on record the evidence that was heard by the select committee about that issue. Here is the evidence: the committee saw no evidence whatsoever that any special licence had been refused anywhere. The select committee received no submission from any licensee saying: “Well I received the special licence but the conditions on it were too onerous.” The committee heard from the New Zealand Police in its submission opposing the bill that special licences had been issued in all police districts except two and in the two districts where special licences had not been issued that was because applications had not been made not because they had been refused. So it seems to me that the evidence the actual evidence before this House’s select committee actually suggests that the evidence of the problem is in the very best instance exaggerated.We also heard about a licensed premises in Rotorua I think it was that had applied for and received special licences to open and to serve alcohol during 23 Rugby World Cup games. It has been referred to already in the second reading debate. The premises found that the conditions initially imposed by the licensing committee were more onerous than it would have preferred. It appealed against those licensing conditions and had almost all of them thrown out. So it seems to me that if indeed there is a problem in some parts of the country with perhaps bizarre or maybe more onerous conditions being imposed actually that suggests that the courts themselves will in fact even that problem out.When we heard in the lead-up to this bill being considered of the case that the special licensing regime was not working as this House had intended the correct response to that problem was that we ought to have a review of implementation of the special licensing regime and then to correct problems with it if indeed they exist. That is important for a reason that Grant Robertson in fact has already given in this House in this reading. What next? If this is the approach that we are taking to the Rugby World Cup the thinnest end of the wedge will the next bill be about the Cricket World Cup or the Netball World Cup or the World Rowing Championships? What is actually happening here is that industry and people who were disgruntled with the original legislation that this House passed in 2012 are attempting to relitigate that point. So a review of the implementation of special licensing is required and the Green Party urges the Minister of Justice to initiate such an inquiry. The Green Party agreed to allow this bill to go forward to a select committee so that the public’s views could be heard on the basis first of all that claims were being made that the special licensing regime was not working as intended—those have proved to be exaggerated at best—and also on the basis of undertakings made by ACT and National. I am sad to say that those undertakings have not been honoured.I want to move now to talk about another of the arguments that have been made by the bill’s proponents. The bill’s proponents have depicted New Zealand’s drinking culture in a way that differs extremely starkly from the picture painted by the Law Commission by the police by New Zealand’s medical and other health professionals by Women’s Refuge and by other community organisations that work with the consequences of alcohol abuse. Proponents of the bill have described New Zealand’s drinking culture as sophisticated mature and moderate. When they have described how this bill will work in practice they have described people turning up to a premises perhaps with a family atmosphere—eating breakfast drinking coffee. As we heard from one proponent of the bill this evening they are more likely to be suffering the ill effects of an excess of bacon and coffee when they leave. Well I am sure we could all probably think of premises like that; I certainly can. My flat in Wellington is about a block away from Courtenay Place and I can tell the House that arguablyon most mornings of the week one has to be careful for the first few hundred metres of my walk to work to dodge the debris of the previous night’s consumption of alcohol—specifically the vomit whether it be dry or still wet. That actually is a regular feature of inner-city Wellington.Although we can think of plenty of premises where that is the culture I will bet that every single member of this House can think of at least one premises where the owner will look at this bill rub their hands and say: “Great. I can extend the hours in which I can sell alcohol and all I have to do is buy a TV and a Sky subscription. That’s a pretty good deal.” If proponents of the bill are serious about that culture how about this for a two-tier system? Let us remind the police that this House wanted the special licensing regime to be available for Rugby World Cup games and at the same time let us amend the principal Act. Let us amend it to allow all licensed premises to open for every single Rugby World Cup game provided they do not sell alcohol. We would vote for that bill.