Allan KiritapuSALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and found on the Parliament website.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.This bill responds to persistent issues with alcohol licensing processes in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. When the Act was introduced over a decade ago it was intended to give communities a say in the way that alcohol licensing decisions were made in their respective communities and areas. However we've heard from communities themselves that the Act is not working in the way that it was intended. The bill responds to these concerns by making changes to the licensing processes in three key areas.First the bill supports territorial authorities to adopt and apply local alcohol policies—or LAPs—to better guide licensing decisions in their area. It does this by removing the ability of parties to appeal provisional LAPs. It also gives District Licensing Committees or DLCs discretion to decline to renew licences where those licences are inconsistent with their local policy.Secondly the bill allows anyone to object to alcohol licence applications save for a very narrow exception for trade competitors to ensure licensing remains squarely focused on harm reduction.Third the bill makes licensing hearings more accessible and fairer for everybody taking part by requiring DLCs to avoid unnecessary formality in their hearings. This includes removing the ability for people to be cross-examined in those hearings.By making these changes the bill ensures the voices of our communities are really at the heart of alcohol licensing decision making—the way the 2012 reforms were indeed intended to be. Before I discuss the bill in more detail I want to just really acknowledge there were 420 people or organisations or groups that made submissions on this bill specifically. That's a large number of submitters and I think it really goes to that point of just how interested people are in this particular area.I want to again just acknowledge our colleagues across the House chaired by Vanushi Walters—excellent chair that she is—that sit on that Justice Committee. They have been working incredibly hard to ensure that we are getting these pieces of legislation through in the form which they are intended to be. I'm pleased that the committee has recommended by a majority that this bill be passed. I also want to acknowledge that we've welcomed some suggested amendments as well.The changes relating to LAPs make it easier for councils to adopt an LAP if they wish and ensures that they are more effective once they are put into place. For too long territorial authorities have worked with their communities developed policies only to be held up once it comes into that appeal process. This has cost ratepayers millions of dollars and it's also delayed—and sometimes prevented in some quite big examples—councils from being able to adopt their LAPs at all. LAPs have a role in reducing harm and they are an important way for communities to influence alcohol licensing decisions in the areas. This bill will remove the costs and delays associated with appeals and ensure that community voices are carried through to those licensing decisions.I'm pleased the committee generally supports these changes and we welcome the minor and technical amendments to fine-tune the proposal. In particular I note that the bill is a lot clearer about how the new rules will apply to LAPs that have been developed when the provisions come into force. This will help territorial authorities navigate what the changes mean for them. It is absolutely important that we get this change right because this bill needs to strike that fair balance. These transitional provisions respect appeals that are under way when the changes came into effect and protect the right to fair proceedings for the people involved in those cases.I was pleased also to see that the committee agreed by majority with the change allowing anyone to object to an application for an alcohol licence—with a discrete exception for trade competitors. I also welcome the recommendation to apply this change regardless of the type of licensing application—be it for a new licence renewal a special licence or an application to vary licence conditions. This ensures consistency across alcohol licensing no matter the type of application making the law simpler for everyone to engage with.I know also that the committee carefully considered how to extend the eligibility for who can object to an application to best enable and protect community participation in licensing processes. Ultimately allowing anyone to object means that no person or group is excluded from that process. The committee heard from submitters who gave compelling evidence to support this. One submitter noted that allowing all community members to object to a licence will enable communities to have greater influence over their community environments including where they live where they work where they learn where they play where they shop and where they socialise. Another submitter said this change respects those who have family elsewhere and those that have whakapapa or ancestral connections to particular areas. For whānau across the country this change means that they will have the ability to influence alcohol licensing decisions those that impact their rohe their whole painga their iwi—irrespective of where they reside.With greater inputs DLCs will have a broader range of information to inform their decisions and it will be for DLCs to weigh the evidence presented. The committee has recommended an extension to the exemption for trade competitors. The bill now prevents people that are helped by a trade competitor to object to a licence. This change ensures that the licensing process is not about trying to get a competitive advantage over another business but focuses as I previously said on that harm reduction point.I also welcome the committee's recommendation to extend the time frame for submitting an objection to an application from 15 to 25 days. The committee recognised that 15 days doesn't always allow for people and particularly community organisations adequate time to put their objections together. Coupled with a change that allows anyone to object to a licence application whether as a representative or a group organisation this amendment gives people sufficient time to prepare and gather evidence. Increasing this time frame to 25 working days is a small but potentially quite a significant change to enable that community participation.The changes to how the DLC hearings are run received particular scrutiny by the select committee. There are a number of changes to the bill as a result. First the committee recommended including some suggestions for DLCs to consider when deciding on the procedures to avoid unnecessary formality. This is particularly in response to submissions that called for more guidance to support the DLCs whilst also enabling individual DLCs to decide what works best for them in their local areas.Secondly the committee considered how to better support Māori to participate in hearings. I recognise that many submitters said tikanga can be poorly observed while many more highlighted the inequitable alcohol-related harms experienced by our hapori Māori.The committee recommended changes so that DLCs can support people to be heard in te reo Māori and allow for tikanga to be incorporated into proceedings as they are also in the other parts of the justice system. These changes will better enable DLCs and their communities to figure out what works best for them when it comes to licensing and recognise the unique characteristics of the region.Third the committee also strengthened provisions related to people giving evidence remotely. The bill now requires DLCs and the licensing authority to consider reasonable requests by people to participate in hearings remotely. This gives a signal to those that have asked to participate in this form.Finally the committee heard a range of submissions on the provisions for DLCs to manage the volume of objections. Submitters pointed out that there are existing provisions in the Act already which give DLCs the powers but many submitters also raised strong concern that these clauses will undermine the purpose of bill; that they could exclude valid objections and discourage participation.Again I want to acknowledge those that have worked on this bill and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.