Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Just to be really clear about what it is that we're talking about when we're talking about this legislation in front of the House today—as many have alluded to obviously the Rugby World Cup which is the context of these changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—what we're talking about is not increasing people's ability to access watching that game; what we're talking about is increasing people's ability to access alcohol sales throughout the period of those games. Currently the law as it's set doesn't prevent venues which would otherwise serve alcohol from opening at the time that the games are being played. It does however prevent them from serving alcohol during those times.So I kind of foreshadowed what my contribution would be from members of the National Party in speaking earlier but I think it's actually really important to ground this contribution in the second reading and the regulatory impact statement (RIS) on this legislation. I'd refer members there to page 2 where it says and I'll just quote from it Alcohol is a harmful drug that contributes to a wide range of health social and justice-related harms and subsequent costs for society. The evidence-base also clearly connects increases in alcohol-related harm with both extended training hours and sports events. At the same time the men's RWC likely presents a significant commercial opportunity for on-licensed and club-licensed premises as well as being a highlight on the calendar for rugby fans."Inherent in that is an admission of the fact very explicitly that there is a clear evidence base that increases in alcohol-related harm are connected to extended trading hours and sporting events. So the evidence base that the National Party was saying doesn't exist actually does exist in the very regulatory impact statement as tabled to underpin this legislation.But what we see in that advice from officials is pretty explicit trade-offs being made against harm and kind of commercial imperative. To that effect I think it's really important that we unpack one of the points as made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse who was saying that you know people have choices. They can decide whether it is that they may or may not want to have a beer with that 7 a.m. game that that in and of itself doesn't necessarily contribute towards harm. And I guess that is kind of the point because sure that one drink in and of itself does not; the point is that alcohol harm however does not occur in a vacuum. So just to zoom out a little bit and to look at the context alcohol is Aotearoa New Zealand's favourite drug—80 percent of New Zealanders consume it and approximately a quarter of us do so to really harmful ends. We actually have some of the best research in the world with regard to the association of alcohol to mental ill-health and particularly at the most awful end of that to suicidality. Some research out of the University of Otago I believe it was—Dr Rose Crossin made that incredibly clear just a few months ago when releasing that research at the point in time that this House was actually debating the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill.To that effect we have to be really clear about when it is that we are enabling those commercial interests to override the potential for evidence-based interventions to reduce that harm. I don't think anybody in this House could potentially accuse me of being a prohibitionist when it comes to any given substance but the reality is that—Dr James McDowall: Tell us more about it.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —when we're looking at regulating substances—I'd love to tell the ACT Party about it because I'd love to tell them about logical consistency when it comes to substances. At one end of the extreme you have complete criminal prohibition and at the other end of the extreme you have a complete legal free market. At both ends of that spectrum you have the maximisation of harm because you have either corporate entities or criminal entities that are incentivised to exploit vulnerable communities in order to make a quick buck by selling as much of their product as is possible. So Dr James McDowall from the ACT Party what I would prefer is that we move away from those extremes into the space of what is called sensible evidence-based regulation and that is the logical consistency that the Greens have constantly been banging on about. Whether it is tobacco whether it is cannabis whether it is alcohol we have the opportunity to be grown-ups in this country and create a level of consistency between for example the dog of legislation that is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.So the reason that the Greens do not support this legislation is just that fundamental lack of logical consistency but it's secondly the fact that the special licence provisions are actually probably working pretty well as intended to under the primary legislation at present. There's actually not that much evidence that it's not and we see reflected in the RIS that this is just about simplifying that process.Secondly it's that actually to a certain extent I do agree with members of the ACT Party who are going to say that if we're having to pass this under urgency every single time a world cup swings around—it's not like that's unpredictable—then maybe we should look at creating a framework that actually pre-empts this stuff in the first place so that we're not being the fastest lawmakers in the West as that comes with obviously a range of downstream impacts.Just finally if I can just make an appeal to evidence-based law when it comes to substances particularly when it comes to alcohol in this country because as the Hon Paul Goldsmith was alluding to there's a grand coalition that is breaking out amongst the Labour and the National parties and it's not just on youth justice and locking up the kids and throwing away the key; it is in fact on alcohol and it is you know as they both decided to also vote down my Alcohol Harm Minimisation Bill although I will acknowledge those within the Labour Party who worked really hard and saw the Government take up that first part of the legislation with regards to particularly local alcohol policies.There's a lot to be desired in this debate today. I really really hope that we take this opportunity and this moment to reflect on how we genuinely can produce evidence-based policies evidence-based legislation evidence-based law to reduce alcohol harm in this country because it doesn't happen in a vacuum; it happens as a result of us allowing through our laws to continue to see alcohol companies wield the level of power that they do which sees all of us be inclined to have a drink on a good day a bad day or even just a day and the associations that that has to mental ill-health to family harm to sexual violence and everything else. We have an opportunity to do a lot better and unfortunately this legislation just ain't it."