Connell Brian: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12340] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 This is not a complex bill; it essentially falls into four parts. But I have to foreshadow that there is devil in the detail and it is somewhat unfortunate that the bill is constructed in the way it is. I am one of those members who sat on the Commerce Committee and foreshadowed our concern as noted in the commentary. 
The first part retains the existing monopoly rights of licensing trusts and makes minor changes to the powers of district-licensing agencies. I do not particularly have a problem with that component of the bill and will not be revisiting it. The second part permits wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday. I strongly support that component of the legislation and will come back to that throughout the course of this debate. The third part provides exemptions for under-18-year-olds to assist police during controlled-purchase operations by ensuring that they do not commit an offence. That aspect of the bill does trouble me and I will argue against it. The fourth part establishes in statute that general managers must hold prescribed qualifications. On the surface that appears reasonable but I have some reservations that I will also address during the Committee stage of this debate. 
Clause 14 deals with Easter Sunday selling of wine. As I have foreshadowed I strongly support that. Essentially as the Associate Minister of Justice pointed out it will enable wineries to trade on Easter Sunday if they choose. As members can imagine it is strongly supported by winemakers across the country. The clause essentially reinstates a provision that was operating prior to the passage of the sale of liquor reforms of 1999. It was eliminated by a drafting mistake and this bill simply attempts to correct that error. Before 1999 Easter Sunday trading by wineries operated without public outcry; in fact the contra-position really did prevail as can be witnessed by the huge number of people who visited our wineries. 
Probably the most compelling reason why this part of the bill needs to be supported is that it facilitates tourism. This Easter many Kiwis will visit some of our most productive wine regions: Central Otago Hawke’s Bay Gisborne Nelson North Canterbury and. in case the good folk of mid and central Canterbury are listening those two areas are budding wine areas as well. Imagine going to a region over Easter and not being able to visit one of our world-class wineries! It would take the shine off the visit entirely. I see Mr Speaker is nodding and I am sure he and I agree very strongly on this issue. If this aspect of the bill is not supported then there will be 2 days over the Easter period when tourists will not be able to visit a winery and I believe that will have a negative impact on tourism. Tourists will simply go elsewhere and that I believe will be a tragedy. The impact on local tourism as I have foreshadowed will be significant. Tourists will become frustrated with our wineries and their owners. Tourists will not understand the machinations of our legislators. They will simply talk the industry down and by implication will talk the New Zealand tourism industry down. 
Clauses 25 and 26 are drafted to allow under-18-year-olds to purchase liquor on licensed premises at the request of the police—that is during controlled-purchase operations. I am a very strong supporter of the police but on this issue I draw the line. It is nothing less in my view than entrapment. If under-age drinking is a problem then let us fix that issue. If we have to reinstate a drinking age of 20 then let us do that but let us not turn hitherto law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers by simply entrapping them. That in my view is neither fair nor reasonable. 
Some submitters to the select committee argued—and I have to say very reasonably articulately and intelligently—that the damage from alcohol-related problems is immense and I believe them. I have seen it with my own eyes. But sending in children to trap people into selling them some grog—people who otherwise are extremely busy and law-abiding citizens—is simply not on. Sure some people will sell anything to anybody but the majority of our people in this country who work in this industry are responsible. Let us not punish the 99 percent of people who do a good job and try their utmost to uphold the laws of this land. A 17-year-old female who has gone the whole 9 yards in terms of putting on make-up and dressing to look older than she is—who is dressed to kill—could look anywhere between 20 and 30 years of age and I for one would not want to try to pick that person’s age. Such operations are simply not the answer. An owner may be vigilant and I am sure most owners are but they cannot be everywhere. I know a number of publicans. Ashley Johnston in Rakaia is one publican I know who drums into his employees that they must be careful. But mistakes will be made and it is unreasonable that publicans then get belted up regardless of their efforts to ensure that those mistakes do not occur. 
If we are really serious about this issue let us make proof of identity and age compulsory for everyone who is involved in alcohol purchase. Let us put the emphasis on the buyer and not just on the seller. Throughout the course of this debate I will be moving amendments to delete clauses 25 and 26. 
Clause 21 substitutes a new section 117A of the Sale of Liquor Act that requires general managers to hold a prescribed qualification. A number of submitters thought that was necessary but an even larger number thought it was overly bureaucratic unnecessary and extremely expensive. I am somewhat persuaded by the latter group. I will deal with it in more detail in the Committee stage; suffice it to say that I think the third unit that is being prescribed is big on theory and does not do much for common sense and good old-fashioned management in this industry. Experience and common sense count for a lot in my book and I cannot help but think that this matter is just another example of legislation and qualifications for the sake of them. No wonder compliance is eroding the very soul of our commercial workforce! 
Through the course of this debate I will canvass a number of issues that I strongly support and some I simply cannot. As we go into the Committee stage I will be looking to the Minister in the chair to listen to my concerns and try to accommodate me so that I can vote for this legislation but as it is drafted at the moment I simply cannot.