Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12338] 
Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The bill has been reported back from the Commerce Committee. I would like to thank the members of the select committee for the work they have done on this bill. In most respects the bill is identical to the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) that was introduced in 1999. While the original bill proposed a complete deregulation of licensing trusts removing all monopoly trading rights this bill takes a different approach. It allows but does not require licensing trusts to reconstitute as community trusts. The Government’s approach recognises that some communities may want to retain their existing licensing trust arrangements until a majority of the trust’s electors vote in favour of competition. 
The main purpose of this bill is to provide licensing trusts with the option of reconstituting as community trusts. It gives community trusts freedom to operate in industries other than the hospitality industry while ensuring that their activities remain accountable and transparent. Community trusts have a broader community focus and unlike licensing trusts their activities need not require them to be engaged in the sale of liquor. The members and electors of each licensing trust will determine whether the trust becomes a community trust. The process can be initiated by a resolution of the trust’s existing members. Electors will also have the option of calling for a poll on the issue as well. The residents of the former licensing trust district will elect the members of the community trust. Elections will be held at the same time as the triennial general elections for other local authorities. 
The bill also contains provisions that are designed to improve the financial performance and accountability of all licensing trusts. Those provisions will apply irrespective of whether or not a trust restructures itself as a community trust. Local licensing trusts will be able to carry out business outside their area without the need to first hold an expansion poll. All licensing trusts will be required to disclose in their annual accounts the remuneration paid to employees and senior managers. Licensing trusts will be required to hold annual meetings to account to electors for the effectiveness of their performance. 
There have been some amendments to the bill through the select committee process. After considering submissions on the frequency of elector polls the committee has recommended that it would be fairer for the polls to be held less frequently. The committee has changed the bill to ensure that an elector-requisitioned poll cannot be held within 3 years of an earlier poll. That is consistent with the regime in the Act that governs competition polls. The change does not in any way limit the ability of licensing trusts members to initiate a reconstitution of the board by resolution on an annual basis. Electors will continue to have the right to call for a poll whenever the members pass a resolution in favour of reconstitution. 
The committee also recommended the addition of a provision to clarify that a licensing trust would lose its exclusive trading rights upon its reconstitution as a community trust. It would be unfair for a community trust to hold a monopoly right within its district while being able to trade freely outside that district. The committee has therefore amended the bill to clarify that monopoly rights do not transfer to the new community trust. In response to a submission from the Auditor-General the committee has also amended the financial reporting provisions for licensing and community trusts. That change will improve the accountability of licensing and community trusts by requiring their financial statements to comply with generally accepted accounting practice. 
Part 2 makes a number of changes to the principal Act that are not related to licensing or community trusts. The bill incorporates amendments to the conditions applying to off-licences so that wineries can sell their own wine on Easter Sunday if they either grow the fruit or grapes on site or make the wine on site. The intent of this aspect of the bill is to reintroduce an earlier provision of the principal Act that allowed wineries to sell some of their own wines on any Sunday including Easter Sunday. Wineries will have to hold an appropriate off-licence to take advantage of that provision. 
Submissions to the select committee proposed that the bill be changed to allow wineries to sell the full range of wine produced under their labels regardless of where it is made or grown. However the committee considered that if that were permitted wineries would have a new broader right than they had previously enjoyed. The purpose of the provision is to aid local tourism and the committee considered that an extension of the nature proposed in submissions may erode the restrictions Parliament approved when it considered off-licence sales in 1999. The committee has therefore made no change to that aspect of the bill. 
The bill contains an important amendment to the principal Act to provide a legislative basis for controlled purchase operations. The amendment will ensure that the police can continue with those effective enforcement operations. The police district licensing inspectors and public health officials currently join forces to conduct enforcement operations to test whether bottle stores and other liquor outlets are complying with the Act. Those operations catch liquor outlets that break the law by selling alcohol to young people under the age of 18. Under-age volunteers go into licensed premises at the request of the police and attempt to purchase alcohol. Under-age volunteers are fully briefed by the police beforehand and only take part in the operations with the agreement of their parents or guardians. 
Controlled purchase operations have been conducted fairly widely throughout the country for the last 3 years. They are a highly effective method of assessing compliance with the Act. The police also obtain evidence from them for prosecutions and other enforcement actions. However a recent District Court decision has raised a concern that the young people who assist the police with these enforcement operations may be inadvertently breaking the law by purchasing alcohol. To address that concern the bill amends the Act to specifically provide that under-age volunteers who purchase alcohol at the request of a police officer during an enforcement operation do not commit an offence under the Act. 
The bill also contains an important technical amendment to provide for the staggered introduction of the requirement for a general manager of licensed premises to hold a prescribed qualification. The amendment is needed in order to provide for a transitional period during which general managers can obtain the qualifications they will need to comply with the general manager requirements introduced by the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act 1999. Submissions to the select committee generally indicated strong industry support for managers to be qualified. Concern was expressed in a few submissions over the content of the prescribed qualification and the possible consequences of the changes for existing trainers and their training programmes. The qualification itself is to be prescribed in regulation and is not a matter that is dealt with in this bill. 
The Hospitality Standards Institute which is the industry training organisation for the hospitality industry developed the Liquor Controller Qualification in 2000. I understand that the Hospitality Standards Institute consulted widely when it formulated the units that currently make up the Liquor Controller Qualification. The qualification is registered with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and is now widely recognised across the industry. However the Hospitality Standards Institute in its submission to the committee proposes a review of the prescribed qualification to ensure that it is still fit for its purpose. In view of the time-lapse since the development of the qualification further consultation concerning its content should take place in the course of developing the regulations prescribing the qualification. Consultation over the content of the regulations will allow the concerns raised with the select committee over aspects of the content of the qualification the status of existing trainers and their training programmes to be considered. 
Finally I understand that the committee also received a number of submissions on the restrictions that prevent supermarkets and grocery stores from selling Asian cooking wine and other food condiments containing alcohol. Asian cooking wines are prepared for culinary purposes and have been rendered unsuitable for drinking normally by the addition of salt. At present there is uncertainty as to whether supermarkets and grocery stores may sell Asian cooking wines and other food condiments containing alcohol. Although the committee was not in a position to address that issue I signal my intention to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House that will allow supermarkets and grocery stores to sell those products under an off-licence. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
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. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall make a brief contribution on this bill. As always the quicker we get this bill through the House the better it will be for the people involved in the sale of liquor in our country. The bill will provide more certainty for many of those within the sector. As has been stated the main purpose is to provide licensing trusts with the option of reconstituting themselves as community trusts if they so wish. 
I shall comment very briefly on Mr Connell’s comments about identification for people wanting to purchase alcohol. If I were on the other side of the counter and unsure of somebody’s age—and I agree that sometimes it is very hard to tell exactly how old people are—my policy would be: “No ID no alcohol.” It is as simple as that. 
As I said at the beginning let us get on and get this bill passed so that we can provide some certainty for those who are involved in the sale of liquor. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to deal with two main aspects of the bill: first providing existing licensing trusts with the option to reconstitute themselves as community trusts; and secondly the amendments to the conditions applying to off-licences so that wineries can sell their own wines on Easter Sunday. 
Let us look at the first provision which gives licensing trusts the option to reconstitute themselves. Licensing trusts set up under earlier Acts of Parliament have continued to go before the electorate to find out whether people wanted them to continue as licensing trusts. Some licensing trusts have reached a point whereby they want to change their trading aspects and reconstitute themselves as community trusts. A community trust has a much wider means of trading and also has the ability to trade outside its limited area. 
Unfortunately an anomaly exists in this part of the bill. The principal Act the Sale of Liquor Act has a list of existing licensing trusts in its third schedule. That list will have to be amended once a licensing trust on that list reconstitutes itself as a community trust and that is one area we will concentrate on during the Committee stage. 
Let us now look at the amendments to the ability of wineries to trade on Easter Sunday. The bill simply reconstitutes a situation that existed prior to an amendment in 1999 that for some reason suddenly dropped the ability of wineries to sell alcohol on Easter Sunday. That is a sad situation because as a previous speaker mentioned wineries are a huge attraction for tourists in this country. At this time of the year there are a lot of tourists and particularly over Easter local people will also travel—effectively becoming tourists in different areas. They will want to try the different wares of the wineries. Unfortunately under the current Act wineries are precluded from selling wine on both Good Friday and Easter Sunday which means that tourists in this country do not have an opportunity to try the very very fine award-winning wines of many of those wineries. The restriction put on by the Commerce Committee is that wineries must sell their own wines. That includes wines made from grapes grown on their properties but sent out for processing and brought back to the wineries. Those wines will be OK. We will explore that area further in the next stage of the bill. 
Another area I would like to look at quickly is the matter of young people being sent into pubs to try to trap publicans into selling them wine when they are under age. I must admit that that is straight-out entrapment. Unfortunately this bill has missed a golden opportunity to rectify a major problem in this country. We should have taken the opportunity in this bill to raise the drinking age and restore it back to 20. That would raise the age of young people found drinking on the streets. It is a shame that 12 and 13-year-olds are out on the streets drunk and it is a pity that this bill will not in any way rectify that situation. 
I agree with the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper with regard to food condiments that contain liquor. It is an anomaly and the practice has grown. I warn that many so-called food condiments particularly those used by Chinese restaurants are purely wines. They do not necessarily contain salt additives as the Minister suggested. We need to ask the Minister to have the labelling of some of those condiments checked because it is an area where there could be a major problem. 
I have an amendment with regard to the reconstitution of licensed trusts. The bill contains a provision that when licensing trusts reconstitute themselves as community trusts they must notify the public. Notification is important because it signals a complete change of a trust’s structure. The amendment I have tabled reduces the percentage of electors requesting a poll from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. New Zealand First feels that it should be made easier to hold a poll because 15 percent is quite a large number of local people to get a poll running and 7.5 percent would make it easier. We feel that 7.5 percent is the figure that should be substituted in the bill. I will raise that matter again during the Committee stage. 
In summary the provisions in this bill that enable licensed trusts to reconstitute themselves are sound but we should be aware of the need to have the percentage required to hold a poll lowered. In respect of the ability of wineries to be able to sell wine on Easter Sunday the bill corrects an anomaly that should not have occurred in the first place. Finally we do not think the situation is satisfactory whereby children under the age of 18 are sent into pubs by the police to entrap those selling liquor. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to oppose this legislation and asks the House some basic questions about its attitude towards liquor licensing the consumption of liquor and the sale of liquor. Would we not have thought in this day and age that we in this House would well understand the dangers of a monopoly? Why is it that we are entrenching in this bill monopoly licensing trusts for the sale of liquor in New Zealand? Is it not time we recognised that monopolies are bad? They do not look after the customers or the community and they do not provide a good service. Why do we carry on with the myth that a licensing trust elected and with a monopoly somehow protects people from the debilitating effects of excessive alcohol consumption? Are we in this House going along with the pretence that by having a licensing trust and a monopoly we are dealing with a serious problem? I do not think that any member in this House who votes for this bill believes that monopoly licensing trusts are the answer to any problem. In fact I would be very interested to hear a member in this House stand up and say that a monopoly and a licensing trust fixes the problem of X—and I would like to know what X is. How is it that in some areas we can get away without having a monopoly but in other areas we have to have them? Of course it is just raw politics pure and simple—no principle no philosophy and to hell with the consequences and effects of not doing the right thing. 
There is another problem this bill alludes to: our crazy rules and I say again our attitude towards the purchase and consumption of alcohol—as if banning the sale of wine or allowing the sale of wine from wine shops at Easter will solve any problem real or imagined. What is going on in our parliamentary colleagues’ minds if they think that hitherto not allowing wineries to sell wine on Easter Sunday has served a good purpose? We commend the move to allow that sale because at the end of the day it is up to the person who is buying the wine to make the decision to buy it and the person selling the wine to sell it. But does this exemption not underscore a problem we have with the minutiae and the detail we get into when we start looking at—the phrase of the bill—the sale of liquor. 
Here is another problem. How smart is it to prevent Chinese supermarkets from selling cooking wine and to have the time of the House taken up with the subject of whether a Chinese supermarket or a minimart can sell cooking wine? I look across at the Labour Party and ask its members whether they think a good purpose is served by preventing Chinese minimarts from selling cooking wine? Not one person’s hand has gone up. Then we have those members saying: “Oh it’s technically very hard to define what is cooking wine and what is not cooking wine.” but is that not the problem? 
Here we are in Parliament trying to divine these minute rules. What problem is our sale of liquor law trying to address? I listened to the Hon Rick Barker when he introduced the bill. He told me what the bill was about and I appreciated that. He said there were some moves forward and I appreciate those. But I did not hear once from him an explanation of what the amendments to the Sale of Liquor Act are to do and how successful they will be—not one. So what we have is a crazy set of rules that has grown like Topsy and there is no inspection by this Minister or this Government of its underlying rationale. 
Can we not trust people with some freedom? Can we not trust people with some responsibility? Can we not let the Chinese supermarket sell Chinese cooking wine? I have not seen the boy racers who so exercise the minds of members of this House out there sucking on cooking wine before going off on a drag race. 
John Carter 
: They’re pretty oily. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I do not know about that member’s electorate but that is not so in my observation. Again what is the problem we are attempting to address? 
Let me go to another concern—[ 
Interruption 
] It is always good to have Jill Pettis interject on a speech because whenever she gets up to speak we discover she has nothing to say. But when anyone else in this House gets up to speak we discover she has a lot to say. So I suggest to that member Jill Pettis that she do her work stand up and give a speech on the bill rather than sit on the side and interject. 
There is concern over the prescribed qualifications for general managers. What a lot of nonsense that is! It means more costs more requirements and more bureaucracy and the Minister never got up in this House to explain the problem he is attempting to address. It is just more expense. Here we have a Minister who is led by the nose by his officials to come up with more rules and more regulations. 
Do members know what we heard at the Commerce Committee? We heard the view that those regulations and requirements were put to this Parliament to favour one group of trainers over everyone else. I go back to the point made right at the start that that is to retain the monopoly. So why has this Minister allowed himself and this House to be used by a legislative process to give advantage to some trainers and to disadvantage others. Listen to this—this is unbelievable. I am reading from the commentary on the bill: “Concern that existing trainers and training programmes could be penalised by requirements that trainers be NZQA accredited will also be considered in the course of developing the regulations.” 
When that work has not been done does that not tell us this bill is wrong? Yet we are to take the Government on its word that yes it will do this and yes they will take on board those concerns. The ACT party is against this bill and will be putting forward some amendments to help this Parliament and to help New Zealand fix it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). Despite some of the comments made by members in this House we think it is a relatively non-controversial and straightforward bill that simply tidies up a number of regulations in bits of legislation around liquor sales that are well due to be tidied up. 
There is a saying about people who swallow camels and strain at gnats. Sometimes I think that is what happens in this House. I have seen some quite draconian pieces of legislation pass through this House unremarked upon by most parties but a piece of legislation like this seems to occupy a lot of members’ time attention and concern. So I was quite curious. 
Before I get to the specific clauses I would like to address some of the comments made by the previous speaker Mr Hide. He told us that ACT would oppose the bill and he complained about a whole lot of different things—things that the bill is exactly intended to fix up. So it is quite curious to hear him say he that would vote against the bill and then moan about the things the bill is actually intended to remedy. 
It was also curious to hear him talk about the interjections made by Jill Pettis. I did not hear any interjections from Jill Pettis. I think the House has been remarkably quiet today but of course Mr Hide is the king of interjections. It was curious to hear him complaining about interjections and spending a lot of time talking about Jill Pettis and her contribution. That clearly indicated that he did not have a lot to say about the bill itself. 
I move on now to the bill which does a number of things. It retains the existing monopoly and privileges of licensing trusts and Mr Hide talked about that. The Green Party supports those aspects of the bill. Mr Hide said that in his opinion those licensing trusts offered nothing to the community. He said they did no good service and were a hindrance to the community. But the issue is that the community chooses to have them and communities have the right to vote these things out. Some communities choose to do that and some do not. The issue is really about community decision-making when it comes to licensing trusts. That is what the Greens support and that is what this bill will continue to maintain in place—as opposed to corporate decision-making which is what the ACT party stands for. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: They’re mates. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is quite right. One of the things the bill does is tidy up an inadvertent change made under the previous legislation that stopped wineries selling their own wine on Easter Sunday. Brent Catchpole talked about that and we agree with his position on it. I have to say that the Green Party is usually opposed to extending the commercialisation of our public holidays. We think it is important that people have shopping-free days to spend time with their families and communities rather than simply— 
Rodney Hide 
: What about marijuana-free days? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide knows he should not interject against the member in front of him. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I do not know if Mr Hide wants to smoke marijuana but that is his business and not anyone else’s. 
Usually the Greens are opposed to the commercialisation of these things. We think it is important to maintain shopping-free days because they are actually about enhancing relationships in the community. But this particular clause is just fixing up an inadvertent change that happened when the previous bill was passed so of course we will support that. If there is a case for shopping to happen on Easter Sunday I think that a vineyard is most likely to make that case. 
One of the areas of concern—and the Green Party considered this a lot—is the issue around controlled purchase operations. This basically provides an exemption so that the police can conduct sting operations for alcohol as they do for tobacco. There are concerns about the use of entrapment and there are a number of areas in the law where entrapment is used. It is quite a serious civil rights concern but we do not think it is a concern in this particular example. We think the benefits outweigh the costs in this regard. 
The reason we took that position is that when this Parliament voted to lower the drinking age to 18—something I personally supported although I was not a member of Parliament at the time—the key thing was that that change should have been accompanied by strict measures to ensure that the age limit was actually adhered to. That can be done in two ways. One is to have good messages out in the community education about what is moderate use and re-enforcement of the idea that there is an age limit which is 18. But we have to police that age limit as well. When that legislation went through Parliament we saw the introduction of drinking-age ID. At the time I was concerned about that because we very quickly see how those kinds of things can become a de facto general ID that people are required to carry with them at all times. 
It is a curious thing but it seems that in this country we now need to carry ID for just about everything except buying alcohol. Those ID cards are being used for all kinds of purposes but because there is no policing of the sale of liquor to under-age people they become essentially meaningless in that area. So we think it is important to allow the police to check that people who are selling alcohol from licensed premises are actually adhering to the law and to their obligations—both legislative and ethical—to ensure that they are not selling to under-age people. 
The other point I will touch on quickly is the issue of district licensing agencies. Again this is just about fixing some rigidities that exist in the current legislation so we think that is a good thing. This bill does not address a number of other issues where some of the provisions need to be extended and things like that. We think that some of those questions are more properly placed in a different bill but in terms of what this bill is trying to achieve we think it does the job. 
The last thing I will touch on is the issue of rice wine—the Chinese culinary cooking wine—that Mr Hide again made quite a lot of. He criticised this bill because it did not address that question. Mr Hide will know if he bothers to look on the Table that a Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled by Mr Barker for consideration in the Committee and that it specifically addresses that question.So it is rather disingenuous for Mr Hide to complain that the bill does not address the question when he knows that Supplementary Order Paper 198 is on the Table to do that very thing. I leave it to members of the House and to people listening to this debate to form their own views as to the integrity of those comments. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Basically United Future is pleased with most aspects of this bill. We had a major concern in the early stages of the drafting of the legislation when the Liquor Licensing Authority had the ability to review the hours that each of the clubs might operate in when it reissued licences. We could see that it would be a real burden for clubs but I am glad to see that that provision has been removed. 
I was fascinated by Rodney Hide’s speech about how bad monopolies are yet communities themselves are not monopolies. A community can choose how it will operate under this legislation. Therefore if a community wants to have a community trust it is free to do so. I found that very interesting because sometimes viewpoints can be very narrow. If only those who owned businesses had rights to do everything all the time and anywhere I do not think that would be a good society. 
Coming back to this bill I personally do not have a problem with the selling of wine from wineries on Easter Sunday yet I do not support open Sunday trading because I think that there are days in a year that need to be special—days that one needs to be able to put aside and take rest. I remember speaking on different legislation where I likened a year without any special days to a city without a park. Only the other day I wandered up the top of the hill to the rose gardens and I saw people in the midst of a very busy city Wellington just taking time to sit in a park where there was no commercial activity and they were indeed smelling the roses. I think we would be unwise to allow business to become such a focus in our calendar year that people had to go through the whole 365 days without any days that were different. 
We are also putting an amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14 of the bill that tidies up section 37(2) of the Sale of Liquor Act with what we believe is just another common-sense approach. I would encourage members who have perhaps not read that amendment to get one from the Table before we go into the Committee stage. Once again I think it makes sense and I like legislation that makes sense. I think it is unfair on wineries if they are not able to sell their wine on a day when they are open and having people come through while other similar facilities are already operating on that day. 
I pick up on Brian Connell’s point with regard to underage drinkers. I personally support the drinking age being raised again but when we have a law I think we have a responsibility to make it simple for those who are policing it so that they can operate effectively. I hear where Mr Connell is coming from—about the police sending in minors to check whether the licensee is selling to minors rather than taking the responsibility of just checking whether they have identification. For example if one is pulled up in a motor vehicle and the police think one is underage one does have to show ID to prove that one has a licence. I think it makes sense that the ones who purchase liquor should also have to show their ID. 
But I do not want to hinder the police in their work. I think there are enough challenges in trying to police the laws we have. I think we have too many laws in this country and in many cases the police have a great challenge in trying to enforce them. So if this bill makes it easier for them I support it. For example we in the motor industry have to show all the paperwork for everything required for a warrant of fitness on a car whereas I would prefer them just to come in with a car that had a defect and if we did not pick up the defect as a warrant of fitness inspector then deal with us on that case. So there are two sides to that argument. 
Basically United Future thinks that this bill is just tidy-up legislation. It is sensible legislation and again I would encourage members to pick up the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment from the Table. It is a typical United Future amendment; it is just common sense and makes legislation work better and that is what we are here for. We are the friends of the nation and I thank you for being able to speak during this second reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is  
That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by a majority be agreed to 
. 
Amendments agreed to. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I should have asked this before but I seek leave that the National Party cast a split vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave that the Committee be able to consider the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) as a single question except that clause 14 be taken as a separate vote. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Dunne has an amendment that would also need to be taken as a separate vote as a conscience issue and it should be included in the motion I think. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is therefore sought accordingly and to emphasise to people what that means it is one debate but when there is a vote Mr Dunne’s amendment relating to clubs and clause 14 are to be taken as separate votes. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Both my amendment and the other amendment relate to clause 14. I think therefore that we can simply take one debate and then recognize that on clause 14 there will be separate votes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just say that again so that we know what we are doing. We are seeking leave for a separate question to have one debate and I will take that leave first. Is there any objection? There is not. Now I will seek leave of the House for the Committee to have the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales and the amendment of the Hon Peter Dunne relating to clubs taken as separate questions when we come to do the voting. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There are several things that I would like to draw to members’ attention. The first is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that seeks to deal with the sale of Chinese rice wine or cooking condiments. It has been accepted for quite some time that these types of wines are undrinkable. They have not attracted excise duty because in customs terms they are denatured which means that they have had substantial amounts of salt added to them that therefore renders them undrinkable. Because they are undrinkable they are not excisable and because they are not excisable people did not think that they were covered by the Sale of Liquor Act. However investigations by some others have determined that they are covered by the Sale of Liquor Act. They are not a medicine and cannot be considered a medicine so the Sale of Liquor Act has to deal with them. 
In Supplementary Order Paper 198 I propose that these condiments can be sold as part of an off-licence under section 37(3) and that they can be sold in the likes of supermarkets. This is a similar amendment to that which Pansy Wong also foreshadowed and therefore we are talking along similar lines. I recommend my Supplementary Order Paper to members. 
The second amendment in the name of Pansy Wong seeks to extend the sale of these condiments to a broader range of shops. This falls foul of a second problem for us concerning the  
Lopdell 
v 
 Deli Holdings Ltd 
 decision. I recommend to the Committee that we oppose this amendment. There is some confusion in the Sale of Liquor Act about people having the ability to sell liquor. In the past people have been granted liquor licences when their principal business is food but their shops are not supermarkets. This is an issue and the court has ruled that where the principal business is food and the place is not a supermarket people cannot sell liquor. There are some complex issues at the back of this that I do not want to go into at this stage but I signal to members that it is my intention to come back some time later with a bill that will deal with those issues. I do not wish to deal with them today. Because the second amendment in Pansy Wong’s name goes into this area I propose that we vote against it. 
There is another amendment in the name of Brian Connell. He is seeking to knock out the provision that will deal with controlled purchase operations. I have heard that the basis of the amendment is the ACT party’s view that this is entrapment. But in my view the ACT party does not quite appreciate that Parliament has already passed legislation that has a similar arrangement in it—the smoking legislation. For a long time police have sent people who are underage into liquor establishments to see whether liquor would be sold to them as a means of testing whether the law is being complied with. 
Similar things have been happening with regard to smoking but in the case of smoking it is provided for in legislation. When one of these cases came before the court it was argued that by the police using—without the authority of the law—someone underage they were aiding and abetting the breaking of the law. The court said that that was wrong. This change in the law seeks to give police the ability to have a controlled purchase operation to ensure that people are selling liquor correctly to those who are aged 18 years and over. Let us be clear that if people vote for Brian Connell’s amendment they will take from the police a very powerful tool for enforcing Parliament’s wish. I say to members unequivocally that I am totally opposed to Brian Connell’s amendment and I support the bill as it stands. 
There are a couple of other issues. The first is that there are two other minor amendments that seek to change some of the dates on which these provisions come into effect. One will be the date on which the bill receives the royal assent changed to 1 April principally to enable the provision that will allow wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday from this Easter. I think that that is a good idea. This amendment will give effect to that. 
The other amendment in the name of Mr Catchpole is to delete “15 percent” and reduce it to “7.5 percent”. I recommend to members that we vote against that amendment for two reasons. Firstly the current competition poll is set at 15 percent and I see no logic to have one poll at 7.5 percent and the other at 15 percent. Secondly in the very next new section 219F there is another threshold whereby the number of electors requesting a poll has to pass 15 percent and it is remaining unaltered. If we change one threshold to 7.5 percent as recommended by Mr Catchpole and have all the other thresholds at 15 percent we will simply create anomalies in the legislation for no useful purpose. 
I have one last point to make in relation to the comments made by Mr Hide. He has a couple of amendments that basically set out to de-license licensing trusts. Mr Hide has argued that Parliament should not make decisions about these that this should be simply a matter of principle and that we should let the market decide. On this side of the Chamber—and I recommend this to the Chamber as well—we believe that the public should decide. Licensing trusts are set up by a public ballot and the provisions make it very easy for the public to exercise a ballot for trusts to either maintain their monopoly licence or to lose it. On two occasions the Waitakere Licensing Trust has gone to a ballot and the people of Waitakere have made their decision. They want a licensing trust to be in the area and for it to have exclusive rights. A similar thing has happened in Invercargill. My view and the Government’s view—and I hope the rest of the Committee’s view—is that if the public want a licensing trust to have monopoly rights then the public should decide. Mr Hide and the ACT party should not tell the public what they can and cannot have. That is the Government’s view on that. Labour supports the legislation as it stands. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I have tabled three amendments. First of all I welcome the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper with regard to the sale of Chinese cooking wine even though it is very belated. I was upset because that issue occurred in November 2002 and this current legislation was introduced last year. At some time during the first reading I alerted the Minister to the problem it was causing council officials who knew that it was nonsense to ask Asian supermarket owners to remove all Chinese cooking wine from their shelves. Can members imagine advising customers that if they want to buy a bottle of Chinese cooking wine they have to get it from a bottle store? Nobody thinks of going to a bottle store to get Chinese cooking wine. The Minister did not see fit to foreshadow that he would bring in an amendment so all this time store owners and officials have been put under undue stress. 
I point out that when the  
New Zealand Herald 
 ran a story on Chinese cooking wine in February this year it concluded the article by stating: “Police and council staff in greater Auckland were unable to give examples of underaged drinkers being caught with Chinese cooking wine.” I was also interviewed by BBC Radio wondering what was happening in New Zealand that there was such a crackdown on the sale of Chinese cooking wine. Imagine stir-fried beef without Chinese cooking wine! I welcome the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 but I wish he had shadowed it a lot earlier so that it would not have caused that stress—and that would have saved me tabling an amendment as well. 
I want to take issue with the Minister about the amendment to clause 13 that I proposed. It was not to do with extending the privilege to other operators. Nowadays we have corporate gift operators and ethnic stores that make up gift baskets for festivals etc. that include a bottle of alcohol. In the past that has been handled by those operators getting an off-licence; that is if the Liquor Licensing Authority sees fit it can grant them that licence. But that practice can no longer happen because of a court decision. The court reckoned that the last amendment to the legislation that Parliament passed provided that supermarkets etc. cannot get an exemption to sell alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer. 
I do not think those other corporate gift operators have that in mind. That is why I proposed the amendment. It was basically to inject back some common sense into the Liquor Licensing Authority—to give it that discretion to allow those small ethnic stores and corporate gift operators to do that. 
My third amendment to clause 21 which I hope the Committee will see fit to support relates to training. The bill repeals section 117A of the principal Act and substitutes new section 117A “General manager must hold prescribed qualification”. Members of the industry informed the Commerce Committee that there was no consultation and the training manual that is now imposed on the industry is draconian. I have tabled an amendment stating that that particular requirement should not come into effect until the content of the qualification has been consulted on fully with the industry. It should also include only the unit standards 4646 and 16705. 
It is time for Parliament to support the industry in trusting it to be able to come up with common-sense solutions. After all we have demonstrated in the last amendments to the legislation that we passed that we did not do a good job with regard to the fiasco over Chinese cooking wine and we have removed a lot of the common-sense discretion given to the Liquor Licensing Authority. I certainly think that the industry as a whole has come to more maturity in terms of knowing what type of qualification and what sort of training is appropriate for it. I hope the Committee will support all my amendments. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I say good on Pansy Wong for moving those changes especially the changes relating to the transition to the training programmes. But why have the training programmes? That question has not been asked. Let me go through if I may the changes that I will be recommending through my amendments. There are three major ones. I have proposed a change to clause 13 because there is an anomaly whereby if one is giving a corporate gift basket and one puts a wee bottle of sherry or something in it that is actually against the law. I have tabled an amendment to allow that to occur. How sensible is that? It is a good amendment and I look forward to Mr Barker and his colleagues reading it and supporting it. 
I am pleased to see that the Minister in the chair Rick Barker has decided to allow Chinese cooking wine to be bought and sold in minimarts. I have an amendment here to do the same but he has obviously foreshadowed my move. I hope the Minister’s drafting is as good as mine because the officials advised the Commerce Committee it was not possible to draft such an amendment. That is what they told the committee. But suddenly after Pansy Wong and Rodney Hide both did it the honourable Minister Rick Barker said it would not be very hard to do so and has done it himself. I just worry that his amendment is not as good as Ms Wong’s and mine. 
I come to another amendment that must concern the Minister. Heaven knows how he keeps a straight face when he is paid each fortnight because what has he done? He has come along with a bureaucratic nightmare for the training programme for managers. It is loopy. Most liquor licensees and outlets are small businesses. The Minister is putting a requirement on them to get a different form of training which will cost $250 or $300 or so for the qualification. The Minister has not established a case that it is needed. There are thousands of managers of liquor outlets in New Zealand. They have all been trained; they all have certificates. What is the problem? Those required to hand their licences in are 0.1 percent. But oh no the Minister has come along with a high-cost bureaucratic process for giving out those certificates that I have to say favours some trainers over all the rest. I can only look at that Minister and wonder why that should be the case. He says he has consulted with the industry. Quite frankly he has not. He might have talked to his mates who like this bill but he has not spoken to the industry. 
I say to the Minister that he should imagine how dumb it is that someone who is out there successfully managing a liquor outlet and who has his or her manager’s certificate has to retrain because of this legislation. That person has to get another certificate at an estimated cost of $150. It is a money grab by the private trainers. That is the problem. Those are the people who have been talking to the Minister and helping him rather than the Minister talking to the industry. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Ha ha! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Rick Barker likes to laugh but he has not got off his chuff and gone and talked to the industry as the ACT party the National Party and New Zealand First have. They know what is going on. They know that there is no problem that needs to be fixed by making that change. 
I beg the National Party New Zealand First the Greens United Future—and I look across to Labour Party members—to support my amendments and vote against excessive bureaucracy. I ask them to vote against a grab by private trainers for money with the help of that lazy Minister and to vote against legislation that is before the Committee for no good purpose. I would love the Minister to get up and explain the problem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Brent Catchpole. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Don’t shout! 
Rodney Hide 
: The useless Minister of Corrections too while we’re at it. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Stop shouting. 
Rodney Hide 
: Hopeless Minister! $1.3 million down the tubes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Where’s that electorate office money? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That shows exactly what the trouble is in this Chamber with regard to order. Ministers can call out and there is no problem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Come to your point of order Mr Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am coming to it. When members of the Opposition respond to Ministers who call out the Chair jumps on them. The Chair called “Order!” twice—we all heard him—the Minister carried on interjecting and the Chair did nothing. We ask you to protect every member in this Chamber— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask members to desist from calling out. Chaos may be the parent of creation but in this Chamber I will have order. I recognise what Mr Hide said but I did call the Minister to order. I asked him to desist from calling out and it was my understanding that he did desist. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would just like to express my disappointment in Rick Barker for suggesting that the House vote against my amendment. New Zealand First feels that the threshold for a poll should have been lowered. It should have been made easier to call for a poll. I take the point that there are several different figures within this bill and we note that yes when a licensing trust has decided through its board of trustees to reconstitute it does have to tell the public. The bill is quite clear that the trust must notify the public and its trustees. But the bill then opens up a situation whereby the trustees and the public have to call for a poll themselves in order to be able to overturn the ruling of the board of trustees. We believe the threshold for that is too high and therefore we requested a lowering of that figure. I do express my disappointment that the Minister without allowing the debate to go forward has already signalled that he would like to see that amendment thrown out. I am disappointed in that. 
It all comes down to the basis of a licensing trust converting to a community trust. This bill allows that process to happen. The licensing trusts were set up with a definite restricted area in which they controlled every aspect of the sale of liquor excluding liquor sold by any supermarkets that moved into those areas. There was a case in Auckland during the last election where the supermarket chains set out to try to overturn the licensing trust. They regarded the financial disclosure requirements of the trusts as inadequate because they could not identify exactly what was the financial part of the liquor sales. So they wanted to separate that out. I am pleased the Minister did not allow that to happen because it would have set up a process whereby the supermarket chains would target trusts where they saw there were substantial gains to be made in liquor sales. That is an area we feel was important. 
I would now like to touch on the subject of wine being sold by wineries on a Sunday. This measure is just a means of bringing the situation back into line with what was the case prior to the 1999 amendment of the principal Act. We are in favour of that measure. It is to do with tourism. A large body of tourists moves around the country and has the opportunity to try our world-class wines. If tourists are in the country from a cruise ship for just a day or two they do not get that opportunity and it would be a sad moment to realise that New Zealand had lost a golden opportunity to promote its world-class wines. I would like to highlight a survey that was done by New Zealand Winegrowers. It surveyed 459 of its members from which it received 149 replies which is quite a high percentage when we consider that other surveys consider 1 or 2 percent to be a pretty good response rate. This was a very high response rate and of those wineries 138 agreed with allowing wineries to open on Easter Sunday. That is a clear indication that the wineries want that measure. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call because I know the Committee is keen to make progress on this measure. The United Future members will be voting in favour of the Minister’s amendments to clause 14 regarding Easter Sunday wine sales and also relating to the issues he raised in relation to Chinese cooking wines. 
I want to speak briefly to my own proposed amendment to clause 14 which makes some changes to section 37 of the principal Act regarding off-licence sales at clubs. The best way I can illustrate what I am seeking to do is by an example. I see my friend the Minister of Labour is standing in the lobby and I will just use “Swainy” as an example. If I were to go to the Johnsonville Club with “Swainy” who was a member of the Petone club we could both consume alcohol on site with our meal. But when we were going back to “Swainy’s” house to watch the rugby if I decided we should buy some supplies to take with us I could buy off-licence from the club but “Swainy” could not even though he is a member of a reciprocal club. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member will use the member’s proper name. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am referring to a mythical colleague. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 26/7 and 26/8. A member’s proper name is to be used. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I accept your ruling. I would simply say that the Minister and I have been friends for years longer than I care to remember and I hope this does not alter that greatly. 
The point I am making is simply that my amendment extends a provision that currently relates to on-site consumption to the off-licence situation. It is simply a logical move and I would commend it to the attention of members of the Committee. It does not actually change the situation very significantly because of the reciprocity issue that is at the heart of the club movement. I think that is probably the only explanation I should give. I suspect I now need to go and talk to the Minister of Labour but I do hope that members will support the amendment when it comes up later on. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 On the table are two amendments in my name that call for the deletion of clauses 25 and 26 of this bill. I raise these concerns because I simply believe that these are entrapment clauses and they are fundamentally unfair. The hypocrisy of the argument that says we can break the law to enforce the law is not lost on me. I do not believe there would a publican in the country who will not be trapped by these clauses if the police are determined to trap him or her. That is my major concern. I ask the Minister in the chair to reflect on the following situation. A 17-year-old female who has the whole 9 yards of make-up on and is dressed to kill goes into a busy bar. She is shoulder to shoulder with other punters. The person behind the bar who is stressed tired and has others waiting to be served simply asks what she wants and then does it. 
Brent Catchpole 
: ID please. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is true technically. But the reality is that it just will not happen like that. We are going to turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers. Is that what the Minister really intends? I do not think that is what he intends but that is what will happen. It is fundamentally unfair which is why I have proposed the amendments and why I ask members of the Committee to consider these amendments. We will be turning law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers. 
I know publicans licensees and bar managers across the country who sit down with their employees and say “Look be careful. Be careful that you don’t serve people who are under age.” But the reality is that it just does not happen like that. People come into a bar and I know what has happened. I know that situations have arisen where the police have had orchestrated “stings” and they have got their person. They have kept going back despite the fact they know the publicans concerned have sat down with their staff and said: “Look make sure you are careful.” Most of the people behind bar counters are just children themselves. They are 18 19 20-year-olds with their first job. They do not really care whether the publican or licensee gets hit for a $10000 fine but that is what will happen. Instead of those young individuals having any responsibility it falls on the shoulders of the licensee or publican. 
That is why I ask members to reflect on that. They must look into their hearts and ask whether that is fair and whether that is enforceable? The answer is no. The law is stupid law if we cannot easily enforce it. If we really want to deal with the issue we should at least have a discussion or debate about increasing the drinking age or say that if anyone wants to buy booze then proof of age and identity are compulsory regardless. We should put the emphasis back on the purchaser and not on the seller. If the Minister were to move such an amendment then this legislation would have wide support right across the nation. I ask him to reflect on that. I ask him to think about how this legislation if it goes through in this guise will be accepted across the nation. He will do his party immeasurable harm because the law will not be enforceable. 
Damien O’Connor from the West Coast must be having kittens when thinking about this legislation. Someone in a bar down on the West Coast will walk in and say: “I want a beer.” The question will come: “How old are you?”. Well I cannot repeat the type of exchange that would take place because it would probably be very unparliamentary but I can tell members that this legislation is just not going to be enforced. So I repeat my request to the Minister that he thinks about this legislation. Essentially it is not common sense. 
The other issue I want to address while I am on my feet concerns the regulations. I must say Mr Hide summarised that pretty well when he said the majority of people in the industry describe the legislation with regard to the regulations as a waste of time and money. It is repetitive because we already have two units that are reasonably well respected in the industry. This legislation simply loads that responsibility on to the publicans etc. when hitherto it was carried out by police and liquor licensing inspectors. It is simply not wanted. 
It is argued that the legislation requires a person to learn to deal with drunks assess when people have had too much booze and therefore refuse to serve them. But the training will take place in sterile environments. It is easy to assess someone else when sitting in an office where a makeshift bar has been created. Someone from the bar staff walks in and says: “Oh by the way my script says: ‘Are you drunk?’” and the other person says: “Oh yes. I’ve had a few.” The staff person says: “I’m sorry I can’t serve you.” “That’s OK.” says the other person and walks out. That is role play. It will not happen in reality will it? 
I used the example before of a busy bar. Would members imagine this situation? The music is blaring the bar is going off there are people shoulder to shoulder at the bar and someone stands there and says: “I want a drink.” The judgment call by the bar staff is: “Are you drunk? Are you too drunk for me to serve?”. Most of the time they will not even be able to hear the patrons let alone use judgment as to whether they are drunk. 
There is no better example of the impracticality of this issue than a  
Target 
 programme shown on TV3 last May. An actor walked into 10 bars and nine out of 10 served him liquor when he was acting drunk. When asked why he was served bar staff answered that they thought he was clowning around—and that is the reality of it. No one will be able to determine whether someone is clowning around drunk too drunk or not drunk enough. It probably suggests that the actor involved was not too flash either. 
Another area concerns me and it is really an issue I should address to Rick Barker the Minister in the chair because I have a letter he sent back to some constituents. The paragraph in question is this: “I understand that the Hospitality Standards Institute undertook a wide consultation process to formulate the qualification and that key stakeholders included members of the liquor industry the Sale of Liquor Act national trainers the Hospitality Association of New Zealand the Alcohol Advisory Council the Liquor Licensing Authority some district licensing agencies and the police.” I point out to the Minister that when I contacted those people they said that no one had spoken to them at all. 
I spoke to Swain and Associates who are major corporate trainers in this field and they told me they have large corporate clients including a supermarket chain. Many of them have up to 30 or more certified managers. According to their research none of those groups had been consulted. 
The Hospitality Association of New Zealand formerly known as the Hotel Association of New Zealand had this to say: “Our information is that the association has about 1800 members. If they claim the Restaurant Association has another 250 members it gives them a total of about 4300 members.” I tell the Minister that the total number of current licences operating in New Zealand is 15435. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There are several matters I want to raise. Firstly I should have mentioned earlier the third amendment put forward by Pansy Wong which makes specific reference to course numbers. She thought the numbers needed to be in the legislation to ensure the industry was consulted. I agree with the intention of her amendment but I do not agree with its form. The Government’s intention is that once the legislation is passed regulations will be drawn up; and of course those regulations will go before the Regulations Review Committee. 
One of the requirements of regulations is that industry must be consulted. It may be that the hospitality industry training organisation will change the course numbers or make other changes. If we were to put course numbers in legislation it would be impossible to have the law comply. It would be complicated to get a law change in order to alter course numbers in an Act of Parliament. It is much better to have that dealt with by regulation. 
I have talked to the Hotel Association to the Beer Wine and Spirits Council and to others about it and explained how the process will work. It will be done in consultation with the industry so we agree on what the standards are and how the designations will be made. It will then be done by regulation. So if the course content and other circumstances change we can update the regulations which is much easier than getting an amendment to the Sale of Liquor Act. So although I agree with the intent of Pansy Wong’s amendment I think the process should be by way of regulation. I have given the industry my assurance that we will consult to make sure that that is what happens. 
Mr Connell claims there has been no consultation with industry over that training. I say to him that is not true. 
Brian Connell 
: That’s not what they’re saying to me Minister. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well I say to the member that as one example I have personally talked about this matter on three occasions that I can recall with the Hospitality Association. If that is not consultation I do not know what is. If the association is saying it has not had consultation I would be surprised about that. 
The second matter I want to raise concerns the need for regulations. This is not being done to duplicate anything. The law was changed before to make manager’s certificates appropriate but we do not have a transitional process. This legislation will allow us to transit to the circumstances we have all agreed to. I think we do have to have some industry training. Mr Hide says “No” but I think we do. I do not have as dismal a view— 
Brian Connell 
: We have two units now. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We are going to have those two units. I do not have as dismal a view as the member about industry training. I think that people are well trained and this provision will be well supported. 
 The third matter is about gift baskets which Mr Hide referred to. He makes it sound very simple—a gift basket with some alcohol put in and that can be sold everywhere. But that is not the case. What people are looking at in the industry is to be able to sell other sorts of food with beer: slabs of pizzas with beer and so on to order as takeaways. If that is the case it is well beyond what Parliament intended with the change in the Sale of Liquor Act. That is what is at the heart of the  
Lopdell 
 decision and it is the issue that I want to come back to so that we can have a clear steer on what the options are for dealing with those anomalies. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before we put the questions I understand the whips have agreed that instead of having personal votes they wish to have split votes. I seek leave that on the question of the amendments in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14 and the amendment in my name that notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b) the votes to be cast by a party on a party vote are to include votes cast Ayes Noes and recorded abstentions so we have split votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I came back rather late and I am not fully conversant with exactly what is happening but I do want to take a call on this bill. It seems to me that it is just more ill-conceived and bad legislation that will affect a large number of people. 
The bill allows for the retention of licensing trusts. The real question is why. If we are going to reform this industry as it has been reformed why are we allowing the retention of monopoly rights—to be more correct—for licensing trusts? If a community wishes to have some sort of trust running whether it be a liquor store a hotel or indeed a grocer’s shop then I have no real problem with that. What I and I am sure my party have real problems with is the monopoly provision that no one can set up in opposition to this publicly owned entity. The real question is why. Is the trust such a fantastic commercial model that it is the only option or measure of success we can look at? 
I am led to believe that the return on capital of an institution such as the Invercargill Licensing Trust which has been around for yonks and has had total monopoly rights in that area is a return of just 1 or 2 percent on its capital. Most industries would go broke on that return yet that trust can charge its patrons in Invercargill whatever it likes and there is no option if one lives within its boundary. It is an outrageous situation. The Invercargill Licensing Trust will not become a community trust and lose its monopoly power—that will just not happen. 
There is another rather insidious aspect to some of these monopoly trusts. The reality is simply that much of the money these trusts disperse to charities comes from gambling—from one-armed bandits and slot machines etc. The money they make from their liquor sales and so on is because in many cases those hotels are saying to the clubs—the cricket club the bowling club the chess club or whatever it might be—that they will disperse the moneys to the clubs as long as the clubs buy their alcoholic requirements from them. That is well established and anybody in the industry knows that it occurs. If somebody else perhaps the local bowling club buys its product from somebody else it is told in no uncertain terms by the trust: “OK you’re buying your liquor from the Jeff Connell liquor store in mid-Canterbury so we will disperse our charitable funds to another club because you no longer support us.” Essentially that is blackmail and that is what this bill allows. It allows for continuous— 
Rodney Hide 
: It’s like what Paul Swain does in corrections. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It is pretty much like it. In the limited time I have left I turn my attention to the question of entrapment which I am sure many speakers have spoken about already. I ask the Committee to imagine the situation where three young people walk into a bottle store—two are 17 and one is 18. They put $10 each into the kitty walk up to the bottle store person and say they want to buy $30 of liquor—a couple of dozen cans or whatever it is. Who then is the purchaser? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The person who hands over the cash. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Absolutely; I would agree entirely with that. But if the police had been watching those two 17-year-olds handing over the money it seems to me that there is a really grey area there that this bill has not addressed at all. If there were a rugby match at Carisbrook and those young people were in the bottle store 5 minutes after the game when there was a huge rush then the poor old bottle store owner would get whacked. He would be fined very substantial sums of money because the staff were rushed off their feet. That is wrong and it is inappropriate in every aspect. 
If we are really looking at society and its alcohol problem we have to address the issue of the fivefold increase in the number of outlets. That is the single biggest reason why we are having this problem today. We should not blame the guy who is rushed off his feet in a hotel bottle store or the bottle store owner who makes a mistake because a 17-year-old comes who looks 25. If the youth is asked for his identity card he says that he does not have it but that it must be there somewhere. He looks near enough in age and behind him the next person is clamouring to get his or her supplies and be away. Why are we blaming that bar person bar owner or whoever it might be for the problems we face in our society? It is not their fault and I am totally and utterly opposed to that concept. 
Another issue that Pansy Wong and my colleague Rodney Hide have introduced is the problem of the Chinese wine and cooking condiments. What is sherry if it is not a cooking condiment? When a ham is roasting in the oven with a bit of sherry poured over it or a trifle for goodness’ sake has a bit of sherry in it is sherry not a cooking condiment? Members might think that these sorts of arguments are quite trivial but I am illustrating these points because as my colleague Rodney Hide pointed out the principle behind the whole concept is fundamentally flawed. It is wrong and that is why we start to get all those anomalies about Chinese cooking wine and sherries when we get into the ridiculous situation of trying to license and control the sale of liquor. It is wrong. 
We made a major mistake in this House just recently by imposing a “sherry tax” on the elderly. That was never the intention of this Parliament yet the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton rammed that through and we got a major problem out of that. That is all I have to say at this time but I regret deeply the thrust of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: In accordance with leave of the House a separate vote is to be taken on the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales. In accordance with leave also granted this will be a split party vote. 
The question is that the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wines sales be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 44; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 11 
New Zealand Labour 5; New Zealand National 5; United Future 1. 
Provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brent Catchpole to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 219E(2) of the principal Act by omitting the expression “15%” and substituting the expression “7.5%”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (1) the following new subclause: 
(1A)Section 36(4) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words “or any other premises on which the principal business is the sale of food or groceries”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: An amendment to clause 13 in the name of Rodney Hide is out of order as the question has already been decided. 
There is an amendment to clause 14 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. In accordance with the leave granted this will be a split party vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(2)Section 37 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: 
(2)It is a condition of every off-licence granted to the holder of a club licence that liquor be sold or supplied pursuant to the off-licence only to— 
(a)any member of the club; or 
(b)any member of any other club with which the holder of the licence has an arrangement for reciprocal visiting rights for members of the club. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 38; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 16 
New Zealand Labour 11; New Zealand National 5 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(1A)Section 37(3)(a) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “Wine” the words “intended for consumption as an alcoholic beverage”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: An amendment to clause 14 in the name of Rodney Hide is out of order as the question has already been decided. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after “by repealing section 117A”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 117A of the principal Act after subsection (2) the following subsection: 
(3)This section will come into effect when the content of the qualification has been agreed by all in the industry and shall comprise existing proposed unit standards 4646 and 16705 only. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 21A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 21 the following clause: 
21ARepeal of sections 122 and 123 
The principal Act is amended by repealing sections 122 and 123.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments to clauses 22 23 and 27(1) in the name of Rodney Hide are out of order as the amendment to clause 21 was not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brian Connell to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brian Connell to clause 26 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clauses 9 and 14 and the following amendments in his name to clause 2 be agreed to. 
to insert before subclause (1AA) the following subclause: 
(1AAA)Section 5 and section 4 (so far as it relates to section 5) come into force on 1 April 2005; and 
to amend clause 2(3) by omitting the words “1 April 2004” and substituting the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent”. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave that we have a split party vote on this vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought— 
John Carter 
: We already have leave. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: But you don’t have leave to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: But only on the other one. 
John Carter 
: I sought leave at the end of the second reading for our party votes to be taken as split party votes right through this voting and leave was granted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thought the member had so I thank him. I call for a split party vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 6 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members of the Committee for their perseverance and patience. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. I thank the House for the passage of this bill and I thank the Leader of the House for giving it time. 
Easter Sunday trading was moved originally by Jeff Whittaker a former member of Parliament from Hastings. It was knocked out in 1999. After 4 years we have restored it and I thank him very much for that. 
We have also managed to tidy up provisions relating to the sale of rice wine and to transitional provisions for training. We have improved accountability for trusts and we have improved their democracy and efficiency. 
This is a very good liquor bill and I thank the House for its overwhelming endorsement of it. I encourage all members to turn up to Hawke’s Bay on Easter Sunday and enjoy a tipple of fine Hawke’s Bay wine as this bill enables them to do. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I start by clarifying an issue that I spoke about during the course of the Committee stage. I think I gave the impression to the Committee and to the Minister in the chair in particular that the Hospitality Association of New Zealand had not been consulted. That in fact was not the case. The point I was trying to make is that the association represents a minority position not a majority position as the Minister would have us believe. My point was and still is that there has not been wide consultation about the regulations aspect. 
I find myself in a position where I cannot support this bill yet there are components that I very strongly support—in particular Easter Sunday trading for wineries. But I find myself in a very difficult and complex position. I had to vote against the controlled purchase operations because I am more strongly opposed to the issues of entrapment. Despite my suggesting amendments to enable these provisions to be deleted the Committee saw fit not to agree to them. I accept that is the democracy we work in. 
I am concerned about how that aspect of the bill will operate. I have sent out a loud warning that I feel that some people in the industry and across this country will be victimised by the police. I want to put it on the record that I am a very strong supporter of the police but on this occasion I think this legislation goes too far. The ability of people in the industry to deal with the issues of entrapment I now think have been taken out of their hands and I believe we will live to regret this day. The Minister had his opportunity and decided that it was not of sufficient concern for him to take heed of what I was telling him and change his vote. 
The practicality of trying to enforce this legislation will result in it simply not working. Law-abiding citizens across this country will be turned into lawbreakers and that I have to say disappoints me immensely. Who amongst us can say that he or she would be able to tell someone’s age without proof of identity? I still beseech the House that we should have considered lifting the age limit or at least making sure there was compulsory proof of age when people go into hotels to purchase liquor. That would have taken the onus completely away from the owners and would have put the onus on the person buying the liquor. With those comments I thank members for their indulgence. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would just like to take a quick call in this debate. I said most of what I wanted to say in the second reading and in the Committee stage. But I would just like to highlight the fact of licensing trusts being able to reconstitute themselves as community trusts. That is an acceptable way of changing their business practice. We were disappointed that we were unable to get the threshold for the poll lowered but we accept that democracy is the key there. 
On the point of entrapment that Brian Connell has been going on about we expressed some concern at the beginning but if there is any opportunity to stop the blatant misuse of bars selling liquor to under-age people then we say that every effort should be taken to prevent that practice. We go further to say that the age limit should have been raised in the bill. There should have been a clause that reinstated the age limit back to 20 years and that would have reduced a lot of the under-age drinking problems of drunken kids in the streets. 
There is already a requirement to check for IDs. There is also a requirement that the age limit is strictly enforced and it is up to the bars to follow that process. If there is the slightest bit of doubt people are asked for proof of age. Even if a person looks a little bit over age he or she should be asked for ID and proof of age. So it is up to the barkeeper and there should be no out for those bars that blatantly flout the law. 
On the subject of the wineries being able to trade on Easter Sunday that is just a reinstatement of an error that took place in the last amendment legislation of 1999 and that gives the opportunity for wineries to open on Easter Sunday and provide a service to the tourism industry. Tourism is a huge industry in this country and this change is just bringing it back into line with what it was prior to 1999. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are pleased to support this bill through its third reading. We are pleased to be able to support the passage of the bill to this stage. I will not go into great length about the different clauses of the bill. I have already canvassed those issues during my second-reading speech and other members of the House have spoken at some length about them already and I am sure other speakers will continue to do so. 
We are pleased to see that a couple of sensible amendments have come out of the Committee stage. The first concerns reciprocal visiting rights around clubs put up by the Hon. Peter Dunne. It was good to see something sensible come from Mr Dunne in that regard so I thank him for that amendment. The other issue concerned culinary wines rice wines and so forth. Amendments were put up by different members but the one put up by the Minister had been properly drafted and should proceed. It is good to see that finally cleared up. We think the bill is better for those amendments and we are pleased to see it go through its final passage. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 As I said earlier the ACT party opposes this bill. I was interested to hear from members who said that a monopoly is a choice that people make. That seems to me to fly in the face of cultural diversity and recognising that minorities have a right and a view. If we say that voting 51 percent makes something right then I think we in this country are in for a rather rough old spin. It seems to me that not everybody in an area wants to buy their alcohol from a licensing trust. It seems a bit tough that the majority can impose that will on them. I would have thought that Maori members opposite in particular would recognise the fact that rights cannot be taken away just by a vote. 
I am pleased that the rice wine issue has been addressed. However I do worry about the Minister who never bothered to address it until Pansy Wong and the ACT party introduced amendments in the Committee stage and made it an issue. The Minister had the opportunity to fix that issue a long time ago. We have to say that sometimes we overprescribe what New Zealanders can and cannot do in order to enforce morals better behaviour and the way in which we think people should live their lives. When we get down to defining what is a supermarket a Chinese supermarket what is Chinese cooking wine and what is not Chinese cooking wine then fundamentally we should rethink some of the ways in which we go about our legislation. 
I am very disappointed that the Minister managed to persuade Government members to vote for training of general managers of liquor outlets. It is an unnecessary bureaucratic measure. It will impose costs on people to the advantage of particular trainers and no problem has ever been identified that this particular legislation is addressing. I heard the Minister say that he will develop training programmes in consultation with the industry. That is recorded in  
Hansard 
 and I hope that he is as good as his word and that his concept of consultation is better than the consultation he has delivered in developing this bill. 
Certainly it is a lot better than the $1.3 million worth of phoney consultation the Minister of Corrections Paul Swain got himself involved in. So I hope that his consultation is a whole lot better than the $1.3 million of fake consultation with the Tainui people that unfortunately has seen a fallout with the Tainui people today. I believe that the Department of Corrections took advantage of a difficult situation with the Tainui people. I do not blame the Tainui people. I blame the Department of Corrections that has caused untold mischief in the Waikato and amongst Tainui. The fact that Minister Paul Swain can make light of it and laugh at it is a disgrace. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I take a very brief call to support the third reading. We welcome the amendments that have been passed particularly those clarifying the situation on Easter Sunday and those regarding rice wines. I was particularly grateful to the House for the support it gave to my own amendment regarding off-licence sales to reciprocal members of clubs. I think that will be a positive step forward. 
The only other observation I want to make and I am sure the House will indulge me very briefly to make it relates to a comment made by Mr Catchpole suggesting that lifting the drinking age to 20 would curb under-age drinking problems. It reminds me of a visit I made to the electorate of the member for Otaki when I was a member of the Government in the 1980s to discuss the Government’s economic changes and someone got up at a meeting and said: “We’re all in favour of the Government’s economic changes. Why couldn’t the Government have waited until all the old people had died first before we brought them in?”. I think of the same argument in the context of Mr Catchpole’s point that if we raise the drinking age we resolve all our under-age drinking problems. The issue is far more complex than that. I do not have the time or the interest to go into it this evening. I think this bill is a good one. We should support it and then we can all go home. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that there is some uncertainty as to whether the leave that was granted carries on to the third reading. National has a split vote so I seek leave for a split vote on the third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.