Wall Louisa: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wall Louisa: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6161. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to just clarify Supplementary Order Paper 107 in my name. It starts from a premise that our schools are the nurturing and learning environments for our children as are the immediate environments around our schools which is why the 1-kilometre buffer zone I wanted to create around our schools is so vital. But what I want to add is that I have excluded supermarkets and I also have highlighted in my Supplementary Order Paper an exclusion for communities to self-regulate. So I have already factored in the opportunity for communities through the local alcohol policy to decide whether they do in fact want a liquor outlet within 1 kilometre of a school. 
I think the principle that I want to discuss really is what the difference or the interface is between central government and local government in terms of ensuring that our children—and especially our children who walk to school—have the protections and that we as members of Parliament in our job as legislators act so that our children do not have to walk to school or to stop into the local superette on the way to school and be confronted with alcohol. It really is a question about alcohol as a commodity and the relationship that that commodity has with our children. 
I agree that the local alcohol policy is going to provide a wonderful platform and opportunity in communities like Papakura and Manurewa and in fact in all of our communities that have strong leadership. I want to acknowledge as the Minister of Justice did that we have local board members and leaders within our respective communities who will ensure through the local alcohol policies that such issues are considered. But in fact I do not want the Mayor of Auckland to determine through a local alcohol policy that Auckland City will have that schools are the learning and nurturing centres for our kids and that the immediate environment around schools is so vital that we do not want the pollutant of alcohol to inflict and infringe on the ability for our kids to develop—I would like this House and central government to take the responsibility. The principle that my Supplementary Order Paper is trying to address— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
LOUISA WALL 
: I would like to recommence my contribution to the Committee stage of Part 3 of the Alcohol Reform Bill by moving to some evidence from the National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis from the University of Waikato. That group is headed by economist Dr Michael Cameron. What I want to do is quote from the Manukau research that I have been using throughout my contributions which is  
The Impacts of Liquor Outlets in Manukau City 
. It was published in January 2012 funded by the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand which is now the Health Promotion Agency. What this research found is that “off-licence liquor outlets tended to be located in high-population high-deprivation areas and were associated with significantly higher levels of crime including violence sex drugs alcohol and property offences as well as motor vehicle crashes.” 
What I want to highlight is section 6 of this particular piece of research. What the group did was look at the indicators of social harm from the New Zealand Transport Agency Counties Manukau District Health Board and the New Zealand Police. It looked at accident and emergency event data alcohol-related admissions and different categories of police attendances. It included things like antisocial behaviour dishonesty offences drug and alcohol offences family violence property abuses property damage sexual offences traffic offences and violent crime. That was part of the methodology. 
What they concluded in this section was that per 10000 people per annum they have evidence that says “an additional off-licence outlet is associated with 10.4 to 25.3 additional police events and 2.0 to 3.8 additional motor vehicle accidents.” There is empirical evidence that the density of outlets does contribute to a whole lot of social indicators that actually have a fiscal cost to society. So my advocacy of my Supplementary Order Paper and of the fact that we should treat schools as very special places for our children and treat the environment immediately around them as very important to communities has I think some merit. 
I also would like to highlight in this report section 4 which deals with the community stakeholder view. This particular research project group carried out 20 interviews had six focus groups and completed 11 surveys. If I again focus on what they found was the most problematic outlet type it was the smaller stand-alone outlet. It is these outlets—these superettes these dairies that somehow have become entrenched in the suburbs in our communities providing liquor to the local people—that are the most problematic. What the group found was that “Their role in increasing the incidence of alcohol-related harm in the community was attributed to a variety of factors that can be summarised as relating to three main themes:”. 
The first one was about density and the reality is we have a problem with density. So whether we like it or not we have to create mechanisms that are going to address the density issue. Density then correlates to availability and there is increased consumption in suburbs where people have access to alcohol. So there is clear evidence about that. The second one was co-location: “liquor outlets were observed to be located in areas with vulnerable populations particularly in areas of lower socioeconomic status.” 
The third was the unscrupulous business practices of people who manage and run these particular outlets in communities such as Manurewa. So there is sale of alcohol to minors and there is the granting of credit to vulnerable people. What I really wanted to highlight was the near unanimity concerning potential policy responses. This is what the community identified as the need; this is the community’s response to that need. These are their policy solutions. 
The first was to reduce the number of outlets which my Supplementary Order Paper would do. I also want to highlight Supplementary Order Paper 81 in the name of the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell because his sinking-lid policy would also ensure that we address the supply of liquor outlets. The second solution was restricting and controlling the hours of operation of licensed premises which is what my colleague Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 110 wants to do. 
But the solution is also about implementing planning measures that restrict the number of outlets in particular locations. The contention of my Supplementary Order Paper of new clause 38A which I want inserted into the legislation is that we will not allow off-licence liquor outlets within 1 kilometre of a school or an early childhood centre. What are we talking about? We are talking about our children who are aged under 5—the 2 3 4 and 5-year-olds. We are talking about young kids—primary school children—who walk to school not being exposed to alcohol. And it is not only alcohol in the dairies and the superettes that I am worried about; it is also the paraphernalia around alcohol. It is the bottles it is the cans and it is the whole culture associated with excessive consumption that I think we also have to be mindful of. 
I am really passionate about this issue and I am passionate because the communities and the people in South Auckland are incredibly passionate about it. So I am asking that the Minister of Justice seriously look at whether or not it is central government’s responsibility to create a safe place for our kids. If we want to put children at the centre of policy and children at the centre of the Alcohol Reform Bill this is one way that we can do that. 
This is the one way that we can actually say to the people of New Zealand that we value our schools we value our children and we will protect our children and ensure that they are not subject to the ill consequences of alcohol. We will make sure that the immediate environment around our schools—because they are nurturing learning centres for our children—will be protected and we will have a buffer zone. The only people who will change that who can change that are local people through their local alcohol policies which is what my Supplementary Order Paper is proposing. As a first-principles response as an ethical response I think it is incumbent on all of us to protect not only the children in South Auckland actually—the principle is to protect all children. Kia ora. Thank you.