Hawkins George: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hawkins George: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14254] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. First I acknowledge most people in this House for the way in which this bill got to the House in the first place. I must acknowledge people like Judith Collins who helped me get the bill in without having to go through a ballot. I also acknowledge Pita Sharples the leadership of the Green Party at the time and especially my own Labour colleagues. This bill has been completely successful and even if it falls tonight it will have done the job it set out to do. I acknowledge that this bill went to the Social Services Committee on 2 July 2008—in the last Parliament. The report back from the select committee states: “We note recent announcements by the Government that it will introduce legislation that will address the issues covered by this bill.” I think that when one has a member’s bill accepted by the Government through the select committee process one has to be pleased. I have been kept up to date by the chairwoman of the committee Katrina Shanks and I thank her. I also thank Simon Power with whom I have talked about the bill. 
This bill is about something we looked at even before the time when Mr Singh who owned a liquor store in Randwick Park was shot. But that highlighted the issue. I had been working with a young Manukau city councillor Daniel Newman over the issue of the explosion in the number of liquor outlets in South Auckland. But this bill is not just about South Auckland. It is about the number of liquor stores exploding all over the place and into neighbourhoods and we see the results of that. Young people can get a dozen cans of ready-to-drink liquor for less than $20. It is a real problem; it is a huge problem. When I have people like Daniel Newman working with me to get a bill before the House it is really worthwhile. When the bill came into the House it passed its first reading by 113 to 2. The two members against the bill at the time were Rodney Hide and Heather Roy. They were like mountaineers roped together and they did not want the bill because I think they thought it dealt just with South Auckland which it does not. 
We see booze outlets on every street corner. Dairies sell more alcohol than milk. We have seen the explosion in the availability of liquor in supermarkets. Of course we have also seen the explosion that runs parallel with the increasing availability of liquor—the increase in domestic violence. Domestic violence alcohol and crime are all partners that are a scourge on our communities. I think that the cooperation across the House is Parliament at its best. It is very good that people support this measure. There will be a vote at the end of this debate and whether or not the bill goes any further it has done its job and that is what is important. 
The Law Commission has come out with a huge book—a report. Some people might use the report for a doorstop but I suggest to them that they read it very carefully. I have changed my mind quite a bit over liquor. I used to be one of those people who thought that there should not be an age limit for the purchase of liquor and I voted for 18 as the age limit. I have changed my mind; I think it should be 20. I am not going to go for the 18-20 split 18 for licensed premises and 20 for off-licence premises but so be it. But this bill has given people an opportunity to think about what is going on. My only disappointment is that because of the Law Commission’s report it is going to take some time before a bill gets into the House. I see that as being necessary; I am not seeing that as a criticism. But it is unlikely that we will have new liquor laws in the term of this Parliament. We may do; maybe there will be cooperation where people want to see liquor laws changed dramatically. 
Let us look at what has been happening. The key features of my bill really give local communities far more say. If people apply for a liquor licence they will have to do a social impact report and I think that is hugely important. The public will have more time to put in objections. At the moment it is 10 working days. I think that should be lengthened but however long the Government decides it should be so be it. But we also want to have organisations like schools churches and kindergartens being able to say what the impact will be on them; at the moment they cannot. I think that when people start thinking about this they will realise that communities are trying to take hold of the issue themselves. Yes we have had people who have been hand-wringers and who think this bill is likely to fall at this hurdle. Well that is not a problem. We have people from the Labour Party my very good colleagues from the National Party the Maori Party and the Greens all very sincere in their belief of what should happen. No one in New Zealand actually thinks that the law does not need to be changed. 
Why did this bill cover only a small area? Well I have been here a long while—some people say too long. 
Cam Calder 
: No never! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Thanks. The member from the North Shore is yelling out that he wants me to stay longer. When we see things changing in a society and the law tries to catch up with that later I think feelings are fairly intense. When we can look around at many off-licences and see a dozen ready-to-drink beverages for $20—and they taste so sickly sweet that young people think they can swallow them down like nobody’s business—of course there are consequences to that. Alcohol makes a huge difference to the work of the police. Any moves that we can make to help the police combat liquor with better laws will be to our advantage. 
Later on I will move that there be a personal vote on this bill but I invite people to have a close think about the bill. I realise that many people will think this bill has done its job completely and will vote for it to be ended. There will be others who think that getting the bill into the House may keep the Government a little more honest. I conclude by thanking all those people who have helped with what is a very serious proposition. Thank you.