Connell Brian: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12353] 
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.