Eckhoff Gerrard: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10191] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this bill and inform members in the House that the ACT party will definitely not be supporting it any further. With any sort of luck the rest of the members will come to their senses and throw this bit of nonsense out. 
This bill is totally different from what it was when I sat on the Commerce Committee a few years ago along with Pansy Wong. The fundamental plank of that committee was to open up competition to allow trusts to compete outside their designated areas and to allow those outside designated areas to come in and compete with trusts. That was regarded as an entirely sensible situation. The trusts would still be there—they would not be dissolved or got rid off—but they would have to sharpen up their act in order to survive. 
It is worth reflecting on the explanatory note. It states: “In a recent Auditor-General report 7 of the existing 23 licensing trusts were identified as having liability to asset ratios indicating ‘ongoing solvency issues’”—in other words they were virtually broke. Only five of those trusts were identified as having what we would call sound financial positions—only five of the 23 notwithstanding the fact that those were monopolies. They had a licence to print money and only five of the 23 managed to break even or be in some sound situation. 
I want to pick up on another point that Mr Jones made—well I am not sure he made it totally. Those trusts are no longer making money out of the sale of liquor; it is the pokies they are making money out of. Of course they are distributing what profits they do make into the community which is fair and reasonable but I just want to bring members back to the original purpose of those trusts. 
They were of course a throwback to the days of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. I think the movement is still around but I am not sure whether that is the case. I understand that there are still one or two people in that particular organisation. Those trusts were set up in order to ensure that communities actually got some payback if one likes from what they saw as the beer barons—the Speights and Kelleher— 
Hon Phil Goff 
:Henry. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Sir Henry Kelleher and those sorts of folks who wanted to get a little bit out of their pockets and put it back into the community. That was probably I suspect to fight the so-called evils of alcohol. I cannot find one instance where any trust now provides one red cent to any temperance group or union so the entire purpose of a trust is now gone. They are obsolete and they are an anachronism in this day and age. 
I refer to the Invercargill Licensing Trust and give some examples that I think the Minister and the Government should be interested in showing how well those trusts in the south served people in their region. The trusts in the south all owned shares in the Washdyke Brewery owned by Dominion Breweries. One could not buy a bottle of Speights in the south. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why would you? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I do not expect Mr Clayton Cosgrove to; he has no taste whatsoever. I would expect him to drink West Coast beer or Christchurch stuff. 
In fact the trust was not providing a service for the people of its region. It said: “We have a monopoly we will exercise that monopoly to the nth degree.” One virtually could not buy Lion Breweries’ or Speights’ products in those areas. 
That is totally contrary to what the trust really should be about. It is about the ability of a patron to walk into a bar or hotel and buy a beer or whatever of his or her choice without the barman or the general manager of the trust saying: “You will drink DB when you are at the Invercargill Licensing Trust—take it or leave it.” Well one could not; one had to stay there. 
It is not that long ago since I stayed in a small motel just across the road from the Ascot Park Hotel complex. That unit—and there are a number of them down there—is struggling to compete. These private individuals who are providing a fantastic service are struggling to compete against the loss-making enterprise across the road; that huge complex called Ascot Park. It should never have been built because it has been built on the back of a monopoly situation—almost extortion one might say of the people of Invercargill who probably still want to keep the trust but do not fully understand the benefits and costs there have been. So I ask members of this House: “Please don’t ever believe that trusts are there to provide for their patrons.” This is a monopoly situation and they are going to cling to it.  
There is also provision in this bill for community trusts. What licensing trust in its right mind would break its monopoly by becoming a community trust so that some outsider—an independent merchant or bottle store owner or whatever—could come into its region and compete on quality and on price? Trusts will not do it. Some might but they will not do it—they are not financially strong enough as I said earlier. It is not the sale of liquor that is now keeping these institutions afloat; it is in fact the pokie machines.  
I think many people in this House will be well aware of the appalling influence of pokie machines right throughout this country. One can no longer go to a hotel sit down and have a nice drink of beer or wine because those damn pokie machines are everywhere. I cannot stand them and I guess I am showing a little bit of prejudice against them. Nevertheless that is the reality. They are the money-making machines within these organisations today and there is absolutely no justification for the licensing trusts to continue on.  
There is one aspect that I am pleased to see in the bill—that is wineries will be allowed to sell their own product on Easter Sunday. Well is that not an outrageous event? People will be able to drive into the countryside down into Central Otago the home of the greatest Pinot Noir Chardonnay and Riesling go into a winery there on a Sunday afternoon—perhaps they have been to church in the morning—and enjoy a glass of wine with a meal in our region and indeed in every region in this country. That is important and proper.  
But I would lament one aspect. I would have thought the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) might also include in it somewhere the requirement for younger people to take responsibility for their actions. When we get the huge amount of drunkenness the related car accidents and the rest of it it is society that gets the blame or the wine seller or the winery—it is never the kids. I believe that is wrong. The kids should be to blame instead of the poor old staff member who sells the bottle of wine or whatever it might be being whacked with the blame. That responsibility is now gone. The younger people do not understand and do not fully relate to the fact that they are being mollycoddled by a Government that does not seem to understand that it is personal responsibility that ensures good outcomes not being cosseted and blaming everybody else all the time. I do not see that in this bill either. It would have been a great opportunity to include something entirely responsible in the bill but it is not there and that is a cause for some real disdain and lament. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would the member do? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: If it were me and I caught a person selling alcohol— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Shame! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well Mr Cosgrove can come and talk to me and I will tell him.