Hawkins George: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17154] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Social Services Committee. This bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is not a new bill. Many people think it came about because of the death of Mr Navtej Singh in Manurewa but this bill has been around some time. I tried to get it drawn out of the ballot with no luck. I tried to get it into the House during the Budget debate. I want to thank members of the House who have cooperated and helped me get this bill into the House at the top of the order paper. I am really appreciative of that and it shows that MMP is alive and well. I think one of the things about Parliament now that did not happen in the old first-past-the-post days is that people talk to one another and I think that is really good. It shows that there is a good spirit. 
For the last couple of years a young person Daniel Newman now a Manukau city councillor and I have been advocates for changes to the Sale of Liquor Act including the empowerment of communities to challenge licensing applications. As a result of the work the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill is being debated tonight. The key feature of the bill is that any persons may object to an application for an on-licence or an off-licence. However the objector must be able to provide evidence of adverse impact on the objector if the application were to be granted. An evaluation of the social impacts on the community if the licence were to be granted must be carried out on an application for an on-licence or an off-licence. The evaluation is subject to the same public notice requirements as the application. Where an application for an on-licence or an off-licence is opposed the bill provides for the Liquor Licensing Authority to take additional matters into account. The period of time within which objections must be lodged is altered from 10 working days to 20 working days after the first publication of the application. 
That is the bill in itself. It is not an ambitious bill. It is not a bill that wants to cure all the problems of drinking in New Zealand. If I was trying to do that I would not be speaking here tonight because there would be so much objection. Some people have asked me why I did not do something about the drinking age and why I did not do other things. I think it is simple and it is clear. Local people want to have a say over what goes on in their area. 
There have been a number of alcohol policy changes over the years since the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act. The Act relaxed conditions for obtaining liquor licences and allowed the sale of wine in supermarkets. This was the start of a substantial increase in the amount of liquor outlets. In 1990 there were eight licences per 10000 people in New Zealand. That included on-licences off-licences and club licences. By 2006 there were 35 licences per 10000 people. That was almost a 100 percent increase and there is clear evidence that the outlet density is associated with alcohol-related harm which includes violence and alcohol-related arrests. In Counties-Manukau for example 90 percent of the crime that the police deal with after 11 o’clock at night is alcohol-related and includes drink-driving and alcohol-related crashes. The impact on low socio-economic areas is far greater than in affluent areas. Local councils and indeed successive Governments did not envisage the huge increase in liquor outlets and the impact they would have. Looking back when Daniel Newman was the community board chair he endeavoured to get the council to make changes to the district scheme so that liquor outlets would not be put into the poorer areas. That was all too hard for his council to do. 
Although this bill is narrow in what it tries to achieve it is timely given the violence that we have seen associated with liquor. The bill is not an attempt to solve all problems. The problems in Christchurch for example are different from the ones in my area and they are probably different in Havelock North perhaps and in other areas of the Hawke’s Bay. Each area has its own problems and it is very important when we are trying to get laws that work across the country that we remember the local differences. I am pleased that the Government will also have a bill that will empower councils to have a look at how many liquor outlets there should be in a certain area. Although that bill may be following on sometimes people think it is wrong to be the first one to be right. But I am certainly pleased that tonight we are debating this bill. 
I think it is important that I once again acknowledge the support and the help I have been given across the House. I know that the ACT party was not keen on the bill coming in and I had to wait until its members were not there. But I respect them for their view and for being very frank and direct with me. I thank New Zealand First members and also the National Party and Labour Party members. We do not have to take conscience bills to caucus to get permission to take them through the House but I have to say that there was a great spirit in our caucus of trying to do something. I have seen that reflected by the National Party New Zealand First and the Greens and I really appreciate that. The liquor problems in New Zealand show that members of Parliament are keen to work together to try to solve some of those problems. 
As I said this is not a very broad bill. It deals only with a precise area and that is because that is all I thought I would be able to get through. Thank you.