Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7305. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I would like to follow on from Phil Twyford and support him and his Supplementary Order Paper 138. Dr Paul Hutchison actually hit the nail on the head with this one when he said that the people of Pukekohe whom he represents were disturbed by the proliferation of liquor licences that were suddenly applied for as retailers knew that this legislation the Alcohol Reform Bill was coming into place. What the Government has effectively done—what Judith Collins has effectively done—is give those potential licensees a further 12-month window in which to race to their local authorities and get those licences agreed to before communities get to have their say. 
Let us be absolutely clear about this because there has been some misrepresentation in the Chamber today about what some of these amendments actually do. The Minister of Justice Judith Collins has utterly misrepresented the position that Phil Twyford is promoting. He is not requiring councils to stand up a local alcohol plan within the first 12 months; his amendment empowers them to do so if they want to. That is all it does. It puts the authority the control back into local communities. I do not want to litigate all the reasons we know why but we know that this Government hates local communities having local control over local decisions. The power of central government has been strengthened enormously under this National Government and it has eroded democracy in local communities and this is just another example of it. 
I want to refer to a situation in my own electorate where the Big Barrel chain wants to open another store. I have sat down with the gentlemen who are going to run that store who run other Big Barrel stores in Palmerston North and they want to open this one up. I actually think they are reasonable people. They support a minimum price because they want a level playing field across all off-licence retailers. They support limited trading hours. They said: “We want to go home at night.” But they also said again that they wanted a level playing field across all operators. They want to be able to operate more responsibly but they do not want to have to compete against other operators who may choose not to operate so responsibly. So I think these guys as off-licence operators go are pretty good. 
But I do not believe that we need another outlet in that part of town—in the Westbrook part of Palmerston North—and the local community is absolutely dead against it. They do not want that outlet to open. If it was replacing another operator so there would not be one more outlet—just the same number of outlets but being operated in a better way—then the community might be a little bit happier with that. But they do not want one more. Their opinion counts for nothing—nothing—until this provision actually is enacted. They are going to have to wait another 12 months before they can have their say. 
Well the decision about that Big Barrel store will be long in the past by the time this provision is available to the people of Palmerston North who want to have a say about it. All this provision does is give them that opportunity. It does not force the Palmerston North City Council to have a local alcohol plan; it allows it to if it wants to. And I know from my community that it would because my community is screaming out for the opportunity to do this. I am sure that many other members in the House—and I can hear other members saying the same thing—want their communities to be able to have the opportunity as well. 
 I have not heard this afternoon any substantive arguments against Mr Twyford’s amendment. I have heard only that the Minister received advice. We do not know what that advice was. It was obviously convenient advice because it worked for what she wanted to do but we have not heard a substantive argument against this. Equally I have not heard a substantive argument against my amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 40 to reduce the blood-alcohol limit for drivers from 0.08 grams to 0.05.