Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker thank you. I'm very pleased to take a short call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. Normally it would be Chlöe Swarbrick who would be speaking on this bill because of course it was triggered in part by her member's bill on the sale and supply of alcohol and harm reduction which was drawn from the ballot last year and created a momentum around the issue which encouraged the Government to introduce this bill. But of course Chlöe Swarbrick is in Tāmaki-makau-rau after the tragedy earlier today and like others in the House we extend our huge condolences to the victims of that incident the first responders the survivors and those who are in hospital with serious injury. It is interesting the National Party and the ACT Party's stance on this bill. It is a very sensible bill and I commend the Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan who set out what the bill does very clearly in her speech. But of course it was local alcohol policies that were introduced under National and they were intended to provide the community with the opportunity to have more say on what happened with licensing premises locally. This bill is not doing what Mr Goldsmith claimed—it is not going to completely override the ability of local hospitality businesses to operate. What it does do is stop booze barns the alcohol industry and big outlets from contesting councils' ability to have a local alcohol policy through repeated objections and through appeals—and in Auckland it's been 10 years—including appeals at the Supreme Court. In Christchurch it was five years from 2013 to 2017. It cost the Christchurch City Council over $1 million before they withdrew their provisional local alcohol policy because of the way the whole process worked. This bill is really sensible in ensuring that objections cannot be based on trade competition. That is not a novel concept: it has been in the Resource Management Act for years to prevent supermarkets objecting on the basis of trade competition. So it is not new members of the National Party—it operates in other spheres. I think it is really disappointing that we have had some speakers who have almost been apologists for the alcohol industry exaggerating the impact on existing businesses and assuming that local councils will not exercise good judgment. I don't expect that councils will try and put existing hospitality businesses that are operating well out of business by implementing a rule that they can't continue to operate within 300 metres of a preschool or a school. But in Christchurch after the earthquakes locals were concerned at the confetti-like" growth—they called it—of liquor outlets; off-licence premises post-earthquake. Communities objected to that. It's these sorts of issues the proliferation of new businesses when you've already got businesses serving an area—that local alcohol policies can address. This bill also in ensuring that organisations that have an interest in an area can participate in the process is also a good advance. In the regulatory impact statement I think it was noted that Hāpai te Hauora which is a health entity part-owned by Waikato-Tainui was declined the ability to stand in support of an objection by others in the Waikato so this bill ensures that that sort of participation in the process can happen. We want the community to have a say. We want councils to get on and develop these local alcohol policies without having that work stymied by appeals to the authority. Local councils are elected representatives so they can well represent their community.What speakers like Mr Goldsmith have failed to acknowledge is the huge harm caused by the alcohol industry: $7.85 billion annually. It was unprecedented in 2021 when 20 former district health boards called for an urgent review of our alcohol laws because of the 800 deaths and more than 60000 disability-adjusted life years that are lost due to alcohol consumption. We need to reduce the harm from alcohol. It is our most harmful drug. This bill is a small step towards reform. We need much more comprehensive reform and the Green Party is disappointed that in the Prime Minister's policy bonfire earlier this year further reform has been postponed until April next year because the Law Commission did a very comprehensive report back in 2011 which set out a charter for reform. We need for the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders to get on and do much more comprehensive reform. That's what Chlöe Swarbrick's bill was about: a small part that has helped contribute to this bill. The Green Party supports the bill and we commend it to the House."