Kedgley Sue: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14260] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 We would like to congratulate George Hawkins on his Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill which is tremendously worthwhile and will give communities some say over where liquor licences should be granted. We will certainly be voting to support the bill. 
I remember when I was a Wellington city councillor back in the 1990s— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Oh the 1990s. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —yes it was a long time ago—somebody decided to set up a bar right next to a school in Strathmore. It was also right next to where a whole lot of people lived along with the school in a very densely populated residential area. The whole community was totally opposed to it. Nobody wanted the bar which was going to have gambling machines in it to be established at that particular location. So the entire community came together. It was probably the biggest meeting ever held in the history of Strathmore. The whole community rallied around the cause and passed a resolution that it did not want that liquor outlet in its community right next to the school and the community church. In the end despite the whole community being unanimously opposed to the liquor outlet there was nothing the community could do. It realised after many months of trying to stop the liquor outlet with the help of me and other councillors that basically it was completely powerless. The Sale of Liquor Act 1989 had relaxed conditions for obtaining a liquor licence to such a point that someone could set up a liquor licence anywhere in New Zealand and the community was completely powerless. 
When this legislation was being considered at the Social Services Committee a submitter said that it had got to the point in New Zealand where the only things that people needed in order to get a liquor licence were a car park and a urinal and away they went; they could sell alcohol and the local community had virtually no say and no input. I was horrified by that personal experience and I wondered why this Parliament had allowed it to happen. I ask why this Parliament allowed liquor outlets to be established in just about any community in New Zealand and the conditions to be relaxed to such a point that communities had absolutely no say in whether or not a bar or liquor outlet could be set up right next to a school or a church. What was Parliament thinking in 1989 when it passed the Sale of Liquor Act and allowed that to happen? The same legislation allowed liquor to be sold in any supermarket in New Zealand and in our dairies and now supermarkets sell 70 percent of all the alcohol sold in New Zealand. I guess that there are members of Parliament who were here and who voted for the Sale of Liquor Act which liberalised the sale of liquor to such an extent that we have had this proliferation of liquor outlets all over New Zealand. 
At the Health Committee a few years ago the Public Health Association made an interesting submission. It presented a map of New Zealand that showed where the most liquor outlets were in New Zealand. The most liquor outlets were in low-income and poor areas of Auckland in particular but that was the case for all over New Zealand. In every low-income area there was a vastly increased number of liquor outlets liquor stores fast-food outlets and gambling outlets. It was completely predatory. We could see that the people setting up the liquor stores and gambling outlets were literally targeting the low-income areas of New Zealand whereas areas like Remuera and so forth had very few outlets at all. So it is completely predatory. 
We congratulate George Hawkins on this bill which will give communities a say in alcohol licensing decisions; it is very very long overdue. It will mean that there will have to be an evaluation of the social impact on the community. For example once this bill is through the people of Strathmore who helplessly tried to stop the liquor outlet from opening there all those years ago will be able to have an evaluation of the impact. They will be able to say that they believe a liquor outlet will have a disastrous impact on their community and that they oppose it. 
No doubt the reason the Sale of Liquor Act went through which so liberalised the sale of alcohol in New Zealand was the influence of the liquor and hospitality industries. Their influence resulted in such an extraordinary liberalisation in New Zealand and the taking away of the rights of communities to have a say on where liquor outlets should be. We will see and we are seeing now the same influence of the liquor and hospitality industries on the debate on liquor legislation in New Zealand. We had the Law Commission report which was a very far-reaching report but immediately the Government decided that it would back away from the critical areas that Sir Geoffrey Palmer said need to be dealt with—namely the issues of price marketing sponsorship and advertising. I ask why the Government is ducking for cover over those issues and why it refuses to deal with those issues when it has been told that they are the most significant issues that have an impact on liquor in New Zealand. Everyone in this House knows that it is because of the power of vested interests—the power of the liquor industry the hospitality industry and the food industry. Those industries will have more say and more sway over this Parliament and what it agrees to than all of the submissions made by all of the people of New Zealand—and there is overwhelming support from the people of New Zealand. 
People are clamouring and saying that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for this Parliament to get it right and clamp down on the proliferation of liquor outlets all over New Zealand and on the absolute saturation of marketing sponsorship and advertising of liquor. We have this opportunity and that is what the people of New Zealand are clamouring for. Unfortunately the ghastly reality is that the influence of lobbying from the liquor and hospitality industries will cause this Government to fail to take the action that is needed because it does not want to get offside with those industries. That is why we have the problem we have today and I fear that the influence of those industries will prevent us from taking up any comprehensive set of policies as the Law Commission has recommended. 
I do not know how many members saw  
Close Up 
 last night but there was a discussion about why the Government would not lower the blood-alcohol level. An expert from Australia was saying that it was an embarrassment. He said that quite simply the power of the liquor and hospitality industries was the reason it was not happening. Bruce Robertson chief executive of the Hospitality Association had said on his website that the reason it was not happening was due to lobbying by the hospitality industry and the liquor industry. So those industries admit it. They admit that their lobbying is preventing the Government from taking the action that is needed and I think that is a tragedy. 
I offer George Hawkins our congratulations. It is a fantastic bill. We will be supporting it and we just wish that the Law Commission’s very comprehensive report was being implemented by this Parliament and that we could finally start to undo the harm unleashed by the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. Thank you.