Jones Dail: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10188] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
This is alarming legislation at first glance because as I look at say the new section 219L to be inserted into the Sale of Liquor Act by clause 8 of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) it seems to me that with the reconstitution of licensing trusts they could cease to sell liquor. Instead they could carry on with any other object that comes within section 219L “Object of community trust” because this bill will allow a licensing trust to be reconstituted as a community trust. One then asks what the power of a community trust is. What is its object? Section 219L(1) provides: “All property vested in or belonging to a community trust is held on trust to be applied to charitable cultural philanthropic recreational and other purposes beneficial exclusively or principally to the community in the region of the community trust.” Section 219L(2) provides: “A community trust is authorised but not required to hold 1 or more licences under this Act and to carry on the business of selling or supplying liquor.” So a community trust does not have to have a liquor licence and it does not have to sell liquor. 
Well what a dreadful piece of drafting. Does this mean that the good old Waitakere Licensing Trust can give up selling liquor and just stick to making money out of gaming? That is where licensing trusts get their main money from these days. They can continue to do gaming or do virtually anything if they use the money for charitable cultural or philanthropic purposes. I wonder whether the Government has had a close look at this legislation because on the face of it the Waitakere Licensing Trust in West Auckland the Portage Licensing Trust the good old Oamaru Licensing Trust the Masterton Licensing Trust and the Invercargill Licensing Trust do not have to sell liquor any more under the terms of this legislation. They do not even have to have a liquor licence and they do not have to get involved with liquor. I am sure that all the people in Invercargill Masterton and Oamaru will be staggered that this Labour Government is allowing their licensing trusts not to sell liquor. All those licensing trusts have done a great job for their areas over the years and while I am not really strictly in support of a State-owned type of enterprise I cannot deny that in Invercargill Oamaru and such like they have done a great job. The Government must have a closer look at section 219L which seems to be ambiguous at the very least and shows that this Labour Government has tried to rush this legislation through without looking at it at all closely. 
The second aspect I am concerned about in this legislation—speaking on behalf of New Zealand First—is that a licensing trust will now be permitted to carry out business outside its area without the need to hold an expansion poll. This means that all those businesses that are not allowed to carry on a liquor business within the licensing area will however now be faced with the licensing trust carrying out business in the other areas. To give an example from the area with which I am familiar although other breweries cannot set up an outlet in New Lynn or Henderson there will be nothing to stop the Waitakere or Portage licensing trusts from setting up a business in Queen Street. They could set up a bar in Queen Street Commerce Street or anywhere. I am not sure whether there is still a Porirua Licensing Trust here in Wellington—there used to be one once upon a time. This bill now allows the Porirua Licensing Trust to set up a bar in Lambton Quay but breweries that own bars in Lambton Quay will not be able to set up a bar in Porirua. Surely that is grossly unfair. Clearly that is another reason why New Zealand First will not be supporting this legislation. 
This one is extraordinary: this bill contains amendments that permit wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday. There are probably only 3 days in the year that have any degree of sacredness today. Good Friday and Easter Sunday must be the two most important days in any Christian calendar and Christmas Day is possibly the third although it is so commercialised these days. But to have businesses open on Easter Sunday selling whatever it might be—especially selling liquor—goes totally against the grain. That is another area for opposition to this legislation. I am just guessing at this stage but if there is enough support for this legislation we might hear from the small wineries in the future. I am sure that small wineries in particular would find it very difficult to have to open up on Easter Sunday—just because everyone else is opening up—and sell their wine. I would expect many small wineries would probably close regardless of the provision in this legislation. 
It shows the way in which this minority Labour Government regards some of the basic principles of New Zealand society. I know that the Prime Minister regards this as a secular society although just which secular type of viewpoint she supports is hard to say. Most people value a holiday and I would have thought that a Labour Party that seems to look for the support of trade union officials and the support of workers would not want workers to work on Easter Sunday. I would have thought a Labour Party would like at least 1 day of the year to be a day when workers do not have to turn up for work at the wine shop and sell wine. Once we allow wine shops to start selling wine on Easter Sunday clearly all the other shops that cannot open then such as garden centres will ask why they cannot open on a Sunday. We will have everybody opening up on a Sunday and all the workers in New Zealand will be made to work on Easter Sunday. Surely there are some days when they could have a break. We hear the Labour Party talking about people having 4 weeks’ holiday so let us have Easter Sunday as a holiday. It is such a simple proposition. It is an established proposition that has been around probably since the beginning of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I know that Clayton Cosgrove wants people to work every day of the year. He may want them to guzzle away get drunk on Easter Sunday and get drunk every day of the week. There are people in this society—although clearly not those in Waimakariri who support Clayton Cosgrove—who would like to see some sort of day of rest on Easter Sunday to recognise what many billions of people in this world regard as the ultimate conception of the Christian faith—the resurrection. That is the basic concept if one happens to have any regard for Christianity and separates real Christians from anybody else. Selling wine on Easter Sunday is totally objectionable. 
The next point is the provision of an exception in relation to offences by minors to allow entrapment of wineries. That really is a breach of the rule of law. We want the basis on which someone is prosecuted to be fair. We do not want people to be entrapped. That is a constitutional viewpoint. It is called the rule of law. We do not want Parliament to make this sort of arbitrary decision that traps people into committing offences. A winery might be in a hurry. The police might set up someone who is 17 but who looks 25 if he or she gets all tarted up to go into a winery or any other liquor premises and buy alcohol and the manager then has to pay a fine. As I recall it would not be any of the workers as such who would have to pay out; it would be the business proprietor—usually a small-business proprietor. That is another way for Labour to have a go at small business. It is knocking the small-business proprietor running licensed premises. The proprietor will lose his or her licence or have it suspended for a considerable period of time. 
This provision is one of entrapment whereby the police set up a storekeeper. It should not be permitted. It is one of those areas where the law constantly holds to the principle that one has to commit an actual offence not have the police set it up for one. I can imagine the Greens opposing this one just on the grounds of entrapment. It is so contrary to every constitutional principle there is and I expect the Greens would vote against this bill entirely on that ground alone. It would be so easy to set up people in any particular type of offence. I understand that this has been done for the cigarette-smoking bill as well and if we do it once we start to do it a second time and a third time and before we know it the doors are wide open and the principle of the rule of law that we do not have this type of entrapment provision goes out the window. 
So we oppose the bill on the grounds that it would seem on the face of it to allow licensing trusts not to sell liquor and to allow licensing trusts to compete in areas other than their own licensing trust area but with no vice versa arrangement. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
I seek leave to change my advice on the report-back date for this bill. I originally advised the House that I was wanting the bill to be reported back on 12 February 2004. I want to change that advice to 26 February 2004. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. Leave is so granted.