Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14876] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The reason I have asked the House to instruct the Committee to consider this amendment—and I accept that it is on the bounds of the scope of the bill—is that the amendment offers an excellent opportunity to reinforce public safety. The amendment seeks to amend clause 72 “Conditions applying to all licences”. Clause 72(1) states: “A licence granted under this Part is unless expressly stated otherwise subject to the following conditions:”. Clause 72(1)(a)(i) refers to the signage available in a licensed premises and outlines that that sign must be “easily read by persons immediately outside the principal entrance of the premises or within the area;”. That offers up an opportunity that this amendment would address. I recognise and accept that it is something of an extension to the original bill and that is why I ask that the House consider at this point instructing the Committee of the whole House to consider it. 
The opportunity that lies here is to reinforce public safety using the signage that the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill will require to be in place in licensed premises. It gives the opportunity for that signage to offer a public safety message that patrons should seek out safe transportation options and the options available to patrons should be clearly made available to patrons who are enjoying the entertainment within a licensed premises. 
This is an important issue to cover in the current environment where we have a very high blood-alcohol level tolerance in New Zealand. In fact a number of patrons within those establishments would get to see this message if this amendment was accepted. They will come from countries where the blood-alcohol level tolerance is lower and perhaps the adjustment they will have to make on coming to New Zealand may lead to some unsafe practices and unsafe situations on our roads particularly in Auckland—where a number of the games are and where there are already a number of transport issues—but also in communities right across the country. 
As I said I accept that this is something of an extension to a clause about licensing the licence that is granted and the requirement to publicly display a message that shows that the licence under which that premises is operating is a Rugby World Cup licence rather than the standard licence under which a premises would ordinarily operate. In those terms clause 72 is actually quite narrow and in its original form it does not allow for these sorts of safety messages to be included. 
One could argue that a whole range of safety messages could be included and that is probably why the original clause is so narrow in its definition. But I seek the House’s approval to consider this amendment because I think it would have a significant impact on the community and would probably be the most important message we could get through to people. I do not think for instance that there would be much point in putting forward an amendment about the proximity of hospitals the proximity of police stations the proximity of drug treatment facilities or anything like that. But in all likelihood most people will require some form of transportation so this is the most relevant and most obvious change that could be made and signage in the licensed premises offers us as a Parliament the best opportunity to address an issue of considerable debate in the public at the moment. 
The public want to see Parliament taking the issue of drink-driving seriously. So again even though this amendment is something of an extension in the current environment—we have an active campaign by one of our leading national newspapers encouraging respected members of the public and parliamentarians to get on board with the drink-driving message to consider safe options for transportation and to be aware of the options that are available to them—it is entirely relevant and appropriate in this bill. 
We know that the Rugby World Cup as a tournament as an event will offer up far more opportunities for people to go out and enjoy themselves probably become intoxicated and get themselves into a position where knowledge about the options in terms of transport available to them becomes very very important in terms of public safety and the safety of the wider community—including those who choose not to be in the licensed premises those who are simply out on the road undertaking business that has nothing to do with the Rugby World Cup whatsoever. Those people will be very concerned— 
Sue Moroney 
: What are their names? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I could list them—but those members of the public will be very concerned that although the majority of the impacts are positive there is the opportunity for some of those impacts on our communities to be negative. This amendment would address and mitigate one of the potentially negative impacts that the Rugby World Cup could have in the wider community. 
It is not currently incumbent on the licensee who has to display the sign referred to in clause 72(1)(a)(i) and (ii) to make available to patrons information about transportation options. It is a requirement that they have low alcoholic drinks non-alcoholic drinks and food and that those things are all clearly on display. However although there is a requirement to ensure that transport options are available there is no requirement in the bill at the moment to make sure that those options are clearly on display and that that information is available to patrons. So by recommending to the Committee of the whole House that this amendment be considered the House is dealing with an issue not currently provided for in the bill. 
All the other measures to mitigate the potential harms of alcohol will be on display and available to patrons but there is no provision for this measure—which is probably the most relevant and would have the most impact—to be on display. I accept and acknowledge that the amendment is probably on the outer limits in terms of the scope of the bill but I ask that the House consider this motion vote in favour of it and direct the Committee of the whole House to consider the amendment in the interests of public safety.