Adams Paul: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12346] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Basically United Future is pleased with most aspects of this bill. We had a major concern in the early stages of the drafting of the legislation when the Liquor Licensing Authority had the ability to review the hours that each of the clubs might operate in when it reissued licences. We could see that it would be a real burden for clubs but I am glad to see that that provision has been removed. 
I was fascinated by Rodney Hide’s speech about how bad monopolies are yet communities themselves are not monopolies. A community can choose how it will operate under this legislation. Therefore if a community wants to have a community trust it is free to do so. I found that very interesting because sometimes viewpoints can be very narrow. If only those who owned businesses had rights to do everything all the time and anywhere I do not think that would be a good society. 
Coming back to this bill I personally do not have a problem with the selling of wine from wineries on Easter Sunday yet I do not support open Sunday trading because I think that there are days in a year that need to be special—days that one needs to be able to put aside and take rest. I remember speaking on different legislation where I likened a year without any special days to a city without a park. Only the other day I wandered up the top of the hill to the rose gardens and I saw people in the midst of a very busy city Wellington just taking time to sit in a park where there was no commercial activity and they were indeed smelling the roses. I think we would be unwise to allow business to become such a focus in our calendar year that people had to go through the whole 365 days without any days that were different. 
We are also putting an amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14 of the bill that tidies up section 37(2) of the Sale of Liquor Act with what we believe is just another common-sense approach. I would encourage members who have perhaps not read that amendment to get one from the Table before we go into the Committee stage. Once again I think it makes sense and I like legislation that makes sense. I think it is unfair on wineries if they are not able to sell their wine on a day when they are open and having people come through while other similar facilities are already operating on that day. 
I pick up on Brian Connell’s point with regard to underage drinkers. I personally support the drinking age being raised again but when we have a law I think we have a responsibility to make it simple for those who are policing it so that they can operate effectively. I hear where Mr Connell is coming from—about the police sending in minors to check whether the licensee is selling to minors rather than taking the responsibility of just checking whether they have identification. For example if one is pulled up in a motor vehicle and the police think one is underage one does have to show ID to prove that one has a licence. I think it makes sense that the ones who purchase liquor should also have to show their ID. 
But I do not want to hinder the police in their work. I think there are enough challenges in trying to police the laws we have. I think we have too many laws in this country and in many cases the police have a great challenge in trying to enforce them. So if this bill makes it easier for them I support it. For example we in the motor industry have to show all the paperwork for everything required for a warrant of fitness on a car whereas I would prefer them just to come in with a car that had a defect and if we did not pick up the defect as a warrant of fitness inspector then deal with us on that case. So there are two sides to that argument. 
Basically United Future thinks that this bill is just tidy-up legislation. It is sensible legislation and again I would encourage members to pick up the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment from the Table. It is a typical United Future amendment; it is just common sense and makes legislation work better and that is what we are here for. We are the friends of the nation and I thank you for being able to speak during this second reading.