Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14254] 
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. First I acknowledge most people in this House for the way in which this bill got to the House in the first place. I must acknowledge people like Judith Collins who helped me get the bill in without having to go through a ballot. I also acknowledge Pita Sharples the leadership of the Green Party at the time and especially my own Labour colleagues. This bill has been completely successful and even if it falls tonight it will have done the job it set out to do. I acknowledge that this bill went to the Social Services Committee on 2 July 2008—in the last Parliament. The report back from the select committee states: “We note recent announcements by the Government that it will introduce legislation that will address the issues covered by this bill.” I think that when one has a member’s bill accepted by the Government through the select committee process one has to be pleased. I have been kept up to date by the chairwoman of the committee Katrina Shanks and I thank her. I also thank Simon Power with whom I have talked about the bill. 
This bill is about something we looked at even before the time when Mr Singh who owned a liquor store in Randwick Park was shot. But that highlighted the issue. I had been working with a young Manukau city councillor Daniel Newman over the issue of the explosion in the number of liquor outlets in South Auckland. But this bill is not just about South Auckland. It is about the number of liquor stores exploding all over the place and into neighbourhoods and we see the results of that. Young people can get a dozen cans of ready-to-drink liquor for less than $20. It is a real problem; it is a huge problem. When I have people like Daniel Newman working with me to get a bill before the House it is really worthwhile. When the bill came into the House it passed its first reading by 113 to 2. The two members against the bill at the time were Rodney Hide and Heather Roy. They were like mountaineers roped together and they did not want the bill because I think they thought it dealt just with South Auckland which it does not. 
We see booze outlets on every street corner. Dairies sell more alcohol than milk. We have seen the explosion in the availability of liquor in supermarkets. Of course we have also seen the explosion that runs parallel with the increasing availability of liquor—the increase in domestic violence. Domestic violence alcohol and crime are all partners that are a scourge on our communities. I think that the cooperation across the House is Parliament at its best. It is very good that people support this measure. There will be a vote at the end of this debate and whether or not the bill goes any further it has done its job and that is what is important. 
The Law Commission has come out with a huge book—a report. Some people might use the report for a doorstop but I suggest to them that they read it very carefully. I have changed my mind quite a bit over liquor. I used to be one of those people who thought that there should not be an age limit for the purchase of liquor and I voted for 18 as the age limit. I have changed my mind; I think it should be 20. I am not going to go for the 18-20 split 18 for licensed premises and 20 for off-licence premises but so be it. But this bill has given people an opportunity to think about what is going on. My only disappointment is that because of the Law Commission’s report it is going to take some time before a bill gets into the House. I see that as being necessary; I am not seeing that as a criticism. But it is unlikely that we will have new liquor laws in the term of this Parliament. We may do; maybe there will be cooperation where people want to see liquor laws changed dramatically. 
Let us look at what has been happening. The key features of my bill really give local communities far more say. If people apply for a liquor licence they will have to do a social impact report and I think that is hugely important. The public will have more time to put in objections. At the moment it is 10 working days. I think that should be lengthened but however long the Government decides it should be so be it. But we also want to have organisations like schools churches and kindergartens being able to say what the impact will be on them; at the moment they cannot. I think that when people start thinking about this they will realise that communities are trying to take hold of the issue themselves. Yes we have had people who have been hand-wringers and who think this bill is likely to fall at this hurdle. Well that is not a problem. We have people from the Labour Party my very good colleagues from the National Party the Maori Party and the Greens all very sincere in their belief of what should happen. No one in New Zealand actually thinks that the law does not need to be changed. 
Why did this bill cover only a small area? Well I have been here a long while—some people say too long. 
Cam Calder 
: No never! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Thanks. The member from the North Shore is yelling out that he wants me to stay longer. When we see things changing in a society and the law tries to catch up with that later I think feelings are fairly intense. When we can look around at many off-licences and see a dozen ready-to-drink beverages for $20—and they taste so sickly sweet that young people think they can swallow them down like nobody’s business—of course there are consequences to that. Alcohol makes a huge difference to the work of the police. Any moves that we can make to help the police combat liquor with better laws will be to our advantage. 
Later on I will move that there be a personal vote on this bill but I invite people to have a close think about the bill. I realise that many people will think this bill has done its job completely and will vote for it to be ended. There will be others who think that getting the bill into the House may keep the Government a little more honest. I conclude by thanking all those people who have helped with what is a very serious proposition. Thank you. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call tonight on the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. First of all I congratulate the member George Hawkins on bringing this member’s bill to the House in 2008. This member has a huge heart. He saw an issue in his patch and wanted to make a difference. He saw the destruction that liquor was causing where he is in South Auckland so he brought a bill to the House to try to address that. The bill is quite narrow; it is in relation to licences and the number of outlets there can be in an area. The number of outlets that have appeared popping up all over the place like mushrooms is a concern for all New Zealand. George is absolutely right when he says that one can walk down the road especially in the area where he comes from and on every corner one can see liquor outlets that are selling liquor in one form or another and selling it very cheaply. 
The Social Services Committee which I chair looked at this bill and we decided that we would not support it or recommend that it be passed by the House for the simple reason that times have moved on a little bit. Liquor reform has come into place and we have had the package that the Government has put out. It adopted 126 of the 153 recommendations from the Law Commission and these recommendations cover the bill that George brought in. The select committee voted down this bill before its return to the House for the reason that there will be legislation later on that New Zealand will debate that will cover these issues and many other issues as well. 
We all know that liquor and alcohol issues are not isolated just to liquor outlets. There is a much bigger discussion which this country has already had and we have had some clear signs from the people in this country that they are not happy with what we do with our liquor and alcohol or with the way in which we drink in New Zealand. In fact I have been out and about in Ohariu on that issue. I held a public meeting at which a cross-section of people in the community talked to me about what they saw were the issues with alcohol in their patch of Ohariu. It was interesting that one of them was a bar owner in the city—he owns a number of bars—but he was one of the biggest advocates for tightening up the opening hours. He said that he was happy for bars to be closed at 2 a.m. because after that time bars in the city make no money. He was happy to say that we should raise the drinking age to 20 because he did not want 18-year-olds in his bars and clubs. 
It was really interesting. Where we thought we would have opposition there was none. It was the sector itself that was sending clear messages back to me in Ohariu that people are happy for the provisions to be much tighter. There was a real cross-section of people at that meeting. We had a great discussion about demand and supply and I feel that a lot of this legislation is hitting the supply side of the issue: restriction of the number of licences restriction of the hours for drinking liquor bans and a restriction on the purchase age—the whole area to do with liquor and supply. 
But if we want to talk about our drinking issues we can see that it is not just a matter of supply but demand. It is the way we are drinking the culture of drinking and the way we accept binge drinking as acceptable. A couple of months ago I went out with the police in Wellington. They picked me up at midnight and dropped me off at 4.30 in the morning—it was a bit like a date. They showed me exactly what is happening in the city in Wellington in the early hours of the morning. It was pretty appalling and we have to see it to believe it. At 3 o’clock in the morning people are still queuing to get into clubs; their night is still going and they have another club to go to after the current one. 
I saw the way in which girls particularly were drinking on the streets: falling over feeling hilarious that they were all so drunk and throwing up into rubbish bins—it was a great blast. Well it is not a great blast. Actually when we are doing that and we think it is really funny then something is going wrong. And something is going wrong out there with the way our youth in particular think it is great to drink like that. But it is not just a youth issue: it is a generational issue. I know that within my own age group we still see people going out and getting wasted. But what signal is that sending to the youth of New Zealand? Not a very good signal at all. 
After having been out with the police and holding a public meeting I am now on a crusade around my schools. I am going into social studies classes at my secondary schools and talking to students about drinking. I ask them what their views are on drinking and I find they are really interesting. They are 14 and 15-year-olds and some of them are already going out drinking which is really interesting but a bit distressing. But the consensus coming out of those classes is that we have to do something about the way we are drinking. The students in the classes at the schools that I visited were OK with the drinking age being raised. 
It is interesting to see that there is a lot of support for change in the way we are drinking and support for the alcohol and liquor reforms. Therefore I am looking forward to seeing legislation come to the House in relation to the liquor reforms. I thank George Hawkins for the work he did in bringing this issue to the fore back in 2008 when he was really concerned about what was happening in his communities. That is a sign of a very good local MP. So I say congratulations to him and I thank the House for allowing me to speak tonight. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi maku hei timata korero he tuku atu i nga whakaaro ki wera nga totara o te Ao Maori kua hinga atu ara ko Ta Archie Taiaroa raua ko Jim Nicholls. Na reira e kourua haere haere haere atu ra. Ka oti. 
[ 
To begin with the first thing for me to do is to convey condolences to those totara of Maoridom who have passed away: Sir Archie Taiaroa and Jim Nicholls. So to you two depart farewell journey on. It is done 
.] 
About 2 months ago my brother was sworn in as a District Court judge at our marae and his first week on the job was down in Wellington at the court around the corner from Parliament. On the Wednesday evening after 3 days on the job we had dinner at Parliament. Of course I asked him about his impressions of his first 3 days on the job. He said to me that it was very sad but if it were not for alcohol he would be redundant. He said that 80 to 90 percent of the cases that he had seen in those 3 days were the result of alcohol-related incidents. I think we really need to reflect on the fact that a District Court judge is basically saying that he would be redundant if it were not for alcohol. 
I am on the horns of a dilemma because I am also Labour’s spokesperson on tourism and the tourism industry and the alcohol industry are comfortable bedfellows. We have to realise that tourists come here and enjoy a drink—they enjoy the wine the bars and that whole scene—and it is an important part of tourism. We do not want to be killjoys. I was talking to a person in the tourism industry who said to me on the whole alcohol issue that I had to remember exactly who I am the spokesperson for. I am the spokesperson on tourism. I said to him that was right but he had to remember that long before I was the spokesperson on tourism long before I was a member of Parliament and in fact for all of my life I have been Maori. I have to balance up the effect and the impact of alcohol on Maori. 
I will quote a few things from the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand’s Maori action plan 2009-12. It said that 66 percent of Maori youth aged between 12 and 17 years identified themselves as drinkers. These people are not even legally allowed to drink yet 66 percent of Maori in that age group already identify themselves as drinkers. Thirty-six percent of Maori surveyed were binge-drinkers with Maori adults reporting that they had consumed on average 8.9 standard drinks on the most recent occasion they drank alcohol—so 9 standard drinks. Some people would have had one or two and others would have had 15 16 18 or 19 standard drinks on the most recent occasion. Thirty-one percent of Maori adult drinkers reported getting drunk on the most recent occasion with 16 percent reporting that they had intended to get drunk on that occasion. Worse still 45 percent of Maori youth aged 15 to 17 reported getting drunk the most recent time they drank alcohol with 25 percent—a quarter—reporting that they had planned to get drunk. Sixty-six percent agreed that it is acceptable to get drunk at parties; we just heard the member Katrina Shanks talking about how people go to Courtenay Place and deliberately get drunk. 
This vulnerability of our intoxicated youth worries and concerns me. Most Maori drinkers reported having experienced some form of harmful or regrettable experience from their drinking in the previous 12 months. Added to that  
Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey  
also identified that the most common lifetime disorders among Maori were anxiety disorders at 31 percent followed by substance use disorders at 26 percent. I would say that the anxiety disorders were contributed to in no mean way by the substance use. 
The facts that I have just read out from that report are supported by my experience up in Kaitaia as an educator. I recall having a conversation with a policeman who told me that on Thursday Friday and Saturday nights the police go around picking up and dragging up intoxicated school-age students—primary school age intermediate school age and college age—from the alleyways and the car parks of Kaitaia. He told me how they have to drag them into the police car and half the time the kids vomit in the back. The police get them home to the parents knock on the door—the parents do not know where they have been—and basically give the children to the parents telling them to make sure they do not choke on their vomit. That is the reality of the situation in Kaitaia. 
This policeman told me about one particular girl who went to the school where I was principal whom he had to pick up one night when she was totally comatose. I said that that girl’s family could not afford to buy alcohol and did not have the money for it. I asked how she got the money to buy the alcohol. He said to me that she does not buy the alcohol. She gives favours to the guy at a particular liquor store and that is how she gets her alcohol. We have to be mindful. At the time this girl was 12 or 13 years of age she was giving favours in return for alcohol. 
The Law Commission report  
Alcohol In Our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
 said: “There is little scope under the present Act for communities to have a say in licensing decisions.” The Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill which George Hawkins has brought to the House changes that. It gives communities the chance to have a say in alcohol licensing decisions. The report also says: “A common theme in the consultation was the disempowerment many people feel because the existing legal framework effectively discounts the views of the local community when making decisions about where and how alcohol is sold. Several people told us the category of people who can object to a licence application needs to be widened but the real concern of many was that even though they lived in the neighbourhood there was no basis on which they could object to a licence application other than in relation to the suitability of the applicant.” This bill changes that. 
The report says: “That the community had alcohol-related problems and locals did not want any more liquor outlets in the area was no basis for an objection. Community groups are increasingly expressing their concerns about alcohol and its impacts as our consultation demonstrates. They want more say in decisions about where and how alcohol is sold supplied and consumed in their neighbourhoods.” The bill that George Hawkins has brought to the House does exactly that. It gives the communities more say on where and how alcohol can be sold. Also the bill “requires an applicant for an on-licence or an off-licence to carry out an evaluation of the social impacts on the community.” I ask how one carries out an evaluation of the social impact on a 12 or 13-year-old girl who has to give favours to somebody in exchange for alcohol. The social impact on her life and her family’s life into her future is immeasurable. 
We as Maori have a bit to answer for ourselves. I was just talking to my colleague Stuart Nash about when our marae dining hall was opened in 1990 up north and we had 50 kegs of beer. We got through only 38 of them that night which because of our attitude at the time we laughed about. That illustrates the attitude that we have towards glorifying alcohol. As I stand to speak now I am embarrassed by that attitude from us as Maori which allows alcohol to become such a big part of our lives. Hopefully this bill will go some way to changing that attitude but it certainly gives communities the power to make decisions regarding alcohol within their communities. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill had its genesis in good sound common sense. It is an attempt to overturn a jandal-slapping sort of sale of liquor bill from a previous decade. The fact is that the sale of liquor has been the subject of dog’s breakfasts of legislation for many many decades as people have sought to liberalise and somehow change New Zealand’s drinking culture and turn it into something it is not. Members who were involved in politics years ago will remember the votes that tried to turn the New Zealand drinking culture into something sort of cultural. 
Paul Quinn 
: The French. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Apparently we all needed to be drinking like the French. We know that the French drink all day at various times. They start at a young age and they carry on until they fall over. No one seemed to remember that they have a high rate of alcoholism in their country. But we sought to move the drinking culture within New Zealand away from something that was confined by hours age legislation and occasion and turn it into something where anything goes. Our drinking culture certainly needed to be changed but boy some dumb stuff was done. 
Now people are seeking to march the sale of liquor legislation back about 30 years forgetting that 30 years ago one was not allowed to have liquor in the vicinity of a dance hall for instance. That meant there would be about 50 guys standing around the boot of an old Vauxhall with a couple of crates in it sharing 10 flagons. In those days it was a totally different world from the one we find ourselves in today and now thankfully the member George Hawkins has quite rightly brought before the House a bill that says it is time we had a bit of balance. 
Previous Parliaments wandered off down the track of liberalising everything. We took the age down to 18 and we took off any constraints on new products like the ready-to-drinks that were spoken about. We tend to give some credence to people who make their money out of the liquor industry and we listen to their lobbying. 
We decided that a supermarket was something that sold alcohol and we did not think that every corner dairy would also seek to sell alcohol. We thought that a supermarket that was acres and acres in size was better and more careful than any other vendor of alcohol. What quickly happened was that those big supermarket chains moved as fast as they could to sell as much alcohol as they could as cheaply as they could at any hour of the day that they could. They did a really good job of it to the effect that today 70 percent of all alcohol consumed in this country is sold by supermarkets to people who may or may not enjoy too many drops. 
The point is that as far as the retail side of it is concerned supermarkets are probably the most compliant of any alcohol retail outlet. It is much harder to buy alcohol from the supermarket when one is drunk or underage than it is to buy it from anywhere else but that does not mean we do not have a problem with supermarkets selling alcohol and the new legislation that is coming before the House will restrict that. 
The ready-to-drink concoctions that have become so popular with people especially young people wanting to get into drinking alcohol are being marketed to young people as alcohol that does not even taste like alcohol. They sell it by the pallet-load and it has alcohol per volume of somewhere between 4 percent and 20 percent. The proposed legislation will reduce the alcohol per volume to no more than 5 percent and that is a good thing. 
Obviously the House is looking quite strongly at the split-age option whereby people over the age of 18 can buy alcohol in hotels and on licensed premises but people must be 20 years of age to buy alcohol at an off-licence. The purpose of that of course is to raise the de facto drinking age which at the moment is somewhere around the early to mid teens. We need very much to do something about that. 
The thrust behind the Hon George Hawkins’ bill is about giving local people the ability to impact on local decisions as to who can sell alcohol within their communities. We have ridiculous situations where dairies opposite secondary schools are selling alcohol at $1 per can or $1 per ready-to-drink. 
An 18-year-old student can wander across the road at lunchtime and legitimately buy alcohol in lots of one or two because that is the way the vendor is prepared to sell it. Vendors are not allowed to sell cigarettes in ones and twos but they can sell cans of alcohol in ones and twos and some of them are up to 20 percent proof. Students can drink that alcohol in the school grounds as part of lunch—or maybe it is lunch—and then head back to the classroom for a snooze before heading home after school and picking up a bit of alcohol to knock off when they get there. It is absolutely ridiculous. 
The gap in the current legislation means that no good-minded citizen is able to object to a new consent being granted on the basis that there are already enough liquor outlets in the community or on the basis of their proximity to schools or other venues around the community. That is fundamentally wrong. Mr Hawkins’ bill seeks to change that and allow local people to have some input. 
We know that there will be a national alcohol plan and that district councils will be encouraged to have district alcohol plans and part of that planning process will be consultation with communities. Any application for consent—not just for new premises but also the reinstatement of an existing consent—will be up for members of the public to object to on a whole range of sensible bases and good on them. 
I thank the member for bringing the issue before the House. I believe that in many ways it has been a catalyst for the Law Commission and parties on both sides of the House to look at the issue and to give back to the communities the ability to object to local consents which are the very mechanisms people are using to have a negative effect on our children and our communities. Thank you. 
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. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker me mihi ra ki te mema ki a George Hawkins i tenei po. Kei te whakaae atu au ki ta te mema nei a mo tana whakaaro nui ki te whakatakoto i tenei pire ki mua i te aroaro o te Paremata. Me mihi ra ki a ia ko te tumanako ia ka eke ki te taumata e wawatatia ana. Tata ki te kotahi rau tau kua hipa i puta enei korero i tetahi o nga rangatira o taua wa. Ko Ta Apirana Ngata taku e korero nei. He korero e pa tonu ana ki tenei o nga pire. Anei tana korero:  
[ 
Mr Assistant Speaker I congratulate the member George Hawkins tonight. I support the member and his great foresight in bringing this bill before Parliament and hope that what he is seeking is fulfilled. Close to a century ago one of our finest leaders of that period Sir Apirana Ngata gave a frank account relevant to this bill and I quote: 
 ] 
“there can be no question as to the amount of damage liquor has done to the people of my race … Whether the Maori will in a generation or so become a hardened and seasoned drinker like the incoming Europeans I do not know … My position is clear-cut; and that is so far as the supply of liquor to Maoris is concerned from my youth until now I have and shall oppose it everywhere.” 
Koinei ta Apirana Ngata. He nui taku puaroha mo taua whakaaro. Ko nga tatauranga e ki ana tokotoru o ia wha tangata neke atu i te tekau ma waru tau te pakeke kua tohungia he kaiinu waipiro a hautoru o aua tangata kua tohungia he tino kino ta ratou inu waipiro. Na enei tatauranga matou e tino awangawanga ana. E tino awangawanga ana matou mo nga ahuatanga inu a nga rangatahi me te ahuatanga whakatairanga o tenei ngangara. E pumau tonu ana matou ki te whakapono he nui nga huarahi whakamama ake i nga tuahuatanga kino kua puta i tenei mea te waipiro e pangia ana e Ngai Maori. Ko tetahi huarahi kua kitea e matou ko te mahitahi a-whanau nei.  
No reira ki te hoki ki tenei pire ko ta tatou inaianei he rahui i te tuku raihana hokohoko i raro i te pire Sale of Liquor Act 1989. Me ki penei e noho ahuareka ana matou ki te whanuitanga o nga whakaaro puaki kua whakatakotohia. I tera wiki i mea atu te Kaunihera Waipiro ara te Alcohol Advisory Committee ki te Komiti mo nga Take Maori me pera te tirohanga o te Kawanatanga ki te kaupapa waipiro ki tera o te tupeka. E ai ki a Gilbert Taurua kaiwhakahaere strategic operations general manager me whai turanga teitei ake nga take waipiro ki te taha hauora. E ai ki nga tauira inu nui tonu te waipiro ka unumia i roto i tetahi wa roa. He korero whai tikanga tenei. Na te iti o te utu nga ahuatanga whakatairanga me te ahuatanga inu i roto i nga hapori kua noho kohatu tenei ngangara me ona kino katoa.  
No reira i te putanga o te purongo e kia nei ko te  
Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
 harikoa ana matou i te mea i tohungia nga huarahi awhina ki te whakakore i te ahuatanga inu waipiro. Tautoko ana matou i nga momo huarahi pera i te whakaheke taumata inu waipiro ina e taraiwa ana tetahi te whakapiki i te tau inu otira te rahui hoki i nga whakatairanga i nga panui hoki mo te waipiro. E whakapono hoki ana matou me werohia nga kamupene waipiro e pehi kino ana i wa tatou hapori. I te ao tika i te ao pono me ki ka kore e kite i te waipiro i waenganui i nga hapori. Engari i tenei ao kikokiko nei me aro tatou inaianei ki te awhina i wa tatou whanau hapori hoki ki te tiaki i a tatou ano a-hauora a ki te whakamama i nga kino o te waipiro.  
Mohio tonu ahau i te whakatau a te komiti mo tenei ripoata ina ko ta ratou kaore he take ki te tautoko i nga mahi e korerohia ana i roto i tenei ripoata i te mea e ahu pera tonu ana te kawanatanga. Hoi ano kua whakataketia te kaupapa a Minita Power i te mea kaore nga huarahi pera i te take tapiri e whakamahia ana ki te whakaiti i te inu waipiro. A kua whakataketia ano hoki te Kawanatanga mo te korero noa iho mo tenei mea te rahui i nga haora mahi o nga toa hokohoko waipiro. No reira te ahua nei kaore nga ture hou mo te waipiro i te eke ki te taumata e tika ana e ai ki te ta te tirohanga a etahi.  
No reira ka tirohia anotia e matou te aronga o tenei pire ara ki te rahui i te tuku raihana hokohoko i raro i te Sale of Liquor Act 1989. E rata ana matou ki te tikanga ara kia tuku arotakenga ia kaitono tuatahi mo te panga o ta ratou tono ki nga hapori otira te panga a-moni nei a aha ranei ki te rohe e tohungia ana. Ka rua ko nga take mo te utu me te panga o te waipiro ki taua rohe. Ka noho nga arotakenga nei hei mea kitenga mo te rahinga. Otira e tautoko ana matou i tenei ahuatanga i te mea ka kitea nga nekenekehanga o nga hapori ki te whakatau me ahu pehea ratou.  
Hai korero whakamutunga nei au e noho whakahihi nei i te mea i tae mai a Toi Te Ora no roto i toku rohe o Te Waiariki ki tetahi hui o te komiti whaiti. He ropu hauora a Toi Te Ora. Ka awhina tenei ropu i nga tangata toru rau mano neke atu i roto o Waiariki me Waikato hoki i Tauranga i Whakatane i Opotiki i Kawerau i Rotorua tae atu ki Taupo. Ko ta Toi Te Ora ki te komiti i tautoko ratou i te wahanga hou 9A mo nga tono a-raihana. E whakamarama ana i nga painga me nga utu me whakamarama nga raihana nei i nga pehitanga o te waipiro a-moni a-tangata nei i te takiwa a me tuku i enei korero ki te marea. No reira na runga i te ahuatanga o enei korero otira oku ake wheako hoki me te hiahia o te Pati Maori ki te rahui i te waipiro ki te manaaki i te oranga me te hauora o wa tatou whanau e tautoko ana matou i tenei pire i tona panuitanga tuarua. 
[ 
That is what Apirana Ngata said. I have great sympathy for Sir Apirana Ngata’s view. According to statistics approximately three in every four Maori over 18 years of age identify as drinkers with about one-third of those identifying themselves as binge drinkers. These are statistics that concern us greatly. We are especially concerned about harmful drinking amongst youth and heavy promotion of products designed to appeal to young people. We believe that much can be done to reduce alcohol-related harm experienced by Maori. We have found a method: it is a collective whanau approach. 
So we come back to this bill. What we should do right now is to restrict the granting of on-licences and off-licences under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. I have to say we are interested in the scope of the proposals. Last week the Alcohol Advisory Council told the Maori Affairs Committee that the Government should take a similar approach to alcohol as it does to tobacco. Strategic operations manager Gilbert Taurua said the harm caused by alcohol needs to be a higher priority in the health sector. He said Maori drinking patterns show that a large amount of alcohol is drunk over a long period of time. This was an important message. The prevalence of alcohol its low cost and  
relentless marketing 
 have created a permissive environment in which excessive drinking has become normalised bringing with it undue harm to our communities.  
So the Maori Party welcomed the release of the report Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm which gave a very clear indication of the range of measures that could be initiated to address ways to help change the drinking culture. We support various measures which include lowering drink-driving limits lifting the purchasing age and limiting liquor promotion and advertising. We also believe that an alcohol industry that has had an inappropriate influence on our communities needs to be challenged. In a perfect world alcohol would not feature in our communities but the reality is that 
it does 
so we now must strive towards enabling our whanau and communities to take control of their health and limit the damage that alcohol can do in their community.  
I know that the rationale of the select committee members in determining their report was to say that they thought this bill overlapped the Government’s work programme on alcohol reform and as such they did not see it as needing to be supported. However the package announced by Minister Power has been heavily criticised for failing to use devices such as excise tax to reduce alcohol consumption. There has also been criticism that the Government is merely tinkering around the edges with regard to restricting opening hours. Quite frankly it appears to some that the alcohol reforms are a disappointment. 
So we look anew at the aim of this bill to restrict the granting of on-licences and off-licences under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. We are satisfied that every application for an on-licence must be accompanied by an evaluation carried out by the applicant—firstly for the likely social impact relating to monetary and non-monetary costs on the area to which the application relates; and 
 
 secondly taxing the costs and impact of liquor consumption in that area. These evaluations will be available for public inspection. Indeed we support this because communities can determine  
with greater transparency  
what is in their best interests.  
In conclusion I am really proud that Toi Te Ora from my electorate of Te Waiariki came to a select committee hearing. Toi Te Ora is a health organisation that helps approximately 300000 people in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions 
— 
Tauranga Whakatane Opotiki Kawerau and Rotorua including Taupo. Toi Te Ora told the committee that it supports new section 9A for applications for on-licences to include  
an  
evaluation of benefits and costs. This evaluation should include the likely social impact of liquor consumption and monetary and non-monetary costs to the area to which the application relates and that these must be made available for public inspection. Based on this address my personal experiences and the desire of the Maori Party to be more vigilant in restricting alcohol use in order to take care of the well-being and health of our families we support this bill at its second reading 
.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill proposed by my honourable colleague George Hawkins 
MP for Manurewa. I am privileged to be the National MP based in the vibrant and diverse electorate of Manurewa and I have to report that there is a strong united voice asking for help in reducing the ravages of alcohol there. 
I have listened to residents’ views at many public meetings and sporting clubs when visiting the RSA and at the Sunday markets. It is a common theme. Responses to my recent surveys are clear. The pendulum has swung too far towards the liberalisation of alcohol laws. The residents of Manurewa know the statistics all too well. Many of them have suffered directly or indirectly alcohol-related harm. Alcohol is estimated to contribute to up to 1000 deaths a year and is a major driver of crime. Police say that alcohol is implicated in 30 percent of all recorded offences 34 percent of all recorded family violence incidents and 50 percent of all homicides. 
This National-led Government is committed to reducing the level of alcohol-related harm in all our communities. We are listening to public concerns. The Government’s package for alcohol law reform is the first stage in our response and adopts in full or in part 126 of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations. Our package aims to achieve three things: less alcohol-related harm including deaths family violence drunken disorder and accident compensation claims; a reduction in our binge-drinking culture especially among young people; and a reduction in the number of alcohol outlets and their trading hours. 
A key feature that has proved very popular with the residents of Manurewa whom I have spoken to and I am sure with my colleague the Hon George Hawkins is that the proposed legislation will give the local Manurewa community the right to decide how many outlets there are where they are and how long they are open for. When a decision is made to grant a licence the objective of our law must be considered as well as the provisions of the local alcohol policy and crucially whether the amenity of an area would be lessened should the licence be granted. We are giving local communities the choice to determine the outcome in their area. We will be giving parents more tools to manage their children’s access to alcohol and requiring more parental and individual responsibility for supply to minors. 
As my colleague Chester Borrows pointed out earlier those ready-to-drink alcohol mixes that we call RTDs will be restricted to 5 percent for its alcohol content. I am delighted at this initiative. They taste like soft drinks but they pack a hell of a punch. Ready-to-drink products will be required to be sold in containers limited to holding no more than 1.5 standard drinks. We will investigate a minimum pricing regime by giving retailers a year to provide sales and price data. If they are not forthcoming then the Government will consider regulatory options. 
I applaud my colleague George Hawkins for bringing this bill to the House some years ago in an effort to get the then Labour Government to address this huge problem of alcohol-related harm. As I have outlined the National-led Government’s package of reforms is comprehensive and in the opinion of the Social Services Committee the package of reforms has actually overtaken this bill. The select committee has recommended that this bill not be passed as far more comprehensive legislation is imminent. It is for this reason I concur with the select committee that this bill should not be passed. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Before I start my speech Mr Assistant Speaker could you please indulge me when I say “Good evening sir.” to Barry Goggin. On the 9 September Barry retired as one of the parliamentary gallery staff after 17 years’ service. He is a fine chap a very good bloke and I hope he is enjoying his retirement because it is well deserved. 
I stand in support of the second reading of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker Cam Calder who said he is based in Manurewa—even though he lives on the North Shore—has decided to vote against the bill. I am quite astounded by that because he stood up and outlined the real problems faced by people in the electorate of Manurewa and then proceeded to say he was speaking against the bill. That is not a good stance. 
In my time tonight there are only two questions that I will pose and then answer. First of all I ask what sort of society we want to live in and secondly I ask what sort of message we as members of Parliament want to send to our communities about alcohol. But before I discuss those questions I compliment my colleague the Hon George Hawkins on bringing this member’s bill to the House. Mr Hawkins is an example of a Labour MP who understands his communities who talks to his constituents and who acts on the recommendations of those who come to visit him and offer their counsel. I congratulate George. He has undertaken wide and varied consultation on this bill. I congratulate him on seeking to amend the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. When George decides to leave this House—and I know he has a few more terms left in him yet—he will be sorely missed by his constituents and he will leave huge shoes to fill. 
But I remind the House that this bill does not relate just to Manurewa; it relates to the whole country. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that under the Standing Orders a member is not allowed to barrack in the way that Mr Quinn is doing without sitting in his actual seat. If he really wants to interject in that manner he should go to the back of the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member—and I presume he has heard me say this on a number of occasions—that yes the rules according to Speaker’s rulings are that members may not shift their seat for the purpose of interjecting. However I note that the member has shifted because members do drift down to this end of the House and there is interjection. It helps to make shall I say a more engaged place. The interjections were light and friendly but were a little lacking in humour I might say. I did not think they interfered with the member’s speech and I just invite the member to continue with it. 
STUART NASH 
: I will provide an answer to the first question I posed about the sort of society that we want to live in. As politicians we have a unique opportunity to help to define the types of communities that we live in and our children grow up in. We have opportunities to send messages about the sort of society we want to create for our families and friends and for the country’s citizens. For me a number of messages are important in terms of creating safe and secure communities. 
The first message is that it is not acceptable to have a liquor store or a store advertising and selling alcohol on every street corner. We have enough problems with alcohol in our communities and more advertising in dairies where children buy their sweets is hardly the type of message we want to send to young children who are growing up. This bill deals with that problem. Alcohol causes more harm than almost any other drug in society and we need to send the message that drinking to excess is not normal healthy or acceptable and will not be tolerated by the wider community. 
The second message is that in a fully functioning and democratic society we need to have laws that respect the views of all who participate in the health and wealth of our communities. Let us be honest: alcohol sales affect many more people than those involved in the actual transaction. Alcohol for example is often drunk near to or at the point of sale. So we should let those who may be impacted by the drinking of alcohol comment on where and when a retailer can be located. This bill deals with that problem. It does so by granting any person the right to object to the granting of either on-licence or off-licence applications provided the objector can produce evidence that he or she would be adversely affected if the application were successful. 
The third message is that this bill requires that a report on the social impact of granting a liquor licence must be provided by a person who applies for a licence. Again that forces applicants to take responsibility for their proposed actions. This measure is a sea change. It is long overdue and it is most welcome. If the evaluation shows there will be harm to the community I have no doubt that under this legislation the application will be turned down. This bill is an example of democracy as it should be practised: with the input of all citizens and the applicant showing responsibility. It is about time we had that I say. It makes absolute sense and I fully support the ability of those in the community to have a say on activities that have an adverse impact upon them. 
My second question asked about the sort of message that we want to send as members of Parliament to our communities about alcohol. This year the Law Commission chaired by Sir Geoffrey Palmer put out a huge volume entitled  
Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
. The report was tabled in Parliament. I will read out a couple of points that make very disturbing reading. Members probably know about them but they are some of the elephants in the room that we just do not like to mention. Well the time has now come for us to be absolutely aware. The report states: “New Zealand has a pervasive culture of drinking to excess. National drinking surveys consistently show that around 25 percent of drinkers—the equivalent of 700000 New Zealanders—typically drink large quantities when they drink. Despite the incontrovertible evidence linking intoxication to a range of serious harms as a society we have developed a dangerous tolerance for drunkenness. The latest drinking survey shows … Ten percent or the equivalent of 224000 adults consumed enough to feel drunk at least weekly. … for a large sector of the population there is a dominant pattern of heavy intermittent drinking episodes the worst pattern for the drinker’s own health outcomes and the worst for damage to those around them.” Is this the sort of society we want to create and leave for our children? 
In the report a section entitled “What’s the problem?” states: “Alcohol is the backdrop to so many issues. Issues which New Zealand is not addressing very well issues like obesity suicide sexual health injuries and so on. … for a significant number of young people today drinking is not merely an adjunct to their social lives but the focal point drunkenness is not an occasional by-product of drinking but an end in itself.” Is that the sort of society that we want to create? 
The report further states: “Research suggests that a discernible relationship between a high concentration of outlet numbers (usually referred to as high outlet density or outlet ‘clustering’) and alcohol consumption at a neighbourhood level. … The Committee pointed in particular to an apparent relationship between outlet clustering and the extent of underage drinking.” 
I say this is the sort of harm that the Hon George Hawkins has witnessed in the Manurewa electorate this is the sort of harm and the sort of behaviour that the Hon George Hawkins does not want to see all around this country and this is the reason for this bill. Earlier I posed two questions. The first was about the sort of society that we want to live in. The answer to that is a society where all citizens have a say. George Hawkins’ bill allows for that. The second question I posed was about the sort of message that we as members of Parliament want to send to our communities about alcohol. The answer is a new message: responsible drinking is the only way forward. Drunkenness is simply not cool; in fact it is downright stupid. 
I congratulate the Hon George Hawkins. I think this is a wonderful bill. It does a hell of a lot to address the concerns that many people in New Zealand have about the state of drinking in our society and about the prevalence of alcohol outlets in our communities. I commend this bill to the House and I hope that all 122 members will vote for it. Thank you very much. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill which is in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. 
I understand that this bill was first introduced in 2008. There were 53 submissions and 34 submitters who wished to be heard. Ten of them were heard in the previous Parliament before the change to the most excellent National Government under John Key. Since that time the Social Services Committee has kept in close touch with the Hon George Hawkins. Its members were well aware that Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Law Commission report was due to be presented so they put the bill on hold pending that very comprehensive report. 
I must agree with previous speakers that the pendulum has swung too far in New Zealand. Alcohol is now a $5 billion industry—a $5 billion industry. One of my concerns about alcohol is the effect it has on our children and in fact on our unborn children—the effect of alcohol on children in utero and the number of children born with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The Law Commission report estimated that some thousands of children a year were affected by the disorder. This is an extremely worrying concern because those children will never have a chance to achieve their full potential. Often mothers and fathers have no idea of the implications of their drinking which impacts on literally thousands of New Zealand children. So there is no doubt that the importance of this subject is enormous. 
I congratulate the Hon George Hawkins on bringing in this member’s bill which is generally focused on local communities having a say. There is no doubt that members of the South Auckland community have been particularly strong in their concerns about liquor outlets in their area. The Hon George Hawkins has listened to them. Their concerns were manifested in a march and rally at the Manukau City centre about 6 weeks ago. Representatives from all parties were there on that particular occasion but I must admit that I do not think the Hon George Hawkins was there. [ 
Interruption 
] He was there! I thought he was campaigning for the local board of Manurewa but— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Manurewa Action! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Manurewa Action Team yes but conscientiously he was marching—he was there—and so was my excellent colleague Dr Cam Calder who is doing a tremendous job down there in Manurewa. He is obviously the natural successor of George Hawkins but of course that will be after George Hawkins has become a board member for that area. 
But the point is that on that march the local community was very strong about the adverse effects of alcohol in South Auckland the huge number of outlets in that area the violence associated with it and the sorts of examples we have heard from other speakers of alcohol outlets being close to schools. The message from that rally was absolutely crystal clear: they wanted to have a say as to how alcohol was sold and distributed in South Auckland. That message reflects the attitudes of the whole country. 
The good news is that the National Government is responding in a very comprehensive way to Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Law Commission report. It is responding in 126 ways to the 153 recommendations. The basis of that response with regard to local communities is that licences will be harder to get and easier to lose—harder to get and easier to lose. That is a very very important message and one that George Hawkins certainly supports very strongly. Local communities will have the power to decide how many alcohol outlets are in their communities where they are and at what times they are open. That very much encapsulates what the Hon George Hawkins’ bill is all about. 
It was very interesting to hear the rhetoric from Labour members. The Social Services Committee recommended to Parliament that at this stage of events the bill should not be passed and instead the comprehensive package that is to be put into place by the National Government should come forward. The National Government undoubtedly has already made a great series of interventions in terms of policing and enforcement. There are 300 more police in areas like South Auckland and 600 throughout the country. But more important there will be tougher alcohol laws in this comprehensive package and in particular and in response to this bill local communities will have much great say on how alcohol will be dealt with in their communities. 
It is right and proper that Parliament follows the guidance of the Social Services Committee recommendations that at this stage the bill is not passed and that the comprehensive recommendations of the National Government are accepted. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I am delighted to endorse and echo the fine comments and conclusions of my colleague the member for Hunua and as other members have done at the outset to acknowledge the considerable work of the member for Manurewa the Hon George Hawkins on this issue. I would also like to acknowledge my predecessor as the MP for Hamilton West Martin Gallagher who also demonstrated a determination during his time in this House to confront the problems caused by alcohol abuse in our communities. As some members will know Martin is currently a candidate in our local body elections and looks likely I should say to bolt in. He has been a Hamilton city councillor before and in fact was deputy mayor before he was first elected to Parliament. I welcome the prospect that he will be back on our council and I look forward to working with him in our respective roles. 
Martin and I both welcome this Government’s decision to implement the vast majority of the Law Commission’s alcohol reform recommendations and it is very good to have his endorsement of the Government’s lead in this area. We are both especially pleased at the powers that will be given to councils to implement local alcohol plans. That is a very important measure that my constituents our civic leaders the police our health providers social agencies and many others warmly welcome. 
In light of those comments and as we have heard from one or two members tonight there may be some people watching or listening to broadcasts of Parliament this evening who are puzzled that this bill will be voted down tonight. So I want to stress as other members have that it is neither a slight on the member for Manurewa nor a signal that members are taking these issues lightly. On the contrary it is because the problems the bill addresses are about to be presented to the House in a much more comprehensive measure and for that reason only the Social Services Committee with Mr Hawkins’ agreement—it was good that he came to a select committee meeting recently and talked to us—is recommending that this bill should not proceed at this point. I commend the member for Manurewa for concluding that events have overtaken this bill and that his work is done. It is a sensible and pragmatic decision in the circumstances. 
I look forward to discussing the measures in this bill and many other related issues when the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report is introduced to the House in a few weeks from now. I agree with my colleague Chester Borrows that there are some ridiculous arrangements governing the sale of liquor in our communities at the present time and that we have major problems as a consequence. Almost unfettered access to alcohol is certainly contributing to our binge-drinking culture. In turn it is exacerbating a major health problem that is a special concern of mine—I did not know that my good colleague Dr Hutchison was about to mention it as well but I am delighted he has done so—and that is our nation’s significant incidence of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I try to raise awareness of that serious health concern in my electorate whenever I can especially when I talk to school groups and younger audiences. It is a tragic fact that hundreds of babies are conceived each year to mothers who have consumed too much alcohol. In many cases in fact probably in most the mother has no intention of becoming pregnant and drinks dangerously for some time before and after conception in complete ignorance of the dangerous risk she is taking. It is a lethal error. 
Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a lifelong disability that can have severe physical and intellectual consequences. It is a tragedy that we hear so little about it and that so few young people in particular are aware of the serious risk they take in drinking regularly and heavily while being sexually active. I hope and expect that the more comprehensive bill we will start considering in the House later this year will provide an opportunity for members to promote much greater awareness of foetal alcohol syndrome and a raft of other alcohol-related concerns. 
There is certainly a strong desire in Hamilton for vastly improved alcohol legislation and that is why I say to members opposite who have been interjecting regularly throughout the evening that it is important that the Government has taken the considered approach that it has. We have given officials the time they needed to convert the huge array of legislative reforms into workable legislation that will come before the House. The idea that we should rush the measure is likely to be a recipe for the mistakes that Parliament has made in the past when alcohol reform legislation has been too ad hoc and has dealt in a piecemeal fashion with parts of the problem. It is right that we tackle this problem comprehensively. That is what the Government’s response will be all about when the legislation comes before this House and I look forward to debating those measures when it does. I certainly am committed to ensuring that we get it right this time and that we take a major step in the right direction to tackle our alcohol-related problem in New Zealand. 
I conclude—I think I am the last speaker before the member has a chance to sum up—by commending the member for Manurewa once again for his work on this issue and for his pragmatic decision in relation to this bill at this time. I look forward to all members of this House participating in a very positive fashion towards the implementation of a really improved liquor control regime later on this year. Thank you. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I am really disappointed particularly with those two doctors Cam Calder and Paul Hutchison on the other side of the House. They spoke so passionately about the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill because they know at heart the damage that alcohol does to adults children and unborn babies. Anyone who has anything to do with drinking knows the harm it does. I am really disappointed in Cam Calder particularly who pretends that he lives in Manurewa. He does not live in Manurewa. He opened an office there recently but only George Hawkins who is the local MP and I actually live there. 
Hon Member 
: He doesn’t live there either. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: That is probably right; I am probably the only one who lives there. But George Hawkins is a good member for Manurewa and I am delighted that he has taken leadership in promoting this bill. 
I am probably the only MP here who does not drink. I am not aware of anybody else who does not. I do not drink. In the past I have not taken a lot of interest in these sorts of bills and because I do not drink people might think I oppose anything to do with alcohol. But tonight I am very keen to speak because this bill was introduced by my very good friend George Hawkins who is forever very conscious of the work he does in the community. In Parliament he reflects the aspirations of and is conscious of problems in that community. A couple of weeks ago he spoke in the House on his Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill a local bill. 
Very clearly my background is one in which any drug or substance that impacts on and impairs one’s faculties is banned. My people for the last 1500 years have not drunk. Now that we know the harm this drug has done to our society they were probably right in not drinking. 
This bill should be called the “Empowering Communities Bill” because that is really what it is all about. Basically it is empowering local communities to make sure that any new liquor outlet is not opened without their consent and without consultation with them. One could also call it the “Harm Minimisation Bill” because that is what it is supposed to do. 
I have a couple of statistics. For example in 1990 there were eight licences per 10000 people in New Zealand. That included on-licences off-licences and club licences. By the year 2006 there were 35 licences per 10000 people. That is almost more than a 400-fold increase in the number of outlets. In a place like Manurewa South Auckland that has done a lot of damage to the community particularly in relation to crime. We know that a lot of those crimes are committed against minorities. I know a lot of Indian people and one should never forget Navtej Singh who was killed because some people wanted to steal alcohol from his dairy. Similarly a number of other crimes have been committed because of alcohol. As we know from police reports 90 percent of crimes happen after 11 o’clock at night and are often related to the consumption of alcohol. 
This bill is important. Labour members and in particular the Maori Party have been promoting anti-smoking bills and so has the Green Party. Alcohol is a substance that harms not only the person who consumes it but also the people around that person because of the effect on driving and because of people going around drunk. Cigarettes often have bad effects on the consumer. Alcohol often impacts on family relationships on unborn babies—as has been said before—and on the wider community. So for the life of me I personally cannot understand why we need more outlets and why we have loosened regulations. That is something that for me at least I cannot understand. It is something that causes so much harm in the community and it is being allowed so openly and so much. 
Corner dairies have been mentioned. There are a couple of issues there. I personally do not believe that dairies should be allowed to sell alcohol but at the same time I have to say that some of my Indian friends have said that there has to be a level playing field. We cannot target just the dairies. If outlets like dairies have to stop selling alcohol why not the big supermarkets? If we are going to look at the hours of opening of these outlets there has to be a universal rule. Whether it is a dairy a small shop an RSA or a supermarket the rules must be similar. I have been approached by a number of dairy owners who are very concerned about some of the issues discussed in the Law Commission report on alcohol by Geoffrey Palmer. They are concerned that they might be targeted. We have to make sure that small corner dairies’ interests are taken into account when we are considering this bill. But I personally do not believe that dairies should sell alcohol because they are supposed to be selling food and other items that are useful for the community. 
All in all I support this bill. But I am really surprised tonight to hear members on the Government side of the House all telling nice stories about how bad alcohol is but still not supporting this bill. That is very disappointing. 
Once again I commend George Hawkins my friend and colleague who has brought this bill to the House and the effort he has put in behind this bill. I know that on our side of the House most of us if not all of us will be supporting this bill. I am delighted that the Green Party and the Maori Party will be supporting this bill as well. With those few words I commend this bill to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is that the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be read a second time. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I request a personal vote be taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: You can do that once I have put the question. I want to get the sense of the House—that is the process. The question is that the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be read a second time. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [ 
Interruption 
] The Noes have it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I request a personal vote be taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: OK let us have a personal vote. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 53 
Anderton (P) 
Dyson (P) 
Kedgley 
Robertson G 
Ardern J (P) 
Fenton (P) 
King A (P) 
Robertson R (P) 
Barker (P) 
Flavell 
Laban 
Sepuloni (P) 
Beaumont (P) 
Goff (P) 
Lees-Galloway (P) 
Sharples 
Burns (P) 
Graham 
Locke 
Shearer (P) 
Chauvel (P) 
Hague 
Mackey (P) 
Sio (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Harawira 
Mahuta (P) 
Street (P) 
Clendon 
Hawkins 
Nash 
Turei 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hipkins (P) 
Norman 
Turia 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
O’Connor 
Twyford (P) 
Curran (P) 
Hughes D (P) 
Parker (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes G 
Pillay (P) 
Davis 
Huo (P) 
Prasad (P) 
Teller: 
Delahunty 
Katene 
Ririnui (P) 
Chadwick 
Noes 61 
Adams 
Dean (P) 
Key (P) 
Smith N 
Ardern S (P) 
Douglas (P) 
King C (P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Auchinvole (P) 
English (P) 
Lee 
Tisch (P) 
Bakshi (P) 
Finlayson (P) 
Lotu-Iiga (P) 
Tolley (P) 
Bennett D (P) 
Foss (P) 
Macindoe (P) 
Tremain (P) 
Bennett P (P) 
Gilmore (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Upston (P) 
Blue (P) 
Goudie 
McClay (P) 
Wagner (P) 
Borrows (P) 
Groser (P) 
Parata (P) 
Wilkinson (P) 
Boscawen 
Guy (P) 
Peachey (P) 
Williamson 
Bridges (P) 
Hayes (P) 
Power (P) 
Wong (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Heatley 
Quinn (P) 
Woodhouse (P) 
Calder (P) 
Henare (P) 
Roy E (P) 
Young (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hide (P) 
Roy H (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Ryall 
Coleman (P) 
Joyce (P) 
Shanks (P) 
Teller: 
Collins (P) 
Kaye (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Goodhew 
Motion not agreed to.