Twyford Phil: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I want to talk about local alcohol policies because they are probably the best part of this disappointing Alcohol Reform Bill. They are the one thing left out of the recommendations of the Law Commission that offer I think a substantive chance of progress. They give to local communities what they have been asking for for a very long time and that is the power to regulate for instance the location and number of licensed premises such as prohibiting those near schools; opening hours; and one-way door restrictions—for example a mechanism that allows instant fines for breaches of alcohol bans. They give to councils the possibility to regulate the social harm caused by alcohol abuse in their communities. 
 I want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 132 which sets out to amend clause 2 of the bill. What it would do is reduce the waiting-time—the delay—that for some reason Judith Collins the Minister of Justice has seen fit to insert into this bill. It is a delay that would stop councils for 12 months from even beginning to implement the local alcohol policies allowed under this bill. The effect of that is that because of the two 2-month public consultation periods that would be required the first of which is for any local alcohol policy and the second 2-month period would apply to any local alcohol policy that includes regulation of maximum opening hours it would be 16 months—16 months—before a council could have the benefit of these local alcohol policies before the policies would kick in and allow some benefit from the provisions of this bill. 
For the life of me I cannot understand the things that the Minister Judith Collins has been saying publicly to defend her position on this. So let us be clear. There is a 12-month delay written into this bill that means that local councils will not get the benefit of these local alcohol policies for 16 months—16 months—after this bill is passed. I want to read to the Committee some of the things that Judith Collins has been saying in relation to my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 138. I invite the Minister in the chair Chester Borrows to listen carefully because I would very much like to hear a response from the Minister in the chair about why the Government is insisting on this 12-month delay. When asked by journalists about why this delay was in there Judith Collins said that small councils would not have the ability to get up to speed if there was a shorter implementation period. 
This is completely and utterly illogical because one of the features of this provision for local alcohol policies is that they are entirely optional. They are voluntary. No council will be forced to implement a local alcohol policy. If they do not want to do it they do not have to. If they want to do it in 12 months’ time 2 years’ time or 5 years’ time that is their choice but for some unknown and illogical reason Judith Collins has seen fit to impose this 12-month delay and she justifies it publicly in the media by saying that small councils will not have the time to get ready. 
 The second thing that Judith Collins said—which I frankly do not understand and I invite the Minister in the chair to explain the Government’s position on this—in the  
New Zealand Herald  
is “It’s somewhat ridiculous to expect part of the country to be covered by a law and the rest of the country not.” This law applies to the whole country. It applies to every council. It is a law of New Zealand. What it does is legislate a mechanism that gives councils the opportunity to implement a local alcohol policy. It is a local alcohol policy. That is the whole point of it. It gives councils and their communities the option of developing policies that respond to the needs of their community. So why does Judith Collins say that it does not make any sense for a law to apply to one part of the country and not to the other? Why does she say that? It is completely illogical. It is an absurdity and I can only conclude that there are two possible explanations. Judith Collins is not a stupid person she is not a silly person—