Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

I move, That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Social Services Committee. This bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is not a new bill. Many people think it came about because of the death of Mr Navtej Singh in Manurewa, but this bill has been around some time. I tried to get it drawn out of the ballot with no luck. I tried to get it into the House during the Budget debate. I want to thank members of the House who have cooperated and helped me get this bill into the House at the top of the order paper. I am really appreciative of that and it shows that MMP is alive and well. I think one of the things about Parliament now that did not happen in the old first-past-the-post days is that people talk to one another, and I think that is really good. It shows that there is a good spirit.

For the last couple of years a young person, Daniel Newman, now a Manukau city councillor, and I have been advocates for changes to the Sale of Liquor Act, including the empowerment of communities to challenge licensing applications. As a result of the work, the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill is being debated tonight. The key feature of the bill is that any persons may object to an application for an on-licence or an off-licence. However, the objector must be able to provide evidence of adverse impact on the objector if the application were to be granted. An evaluation of the social impacts on the community if the licence were to be granted must be carried out on an application for an on-licence or an off-licence. The evaluation is subject to the same public notice requirements as the application. Where an application for an on-licence or an off-licence is opposed, the bill provides for the Liquor Licensing Authority to take additional matters into account. The period of time within which objections must be lodged is altered from 10 working days to 20 working days after the first publication of the application.

That is the bill in itself. It is not an ambitious bill. It is not a bill that wants to cure all the problems of drinking in New Zealand. If I was trying to do that, I would not be speaking here tonight, because there would be so much objection. Some people have asked me why I did not do something about the drinking age, and why I did not do other things. I think it is simple and it is clear. Local people want to have a say over what goes on in their area.

There have been a number of alcohol policy changes over the years since the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act. The Act relaxed conditions for obtaining liquor licences and allowed the sale of wine in supermarkets. This was the start of a substantial increase in the amount of liquor outlets. In 1990 there were eight licences per 10,000 people in New Zealand. That included on-licences, off-licences, and club licences. By 2006 there were 35 licences per 10,000 people. That was almost a 100 percent increase, and there is clear evidence that the outlet density is associated with alcohol-related harm, which includes violence and alcohol-related arrests. In Counties-Manukau, for example, 90 percent of the crime that the police deal with after 11 o’clock at night is alcohol-related, and includes drink-driving and alcohol-related crashes. The impact on low socio-economic areas is far greater than in affluent areas. Local councils, and indeed successive Governments, did not envisage the huge increase in liquor outlets and the impact they would have. Looking back, when Daniel Newman was the community board chair he endeavoured to get the council to make changes to the district scheme so that liquor outlets would not be put into the poorer areas. That was all too hard for his council to do.

Although this bill is narrow in what it tries to achieve it is timely, given the violence that we have seen associated with liquor. The bill is not an attempt to solve all problems. The problems in Christchurch, for example, are different from the ones in my area and they are probably different in Havelock North, perhaps, and in other areas of the Hawke’s Bay. Each area has its own problems, and it is very important when we are trying to get laws that work across the country that we remember the local differences. I am pleased that the Government will also have a bill that will empower councils to have a look at how many liquor outlets there should be in a certain area. Although that bill may be following on, sometimes people think it is wrong to be the first one to be right. But I am certainly pleased that tonight we are debating this bill.

I think it is important that I once again acknowledge the support and the help I have been given across the House. I know that the ACT party was not keen on the bill coming in, and I had to wait until its members were not there. But I respect them for their view, and for being very frank and direct with me. I thank New Zealand First members, and also the National Party and Labour Party members. We do not have to take conscience bills to caucus to get permission to take them through the House, but I have to say that there was a great spirit in our caucus of trying to do something. I have seen that reflected by the National Party, New Zealand First, and the Greens, and I really appreciate that. The liquor problems in New Zealand show that members of Parliament are keen to work together to try to solve some of those problems.

As I said, this is not a very broad bill. It deals only with a precise area, and that is because that is all I thought I would be able to get through. Thank you.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

On behalf of the National Party I am very pleased to say that we will support the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill going to the select committee. It is very unusual in a matter like this to have party support as opposed to a conscience vote, but I think that most people in this House certainly appreciate the fact that, as the Hon George Hawkins has pointed out, over-consumption of liquor has become a severe problem in parts of the country.

Both George Hawkins and I are constituency members of Parliament for the South Auckland region. Randwick Park, where a shooting recently occurred in a liquor outlet, is currently covered by George Hawkins’ Manurewa electorate; with the boundary changes, it will become part of the Papakura electorate. There is an area of South Auckland where there is an abundance of liquor outlets. There are probably not nearly enough childcare centres—only about 20 percent of young children in South Auckland go to early childhood centres. We have an abundance of very good people, who live their lives the very best they can. We also have an abundance of graffiti taggers, and we have an abundance of crime. But, as I said, we also have an abundance of people who do not indulge in those sorts of behaviours.

The good people of our areas have told us that they wish to have a say in what goes on in their neighbourhoods. I know that some people feel that if we have liquor outlets all over the place, then eventually they will run out of business or they will sort themselves out. It is very easy to take that sort of line, unless one actually has to live with those businesses. Many of the people we see do not get much of a choice as to where they live. They do not have the ability to say “Look, this area is getting a bit tough now. I think I’ll move out.” They often live in State houses or other accommodation in areas that are not nearly as advantageous as other areas. Their children go to decile 1 or decile 2 schools. For those who do not understand what that means, I tell them that those schools are in areas where the population is made up of our poorest New Zealanders.

They do not have much choice. What they do want a choice about is whether they have a liquor outlet in their area and what that liquor outlet will actually be like—whether it will be selling a bottle of wine, or basically pushing alcohol on to young people who do not know how to handle it or themselves. I understand that some people do not appreciate that not all people have a choice about where they live. All of us here in the House can choose whether we drink. We can probably choose whether we live next door to people who wish to overindulge in alcohol, but, as I have said, most of the people I am talking about do not have that choice. Good people in South Auckland often do not get those choices.

When I first became the member of Parliament for Clevedon I visited the Counties-Manukau Police District Commander, Steve Shortland. I asked him about the issue of P and its effect on our young people, gangs, and everything else. He told me that the worst issue he and the police officers in our area of Counties-Manukau deal with is alcohol and its abuse. Many of us can think back to the times when as students, or whatever, we did something silly because of alcohol, but we are talking about people who kill others. We are talking about people who bash children and others, who not only indulge in P but drink alcohol with it, and who think that they should do whatever they wish to, and blow anybody else. The police have told us that they would like to be able to have a bit of a say in this issue, too.

In the area I represent, in Papakura, the local council and the mayor, Calum Penrose, have been very forthright about wishing to have a say in what happens in their town. So they should, because people will complain to them about a liquor outlet that sells alcohol to 16-year-olds, and they will complain to them about a liquor outlet where street gang members hang around outside and terrorise the shopkeepers. The councillors cannot do anything about it, yet they are blamed for the fact that we have laws that allow it to happen.

Although we can always argue that it is against the law to sell alcohol to 16-year-olds, I think we need to be a little bit realistic. Our police cannot even respond to burglaries. Just the other day one of my constituents had a home invasion, where she and her husband had people come into their house and steal property. Fortunately, the invaders left—they did not actually bash the couple, which was something. My constituent rang the police, who turned up 3 hours later apologising for the fact that they had been at two other calls and were not able to get there any earlier. She was very appreciative of the fact that they turned up. Frankly, we cannot expect the police to wander around the streets checking people’s IDs to see whether they should be sold alcohol.

Another concern that has arisen is that alcohol is now used as a loss-leader to get people into supermarkets. We have supermarkets in this country that currently sell alcohol at well below the price they pay the wholesalers for it. They do that because they want to get people into their shops. Well, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that if they are underpricing alcohol, they are probably overpricing something else. The way I see it, we need to say to the people who sell alcohol that we expect them to act responsibly, and we need to be able to tell the communities that would like to have their say, to have their communities back, what they can do.

I am fully aware that this bill is not perfect, and I am sure George Hawkins would be the first to admit that. But we have a great deal of hope that the bill will be improved when it goes to the select committee—and I believe that, with the support of the House, it will. It will attract a great many submissions, and it should come back to the House in a form that most members can support. This area is very difficult for people who feel that anyone should be able to go out and buy a legally obtainable product. It is actually not about that; it is about being part of the community. We talk a lot in this House about being part of the community, and about expecting community involvement, and the communities are saying they would like to have some more involvement. Many communities will not mind whether there are liquor outlets on their streets; they will not mind at all, as long as people conduct their business properly. But there are certainly areas where people feel that their communities have been inundated with alcohol outlets, and that they have never had a chance to say what sort of community they would like.

I hope this bill will get the support of the House to go to the select committee, that the select committee will have a good and robust discussion about it, that it will get lots of submissions, and that the select committee will not be dismissive of the communities’ needs but actually will take them very seriously. I commend George Hawkins for having the courage to bring forward a bill that, to many people, is not politically correct, but, frankly, I think we need it.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to indicate that New Zealand First will support the passage of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill through its first reading, and I can tell the Hon George Hawkins that I am pretty confident we will support it all the way through to the third reading.

It is interesting to cast our minds back to when a number of us came into this place in 1996, to see how, in those 12 years, the sale of liquor legislation has moved. In fact, with this bill in particular it is quite pertinent to reflect on the changes that occurred in 1989 with the liberalisation of the sale of liquor legislation at that time. Some people would argue that, in fact, along with a whole bunch of things that happened in this country with the opening up of the free-market approach in governance and administration, liquor licensing was just one other area where the free market was able to be unleashed. People such as Roger Douglas, David Caygill, and a number of others who advocated such things so forcefully got their way. In 1999 we saw a number of other changes, led by Mrs Shipley. Interestingly, Bill English was her deputy, and I recall that he voted against the bill introduced then to lower the legal age at which people could purchase alcohol. But Mrs Shipley was very adamant that we lived in a caff-bar society, as she said, and that New Zealanders had grown and matured in the way in which they handled alcohol and beverages.

Of course, most of us who lived in Christchurch—David Carter being one, and Gerry Brownlee and I—only had to pop down to The Strip on a Friday night to see that that was not true, and down to Manchester and Colombo Streets and look at the activities and goings on outside many of the clubs, pubs, and hotels. We also witnessed a morphing that was occurring between 6 p.m., 8 p.m., and 6 a.m. the next morning, when the same establishment would move from being a restaurant to a bar to a nightclub. The establishments, by moving tables and changing the way in which they operated to fit within the compliance requirements of the different licences held, simply stayed open all night. Then, of course, we started hearing the problems from the police. Mr Hawkins was the Minister of Police at a time when we were hearing in Christchurch of the problems associated with a couple of pubs—I will not name them—on Victoria Street, close to the casino. They were still operating at 6 in the morning and they were the problem. They were problem spots for the Christchurch police, because the police knew that people would be pouring themselves out of those places at 6 in the morning, and the resulting incidents and fracas that occurred outside were not to anybody’s good or benefit, at all.

The 1999 legislation went through with a lot of controversy, and I remember Nick Smith standing over there in the Chamber with a line-up of ready-to-drink drinks on the top of one of the tables, telling the House that those drinks were the alcopop drinks that were available, and quoting the prices. A number of us who spoke from the same side of the debate as Mr Nick Smith agreed with him that that was the opening of the door, and that this would see 15 and 16-year-old girls plied with alcopops, which were specifically designed and produced to target that end of the market. The predictions from people who opposed the passage of that legislation were that we would have trouble. One of those predictions was that we would see a trickle-down effect and that 18 would not be the legal age of purchase but that we would see a de facto age, as 18-year-old men passed their alcohol down to 15-year-old girls.

We also saw the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill in 2005, which was Martin Gallagher’s bill. I think it is quite pertinent to point out that many of the submitters who came to the Law and Order Committee—which I chaired for Martin, as he was the member in charge of the bill—and were members of the liquor industry said that the licensing regime was too loose, too slack. I quote one submitter, a publican, who said: “It seems these days all you’ve got to do is have a car park and a urinal and you’ll get a licence to sell alcohol.” He made the point, but this House voted that bill out. It is a tragedy that the messages that were passed on by the good constituents and the good submitters who took the time to come to Parliament were ignored. It is a tragedy that 3 years later we have done nothing. It took, unfortunately, the death of a man to bring this House to its senses.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

I want to take just a short call on this Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. I congratulate George Hawkins on bringing it to the House and on achieving the level of consensus on it that he has. The Greens—and I, in particular—have been quite critical of some of the alcohol-related bills that Mr Hawkins has brought to the House, but I think that this one certainly meets all the criteria of the Green Party policy.

We are particularly concerned about eliminating the advertising of alcohol on television and in broadcasting that is aimed at young people. We are particularly concerned about reducing the proliferation of liquor stores that arose out of the 1999 amendment Act, and we are concerned, of course, about increasing community decision-making, which is what Mr Hawkins’ bill does. Communities have a right to decide how these issues are managed in their own communities, and that was missing from the earlier legislation. We have paid a very severe price for that, and, in fact, it is not really those of us here in this Chamber who have paid that price, but the community itself. Young people and vulnerable families have paid that price.

We would also like to see a great deal more community decision-making in other areas where social ills come out of recreational activities. Gambling is a classic and obvious next example, and we would very much like to see more community decision-making in that area, as well.

Otherwise, I just reiterate that the Green Party will be supporting this bill in full. All our MPs support it, and we are very pleased that it is progressing quickly through the House. Thank you.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

It is an interesting irony that while we are debating this bill here today, in Waitangi the Public Health Association conference is debating strategies to reduce alcohol marketing and promotion at the local level. The association between alcohol-induced harm and health effects is a significant one. In fact, one of the key deficiencies in the Sale of Liquor Act has been the lack of a public health profile. The Act promotes a predominantly business focus, assuming alcohol to be a mere commodity to be bought and sold. Yet the reality that we all know too well is the traumatic and catastrophic costs of alcohol-related harm right across the public health spectrum, as experienced in physical and sexual violence, road accidents, criminal offences, and other negative impacts. Māori are particularly concerned about the way in which we drink. Although the overall rates of consumption are about the same for Māori and non-Māori, Māori are experiencing disproportionate harm from drinking. Put simply, as the advertisement says, it is not what we are drinking; it is about how we are drinking, and the “how” is all about drinking too much at one time.

The Māori Party has consistently raised its concerns about the impact of unregulated access to alcohol. We believe therefore that this bill from George Hawkins is an important step towards taking some responsibility for the harm that has resulted from alcohol consumption. But I want to make one point clear: it is not just the prerogative of the Parliament to make a stand. I think of my own tipuna, Niniwai Te Rangi, a woman who led Te Komiti Wahine-a-Hine-ahu-one, an organisation that aimed to get rid of alcohol in Māori pā. Niniwai was the eldest surviving daughter of Heremaia Tāmaihotua, also known as Ngāpuruki, a leading chief of Ngāti Hikawera of Ngāti Kahungunu. Her abilities as a speaker, her knowledge of genealogy and tradition, and her force of character and forthright outspokenness gave her a particular status. So when she spoke out against alcohol use at Papawai Marae, which is the political centre that would host the Māori Parliaments of the Kotahitanga movement, she made quite an impact.

Other tribes have also had an impact, with their haka, waiata, mōteatea, and various strategies to address alcohol-related harm, and that is very common today amongst culture groups. Earlier today, for instance, Te Ururoa Flavell mentioned the impact made by Bishop Bennett in Rotorua advocating against the damaging effects of alcohol abuse on Māori.

This bill is an important way to put barriers in place to address the impact of alcohol upon communities. But no matter how honourable the intention of the bill is, we must all, as communities, also seek to challenge the way in which the sale of liquor has taken such an adverse toll on our people. When we can intervene at a community level to correct, and when we can challenge without anger, hatred, or fear, behaviour that is harmful and destructive, we will truly be on the pathway towards solutions that will make a difference. I am reminded of the Māori word “hoariri”, which is often translated as “enemy” but which in fact means “a friend with whom I am angry”. I must confess to occasionally having friends whom I have been angry with, especially those associated with the enactment of the foreshore and seabed legislation. But perhaps what we all need to consider more deeply is how we support our hoariri, those who are under the influence of and who are adversely affected by the availability of alcohol. We can all learn from the example of Niniwai Te Rangi, who stood up and challenged her peers to address the impact of alcohol use.

We will support this bill, in that it will enable any person or party to stand up and object to an application for a liquor licence and to raise concern about the social impacts on the community if an on-licence or off-licence is granted. But we also advocate that we all take far greater responsibility for taking up the role of hoariri in reminding those who partake of alcohol of the disproportionate amount of harm that continues to flow from increasing alcohol consumption and disturbing patterns of behaviour.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill, and I congratulate the Hon George Hawkins on putting this bill forward.

I want to relate to the House a story that this bill may have been the solution to, had it been around. A couple of years ago an appointment was made at my office in Whakatāne by some concerned citizens. The suburb in which they lived had the traditional corner dairy. I myself had lived in that suburb at some stage over the 30 years I have been in Whakatāne, and I had been down to that dairy. Over the years it changed hands many times. At one stage one of the owners divided the wee shop in half, reduced the grocery stock, and put in a takeaway bar. So now we had two opportunities for business within that one little corner dairy.

At this point in time the shop was changing hands again. An Auckland businessman was coming into town and he wanted to get rid of the takeaway bar and put in a liquor outlet next to the grocery outlet. The neighbours were outraged—and for very good reason. First of all, I noted that the police completely agreed with them. In this neighbourhood, within walking distance of each other, there were already five liquor outlets, but all the others were contained in a strip of shops that was easily patrolled by the police. This shop was at the other end of the walking distance, and therefore was going to be more difficult for them to keep an eye on. So the police were against it. The neighbours were very against it, for very good reasons. Directly across the road was a playcentre, and in walking distance there was a large primary school and an even larger intermediate school. Within walking distance again was a residential men’s drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, and so the story goes on.

As we set forth to try to object to this application for a liquor licence, we all discovered that the only thing we could do was to discredit the applicant. Unfortunately—or fortunately for him—he was an upstanding citizen, and nothing could be pinned on him. Therefore, we were literally powerless to do anything about it, and it was obvious that the licence would be approved. At that point it made me realise the little say that local people have on some extremely important issues facing them that impact on the quality of life that they enjoy.

I was interested to hear the Hon George Hawkins talk about the fact that there is consideration at central government level for a future bill to reconsider the powers we give to local government in determining how many liquor outlets an area can have. I think that that is an extremely good idea. I have some questions around some of the provisions in the Hon George Hawkins’ bill, but I am sure it is the job of the select committee to sort that out. The most important thing is that it is the only thing on offer right now; it is the only strategy before this House that attempts to make some dent in the binge culture that, unfortunately, characterises New Zealand.

United Future is very keen to see this bill taken to a select committee. I imagine that by the third reading many parties may have allowed their members to vote according to their conscience. We have not even made a decision about that, other than that we agree completely that the bill should proceed to a select committee, and that discussions should be held.

One of the things I also like about this bill is the fact that it talks about something that is very important and dear to the heart of United Future, in terms of the principles we operate under. We operate under the principle that local communities should be making a lot more decisions for themselves than they are often currently able to make. On this particular issue, there is huge support for local people determining whether they have enough liquor outlets. We could do a lot of things around the number of gambling opportunities that a community has to offer. A whole lot of areas need to be relooked at here in Parliament, and we need to devolve the say on those things to local communities so that they have much more direct control. United Future is very happy to support this legislation, and we also congratulate its sponsor.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

It is up to the ACT party again to stand up and ruin the party we are having here tonight, because we will be opposing the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. I certainly consider the abuse of alcohol to be one of the most serious problems that we face, in terms of behaviour. Interestingly, it is far more serious than the abuse of illicit drugs. Members should think of all the outrage over cannabis, yet there is no doubt that alcohol abuse kills far more people, causes far more personal despair and upset, and indeed does more social damage than, for example, cannabis. Alcohol abuse is in our culture, and members do not have to go very far from this place to see it. Indeed, I think there is some irony in members of Parliament lecturing New Zealanders about the abuse of alcohol, and about how it should be prevented.

Let us get back to the fundamental issue: we have a problem with the abuse of alcohol and the social consequences of that abuse. I do not believe there is a member in this House who believes that this bill will make one jot of difference; I do not believe there is one. But we are all standing up here to vote for it because we want to be seen to be doing something about a serious problem. I think members of this House have travelled to countries that absolutely restrict the sale of alcohol. I am thinking of the former Soviet Union, where alcohol was State-controlled and very, very hard to get. No one would have seen drunkenness there, unless he or she had been to Moscow in the bad old days.

People can go across to countries like France and Italy and get alcohol in every street, at all hours of the day, at every outlet known to man, and we do not see any drunkenness. What is the difference? It is not the number of outlets or whether a social impact assessment has been done; it is actually the attitude of people to alcohol, and, indeed, their respect for themselves and for others. The number of outlets, and the mechanisms we go through for that number of outlets, makes no difference.

I will give members another example from right here in New Zealand. We can jump up and down all we like about cannabis, and we can pass all the laws we like to oppose it, but that will not stop people using or abusing cannabis. In fact, we find that cannabis can be easily obtained in most of our jails. So how can we pass laws to stop people abusing alcohol? We had Prohibition, and we had terribly restrictive laws with 6 o’clock closing. Are people telling us that back then we did not have alcohol abuse? Of course we had alcohol abuse. The problem is within us. The problem is within our attitude to alcohol. The problem is that we are bringing up our young people to look forward to a Friday night where they can get “wasted”. That is the difficulty that we have—the idea that the best thing that people have to look forward to is getting wasted.

We cannot pass a law to change that behaviour by saying we should restrict the number of off-licences or on-licences, or we should restrict particular drugs. We need to be addressing the social problems and the underlying attitudes that people, particularly young people, have. We are just creating another complicated process, with more boxes to tick and more arguments to be had over whether a particular person can sell alcohol in a particular place. We will have a thing called a social impact analysis. Consultants will be employed to do a social impact analysis and say that, yes, the social impacts are positive, and others will be employed to say that, no, it is negative. We will have a bunch of people trying to work out what the truth of it is, because there is no objective measure by which one can do a social impact analysis.

The ACT party opposes this bill because it will not make a jot of difference. I commend George Hawkins. He is a very good local MP. He probably has more respect on this side of the Chamber than he has in his own caucus, and the measure of the man is such that he has support for this bill. But I am afraid that that will make no difference. The ACT party opposes pretend laws that are designed to have no effect other than a political one.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) Link to this

I rise to take a short call in support of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge the contribution made by the member who has just returned to his seat, Rodney Hide. All members of this House share a motivation to ensure that the harm caused by alcohol in our society, particularly in respect of our young people, is minimised, while at the same time respecting the fact that people make their own decisions about how and whether they consume alcohol.

There is no question about the member’s motivation, which I think is shared by the whole House. Where I think many of us differ from him is that although none of us would pretend that this bill is a complete solution, most of us feel that it is a step in the right direction. We owe a great deal of thanks to the Hon George Hawkins for this bill; he has done a fine job as a local MP in an area hard-pressed by this problem. The step that the bill takes is to give the communities concerned more of an opportunity to have a say in the licensing of alcohol-selling premises.

It is my understanding that the number of liquor outlets in South Auckland has increased from 80 to more than 220 over the last couple of years. We are finding ourselves in the situation where alcohol is literally being sold in corner dairies, as well as in superettes and major liquor chains. That makes it not only harder for the authorities to police the sale of alcohol but more tempting, perhaps, for under-age purchasers or their friends to support an under-age drinking habit.

I cannot get past the statistic that I read in the recently released New Zealand Health Survey, which is a comprehensive survey of 17,000 New Zealanders. Great progress has been made in many areas of the health system, but the statistic that jumped out and hit me was that 54 percent—more than half—of our young men aged between 16 and 25 consume alcohol in a way that is likely to be injurious to their health. Fifty-four percent of our young men consume alcohol in a dangerous way. I was shocked by that statistic, and I am still shocked by it, because it shows that this issue is not just about a few young people getting wasted on Friday night; this is about a wholesale social failure to deal with a very deeply ingrained issue in our society.

I agree with Mr Hide that we have to look very hard in the mirror and ask ourselves what it is about New Zealand society that we allow this problem to go on. We have not confronted the alienation, the need for escapism, or whatever it is that is contributing to so many young people indulging in alcohol in a way that is dangerous to them and dangerous to others. The social cost is, frankly, immeasurable. It goes so far beyond the cost of treating the direct victims, through liver damage or domestic violence; it is measured in terms of children’s opportunities being forgone, marriages being destroyed, and lives never reaching their potential because a drinking habit becomes a disease.

I recently attended a meeting called by the leaders of the South Asian community in response to the tragic death of a young man who had a liquor outlet in South Auckland and who was shot in cold blood by someone seeking to steal alcohol from those premises. The message from the Sikh and the Indian communities was: “Enough, already. We have had enough deaths of store owners.” In a small way this bill is part of the response of the people of New Zealand, through our Parliament, to that tragedy, too. It is a way of saying that we need to think as a community about how many liquor outlets are allowed to open and about how they are run. That is not a substitute for better education, it is not a substitute for thinking more about the means by which alcohol is purchased—and I expect that more work will be done around this bill—but let us commend this bill and the work of its sponsor as a step forward in making our society a somewhat less hazardous and dysfunctional place.

PANSY WONG (National) Link to this

We have just heard a very dejected speech from the Minister of Health, the Hon David Cunliffe, who sounds like he has given up. It was quite interesting, actually, that at the Asian meeting he attended, along with Chester Borrows and me, he thought that the cause of the violence problem in South Auckland lay with Māori and Pacific people, and I am just surprised that he did not offer that up as part of his solution. It is interesting that after 9 long years this Labour Government is always quick to claim the credit when things go well, but when the Government is faced by a problem, that problem, somehow, is always the problem of society. Whenever things go wrong, somehow it is always everybody else’s problem—it is amazing! Who is the only person the Government can reach out to for a solution to the graffiti and alcohol problems in South Auckland? It is the Hon George Hawkins.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) Link to this

I rise to add my support, along with other members of this House, to this Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. I congratulate this House on being able to bring this bill forward at this time. I have noticed that when we have problems in our communities, we have a tendency to be very quick to point the finger around at our police, at our Government departments, and also at Government Ministers. But I would say that the most significant contribution to many of our present problems came when our liquor laws were loosened to benefit the liquor industry, by allowing alcohol to be sold from stores on suburban streets where schools and neighbourhoods exist, and, in fact, normalising in the psyche of many of our young people the freedom and accessibility of liquor. That has been a social disaster for communities like Manukau City, Māngere, and other similar suburbs, which are reaping the severe and tragic consequences.

Today in Manukau City the number of liquor outlets has fluctuated between 300 and 500 across the city. Some retailers are unscrupulous and sell alcohol to kids as young as 12 and 13 years old. Some nightclubs continue to flout these laws by serving children under the age of 18 and by serving those who are already intoxicated—and, yes, there have been uncontrollable brawls afterwards. Yet the process for getting their licence suspended or revoked is so frustratingly taxing on people’s time and energy. The community where I come from in Manukau City has sought to control and limit the number of liquor outlets for quite some time. Two options have been presented to the community through the Manukau City Council. The first is to change the district plan. Our experience there has been that it is a costly, time-consuming process, which opens it up for debate with the liquor industry. The second option, of course, is what this House is now embarking on.

I will support this bill, but I also want to say that I think we really need not only to entitle the community to have a greater say in where these liquor outlets are located but to go beyond that. There is a strong link between the violence that is experienced in some communities and alcohol. There is a strong link between domestic violence and alcohol. Quite a bit of research has already been done on that. I do not think anybody really wants prohibition; I think the horse has certainly bolted. But it is about looking at being responsible with regard to where alcohol is available in our communities. Some outlets and some businesses are responsible, but some are not. Those are the people we have to be concerned about in our community.

I simply want to support this bill, acknowledge the member who has brought it forward, George Hawkins, and acknowledge all of those who support it. I look forward to some robust discussion in select committee with regard to this bill. Thank you for the opportunity.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

I take this opportunity to thank all those people and parties who have spoken tonight. I want to thank Rodney Hide for his contribution; it is not one I particularly agree with, of course. Perhaps laws do not change behaviour, but, as he pointed out, the marijuana laws are ignored by people, yet that is no reason for us not to try to do something about it. I think that hoisting up the white flag is never a solution that is available to parliamentarians.

I thank the parties for letting the bill come into the House—it actually jumped 20 other bills. I really appreciate being given that opportunity. I thank the other parties—United Future, the Māori Party, the Greens, New Zealand First, the National Party, and Labour. It is very unusual in South Auckland and Counties-Manukau that the MPs get together and talk to each other. I am finding that it is a very good way of making progress for one’s constituents. Yes, there are things we have differences on, and we get up and fight over those as hard as we can. But we look around and see what is going on in our communities—that we can buy beer cheaper than bottled water, and that we can go to the local dairy and it sells more grog than milk. People come to their local MPs and they want something done. Is it not really very reassuring that we have a Parliament where parliamentarians will work for their communities as the first priority?

I have to say that some people may find it a little hard to understand what actually happens in South Auckland, in much the same way as I find it difficult to believe what goes on in Christchurch with boy racers—I have no idea about these people going and getting tanked up and, as Ron Mark said, going to a restaurant, a nightclub, or a bar. I think that really shows that there are large differences around the country.

I want to say that I am no expert on liquor. I probably consume less of it than some others here; I do not have the experience. Nevertheless, I do have a lot of experience of listening to people. I hear people who are hurting, who feel helpless that they cannot do something about it, and who look to their local councils and Parliament. I will be able to go back and say to people in my own area that the MPs from South Auckland have come together, and indeed MPs in Parliament have come together, to try to do something about a problem that is serious. It will not solve the drink problem. It will not solve young people being out on the street. What it may solve is that when people run out of liquor, they just pop around to the dairy and load up with some more. It may make it safer for dairy owners who sell liquor. It may be, in the end, that New Zealanders get up and say that they have had a gutsful of what liquor is doing in their community, and that they will be very hard on it.

I conclude by thanking everyone who has spoken tonight. I thank Rodney Hide for having a different view and for standing up for it. I thank my South Auckland MPs like Su’a William Sio, Ross Robertson, Judith Collins, Pansy Wong, Pita Paraone from New Zealand First, and Dr Sharples, who has some of his electorate in Counties-Manukau. I also acknowledge the support of United Future.