Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) : I move, That the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 11 May 2009. I will also be moving that the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189, and 190(1)(b) and (c). The current economic downturn is having a big impact on the building sector. Therefore, it is important that the bill moves quickly through the select committee process so that the sector can benefit from the proposed changes sooner rather than later.

The purpose of this bill is to reduce compliance costs and to improve the efficiency of the building design and consenting process. The bill was introduced just before the end of the previous parliamentary term, following consultation with the industry and with local government. It takes some useful steps to cut red tape and to improve consistency in decision making around the building consent processes. Although the bill includes some useful initiatives, it is only a start and does not go far enough in addressing the compliance issues that face homeowners, developers, and builders. There is way more to be done. The Government will be reviewing the Building Act and looking to make further amendments to cut red tape in order to drive down costs without, of course, compromising building quality. It is quite possible that Supplementary Order Papers may even be introduced and sent to the select committee to consider along with the bill.

The reviews that the Government is involved in include looking at what needs to be consented, based on better differentiation between levels of risk; providing better information and education on the building code and on how to meet performance standards without regulating everything that moves; removing unnecessary building control regulation and putting a greater focus on information and education, so that people can make informed choices rather than having them made for them; simplifying building licensing rules and providing recognition for trade qualifications, making it easier to get licensed but not dumbing down the system; supporting councils to work smarter through the use of technology, shared services, and online systems; helping consumers to make better informed decisions about building their homes and choosing products that best suit their needs; and, finally, focusing on how to get developers and builders to stand behind their work and to put things right when that is needed. Along with that, the Government will also be looking at how liability and risk around building is distributed between the parties and at how those factors might be better managed. That will include, of course, looking at some form of home warranty insurance.

Moving to the key measures in this bill, first of all I say it introduces a pre-approval scheme, which is a national multiple-use approvals process, to streamline the building consent process for house designs that are to be replicated on a substantial scale. That will reduce the time and cost associated with the approval of designs, particularly for volume builders. Once a national multiple-use approval has been issued, a building consent will still be required in the district where the home is to be located. However, decision making by the relevant building consent authority will be limited to site-specific matters only: things like foundations and connections to utility services. The bill provides that the time frame for processing building consents for pre-approved designs will be reduced to 10 working days. That compares with 20 working days for the standard building consent process.

Secondly, the bill enables regulations to be made that define minor variations that can made to building plans without having to go through a full building consent amendment process. That will clarify and simplify the process for making variations to building consents, and will reduce the time and cost involved. I think that this is a sensible approach. It recognises that the building process is a dynamic one, and that things can and do change on the way through the process that are not of any such great significance that that they need to go back through a full consent. In many cases, I have had builders say they just wanted to move a handbasin within a bathroom design, or change where the toilet and the shower were juxtaposed, and doing that meant going back for a complete and utter go through the process. If a variation is defined as a minor adjustment—as we would define it in those cases—then a consent would not be required.

Thirdly, the bill will also make it optional for a consent applicant to obtain a project information memorandum, reducing the time and cost associated with obtaining building approval.

This bill takes some steps towards reducing red tape and streamlining the decision making associated with the building consent process. However, more needs to be done and there is much more to come, and I signal that right now. I invite members of Parliament and the public to watch this space as we work through some of the issues that I have canvassed earlier in my speech.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : Kia ora and talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. Malo lava le soifua maua, malo le lagi e mama, i lau afioga ma sui mamalu o le Maota Fono. That is my way of acknowledging you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and the members of this House. I also want to recognise the members of the public who are listening in and watching the proceedings of this House, especially those who are listening in from my electorate of Māngere. It is, as we call it, the gateway to New Zealand, where Aotearoa touches the rest of the world. I acknowledge Minister Maurice Williamson for bringing back this Building Amendment Bill (No 2) into the House. Labour introduced this bill while in Government to help reduce unnecessary delays in the building consent process, which causes frustration among many of our builders throughout this nation. The bill, rightly—as the Minister has outlined—will reduce both the direct and indirect costs to owners and developers associated with the construction process, while ensuring that good-quality homes and houses are constructed. The bill is part of a coordinated approach taken to assist in increasing the supply of good-quality, affordable homes, but I suspect that many of the public who are listening in to this debate will be wondering what is going on with this Government.

You see, it is a shame that the National Government does not share the same commitment to having good-quality housing. Why else would it axe the $1 billion household insulation fund that would have improved the energy efficiency of Kiwi homes? Ordinary New Zealanders will also be looking at each other in puzzlement and asking what is going on here, and they will be making some important judgments about the National Government. I say this because when the public got over their initial shock last year after the election, and when they woke up and saw that National was in Government, being the fair-minded Kiwis they are, most people said: “OK, we made a mistake. But let us see what National has got. Let us see what this Government is made up of.” Then the National spin doctors got working and created an image that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were the action team. I would say that those who are drinking Tui at my local pub in Māngere Bridge will all be shouting out: “Yeah, right!”.

Then the spin doctors got working and came up with the new Cabinet of Ministers, and after peppering that Cabinet with some new faces amongst the old faces, they announced that here was their new National front bench. What was the response of the Tui drinkers out in the public? It was: “Yeah, right!”. What we saw was a National Cabinet that promoted the Prime Minister’s close friends and demoted some hard-working, senior, long-serving National MPs. Some of the members of the National Cabinet were young, some were not so young; some of them had good hair styles, and some of them were without any hair. The public got to see that some of them were good-looking, and that there were others to whom the old expression would apply: “They have the looks that only a mother could love.”

The point I am making, as to why I think the public listening to this debate would be perplexed by what this Government is doing, is that at a time when the world is swirling in economic turmoil, there is a strong call from our communities for this Government to act quickly and do something substantial in support of low-income families. Although this bill is necessary, the impact of the global economic recession does raise the question of how many jobs this bill will save. Why is National prioritising this bill when the House should be using its valuable time considering measures necessary to help low-income earners who are struggling to make ends meet?

I conducted a meeting last week with some providers in our community—including the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust, Housing New Zealand Corporation, and a few others—just to try to get a handle on the impact of the recession on housing needs in Manukau. The key issues that emerged were overcrowding, which is getting worse; the re-emergence of infectious diseases; the cost, quality, and security of tenure of some private rental stock; issues around boarding houses; the need to support the community housing sector; and the increase in poverty.

In my electorate we had a series of redundancies during the Christmas period. Sadly, nobody kicked up a fuss about that, because we had a bit of money. Most people spent that money supporting their families during some happy times in the Christmas period. That is all gone. The Work and Income New Zealand office told me that when people come in looking for jobs, there are no jobs for them. It is very difficult for them to direct people who have been working in labour-intensive roles to other new roles.

That is the question that will probably be causing quite a bit conflict. Yes, this bill is necessary, but in a time when there is so much uncertainty, and there is the growing worry about making ends meet, and about job security, income protection, and being able to afford the basics, and when this Government ought to be coming up with something substantial, the public will be saying that this is just not enough, and that this is not what they were looking for.

Earlier today there was a debate about how this Government has sacked Ross Wilson, the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).

Hon Parekura Horomia: Shame!

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: Shame on them! I absolutely agree with my friend. This is the example of the 90-day bill, the fire-at-will bill. Ross Wilson, chair of ACC, is the first casualty

Nicky Wagner: Have you read that bill? You need more than 90 days.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: It was not more than 90 days. The National Government sacked Mr Ross Wilson without any reason. It sacked a man who has the integrity to continue in the role, and who has the skills and the intelligence. The Government is determined to wreck ACC, and it does not want to have anybody chairing it who might be able to right the wrong it intends to do.

Labour supports the bill, but in terms of the timing, and the concern we have for communities, we feel that this is not the answer that the communities need to help with their housing difficulties. I think the Minister can do more by considering supporting the needs of those in our communities—as I have outlined earlier in the meeting that I conducted—in terms of overcrowding, the increase in poverty, and supporting a community housing sector. Although we are supporting this bill through the process, it is our feeling, and certainly my feeling, that National should be concerned about giving to the public the measures necessary to help low-income earners who are struggling at this particular time. With those words, I say that Labour supports the first reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2).

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) : I am pleased to stand and support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2), which was introduced to the House by the Hon Maurice Williamson. It was wonderful to hear such a robust analysis by my learned colleague. This bill will make the necessary amendments to the Building Act 2004 for achieving the purpose of increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the building consent process.

Hon Maryan Street: This isn’t a school play, Mr Auchinvole.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It will facilitate an increased supply of affordable homes—something the member Maryan Street talked a lot about but did not actually produce. It will seriously ensure that homes and buildings that are built are of good quality, which is a most important caveat.

We went into the last election with a clear manifesto, that the new Government would place a high priority on reducing red tape, would increase efficiency, and would reduce costs, and that is what we are about.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Red anything, actually.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Red anything, yes. That is why we are pushing through with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill in order to reduce unnecessary delays and costs and to give consent applications a smoother passage without compromising our environmental obligations. That is why we have given priority to the Unit Titles Bill—which I spoke on last week—in order to streamline development processes and provide flexibility for those who are building big developments. That is exactly why I am in favour of speaking in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) being passed into law. It is part of this Government’s ongoing commitment to cutting and reducing red tape, and it will reduce both direct and indirect costs to property owners and developers.

Let us look into this a little bit closer. The big problem with the status quo is that building consent applications are assessed on a case by case basis by councils, even where the proposed building work is to be replicated within the same subdivision. Developers are required to wait for each building consent to be processed before work can proceed. Labour would think that is good, orderly stuff. It seems a considerably cumbersome process, and one that can be streamlined to produce much greater efficiency by having a system of national multiple-use consenting for buildings that are to be replicated several times on a nationwide basis.

Under this legislation the building design would be approved on a national level, and building consents issued at the local level, with reference to the individual situation of each building, such as ground conditions, foundations, connections to water, and other utility services. In other words, decision making by the local building consent authority where the building is to be located would therefore be restricted to site-specific matters and any customisation or variation of a multiple-use consent.

Common sense would suggest that such an approach will reduce delays in workloads for processing building consents, result in quicker approvals overall, and give builders a greater degree of certainty. In the current Building Act one cannot distinguish between minor and major amendments to building consents. Variations to consented building work, following the granting of a building consent, are common. Some of these may be major and likely to affect compliance with the building code. It is perfectly acceptable that those variations to the original proposals are put through the formal amendment process. However, concern has been expressed by many in the industry that because all amendments are currently considered in the same way, and because many minor variations to building work—and I think we heard some examples from the previous speaker—have been put through the same rigorous formal process, unnecessary costs and delays are being added to the building process.

What the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will allow, however, is the ability to define a variation as a major or a minor variation and to act accordingly. Hence, major variations will still go through the formal process, but minor variations, defined in relation to a national multiple-use approval as a minor modification or additional variation to the plans, will instead undergo a far less formal process. Naturally, this will result in improved efficiency, reduce compliance costs, cut through the red tape that minor variations are currently blighted by, and result in greater streamlining and simplification—all with no discernible negative consequences. Now that is what I call good National policy.

The Building Act 2004, Part 2, section 15(1)(c), provides “that a project information memorandum must be obtained before a building consent is issued:”. A project information memorandum is not a consent, nor does it require the applicants to do anything. One of the main purposes of this requirement in the previous legislation was to save owners or developers time and money by providing an advance warning of issues that needed to be taken into account when developing plans for building work. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that only in a minority of cases are project information memoranda applied for prior to a building consent application being made. Therefore, the benefit of the advance warning is not realised in most cases. Instead, this requirement has become just another example of extra costs being imposed on the owner or the developer. I will give two examples of such costs: first, the professional fees to the adviser who applies or considers the content of the project information memorandum; and, second, territorial authority fees for issuing the project information memorandum.

Different councils charge different fees for project information memoranda, but, to provide one specific quote, the Auckland City Council charges $241 for a stand-alone project information memorandum. The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will instead make it voluntary to obtain a project information memorandum from a building consent authority that is a territorial authority. This will lower the burden of costs. We in the National-led Government are in the business of reducing costs—indeed, of eliminating unnecessary costs, rather than imposing them.

As we speak of costs, other aspects of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will continue this Government’s determined and motivated efforts to reduce delays and costs in general, particularly in the issuing of consents for various matters. Let me take a moment to dwell on the importance of the situation. The global recession is hurting our building industry and costing Kiwis their jobs. One of the most disturbing aspects is the effect on the younger builders—the apprentices coming through. We do not want to lose those future builders. The global recession is having that effect. These changes to cut red tape will make it easier for people to do business. There will be a boost for the building industry at a time when companies are struggling and builders are looking for work. Builders have complained of waiting up to a fortnight at a time to get onsite building inspections done—a fortnight at a time—adding to the cost that has been crippling for builders and frustrating for homeowners. This should not happen.

We are making changes to tackle problems like that. Actions that we are taking include reducing the statutory time frame for processing a building consent application from 20 working days to 10 working days where the application includes a national multiple-use approval. Indeed, we are halving the statutory time so that we can significantly reduce delays. Last year we also pointed out that the Building Act is estimated to have loaded up to $20,000 on to the cost of building a new home, making housing affordability very difficult for many, many New Zealanders. The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will ensure that home affordability becomes more of a reality for ordinary Kiwis.

This Building Amendment Bill (No 2) is high-quality legislation that keeps up our proud work on reducing time delays and costs and on streamlining and simplifying processes that have become unnecessarily long and costly. Under this National-led Government we are embarking on a process of improved efficiency, rather than continuing under a culture of needless prevarication and expense. Multiple-use consenting will help drive improvements in housing costs and affordability through removing barriers to achieving potential economies of scale, distinguishing between major and minor variations to allow building consent authorities to focus on what is really important, and making project information memoranda voluntary, as they are of little benefit. This will drive down unseemly costs.

In conclusion, I am very happy to stand and support the Hon Maurice Williamson on this legislation, as it is time we recognised the problems inherent in the Building Act 2004. National is doing something about them. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : The last speaker—the National member for West Coast - Tasman, Chris Auchinvole—was very interesting. He tried to grab acclaim for the Building Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Hon Shane Jones actually did all the work for, as he also did last week with the Unit Titles Bill.

This Government is in a situation that is a wee bit like the hare and the tortoise. For the first 100 days the hares on the Government side of the House ran flat stick. They went everywhere, day and night, running flat stick, and then they went to sleep. They ran out of work so they picked up Labour bills to bring into the House. Maurice Williamson, a person whom I have quite a bit of time for—[Interruption]—no, I do not have any for Phil Heatley—got up to say that they were going to carry on this pretence a bit further. The Local Government and Environment Committee will sit day and night, and then he will do some work himself. Well, not really—his officials will do some work. They will get a couple of Supplementary Order Papers into the bill, as well.

This is typical of a Government that has run out of puff. A couple of weeks ago the Government had its big Job Summit. Just a few hundred yards down the road was the Manukau City Council. What are the council officers doing? They are suggesting that building consent and resource consent fees should be increased by 20 percent. They are doing that at the same time as the Government is bringing this bill to the House. You see, Manukau is doing something quite unusual. It is keeping on those officers even though it does not have the work for them.

Chris Auchinvole: Pardon?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The council does not have the work but it is keeping the officers there in case there is a turn-up of work in the building sector.

This bill of Shane Jones’ is, I think, quite useful, but it is not as urgent as it was, because the number of buildings starting has reduced. Everyone knows it has reduced—

Colin King: Preparing for the country to grow again.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Oh, there is a man who wants the country to grow again! He had better change party if he wants that to happen, because it will not happen under National. I ask members to look back. Things were rosy last year; what are they like now? We know who to blame; we know it is those members over there.

This bill has some very good purpose. However, the urgency that was there is not there any more.

I can remember when I was Mayor of Papakura that building inspectors used to have red pens and they would delight in finding fault. They would find only one fault on a plan, put a big cross by it, and give it back. If somebody fixed up that fault and brought the plan back the inspectors would find another one. Things have changed and it is really important that councils themselves make the biggest changes. This legislation will make it easier for them.

The key thing is that the bill is part of a coordinated approach to provide more affordable homes. We can hear Mr Heatley laughing in the background. Of course, he is trying to sell off State houses in the wealthy areas and make the old people living in them shift out. We know that. He can keep on laughing as much as he likes but this bill will be available to people to speed up the process. What I am saying is that councils like Manukau City Council, which is putting up its rates by a disgraceful 3.9 percent, will have staff twiddling their thumbs. The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will not speed up the process initially; it will in the future, because things will change.

I do not think it is all doom and gloom. This bill comes at a time when the global recession is really just starting to get under way. Time will tell how many buildings will be started this year. I suggest that it will not be anywhere near as many as were started in recent years. When Shane Jones did the work on this bill the economy of the world was much healthier. I have to thank Shane Jones because without him the National Government would not have much on the Order Paper to deal with. I think the National Government should go and shake Shane Jones’ hand and say that this is good.

Hon Maurice Williamson: This is a leadership bid.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Maurice Williamson has made his way up to the middle benches; I used to like it more when he was on the front bench. He deserves to be on the front bench, but I think John Key listened to Bill English too much, dumped Maurice Williamson out of the Cabinet line-up, and made him a Minister outside Cabinet.

I do not want to hold up this bill, because the Minister of Building and Construction has made out how urgent it is, and how the select committee will be sitting at all sorts of times, day and night, to get this bill through. But I say that the urgency is not really there any more. These bills are a part of the National Government’s bluster. It is trying to con the public that the Government is doing something, and that everything is urgent. Well, the people are not that silly, and they will realise what the Government is doing. I think that, in time, people will see through the very thin veneer of the National Government.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) because it amends the principal Act, the Building Act 2004, which was introduced by the Labour Government at that time. It is disappointing that we have to review the Act so soon. Considering the amount of time and work that goes into writing a bill, it would be expected that an Act might last a little bit longer. We would expect it to have a bit more longevity. Often we are amending Acts that have stood the test of time over, maybe, 20, 30, or even 40 years, but not this one. This Act has been on the books only for a little over 4 years, but already it needs to be addressed.

The need to review the principal Act is not surprising to National members. We predicted it when the Act was first passed in 2004. It was David Carter who said: “This bill will impose huge costs and huge complexity on the construction industry … I tell the Government that … this legislation will be one of the first pieces of legislation that is back before a National Government—because it will be a National Government that will tidy up this mess.” It is all very well for George Hawkins to talk about Shane Jones and all the hard work he has done, but it takes a National Government to bring the legislation to the House and to tidy up the mess. That is why we are here today. Back in 2004, Lindsay Tisch also warned the Labour Government. He said the bill “… introduces a very prescriptive regulatory regime. It is overkill and an overburdening of the industry with bureaucracy and administration … This legislation will add significant costs to all construction work, and compliance costs for residential buildings will increase the most.” How prophetic was that? He stated: “It will potentially affect economic growth, due to the significant increase in building compliance costs for both applicants and territorial local authorities …”. That has proved to be so true.

One of the most valuable Kiwi traditions is that of homeownership, but the Building Act has added so much additional cost that many New Zealanders are finding that homeownership is out of their reach. Many critics have talked about that increase in costs, and they estimate that it could be up to $20,000 per house. The National Government wants to make homeownership more affordable, and this bill is a step in the right direction. Why is the National Government so supportive of homeownership? It is because homeownership is good for individuals, families, and communities. On an individual basis, there is a real thrill, a real sense of achievement, when someone buys his or her own home. However humble it is, or however much DIY opportunity that building has, and however much it is a first step, everyone gets a kick out of earning his or her first home. Suddenly weekends are focused on the house, the garden, or the neighbourhood.

Homeownership is good for families and communities. Neighbourhoods are more settled, house-proud, and community-minded. Local kids get to grow up together, to go to school together, and to put their roots down in their neighbourhoods. Those neighbourhoods provide familiarity and security to young people. People say that it takes a village to bring up a child, and many members will remember what it was like as a kid growing up in a suburb full of young families in their first homes. That community of young families gave us and our young mates the caring and support of a village.

The amendments in this bill are designed to cut the costs of constructing houses and buildings without compromising the quality of those buildings. All amendments follow extensive consultation with the industry and with local government. Both the industry and local government are very keen to cut the costs, time, and energy that go into the consenting process. These amendments are part of the National Government’s ongoing commitment to cut red tape and speed up processes to stimulate the economy. It was interesting to hear George Hawkins talk about the fact that this bill does not need to be passed now. At what other time in our recent history has there been a time when we should stimulate the economy? At what other time has it been so important? Similarly, the National Government’s resource management reforms were aimed at simplifying, cutting costs, and stimulating the economy. The international recession is affecting our building industry. Consent applications are down, and builders and contractors are concerned about the lack of forward work that is coming on stream. The changes that we propose in this bill will cut the costs and time of the consenting process, and stimulate the industry at a time when workers really need to keep their jobs.

There are three major amendments. The first is the introduction of a system of national multi-use consents. The idea behind that is that designers and builders can get some sort of economy of scale for similar buildings, which can be consented together. Under the scheme, the building design can be approved at a national level, although each site will need to be consented locally to allow for individual variations. But to speed up that local process, the statutory time frame for processing a consent application that includes a national multi-use consent will be reduced from 20 to 10 days. This will increase the efficiency of the process and improve productivity.

The second major amendment is a differentiation between major and minor variations to a consented building plan. Most buildings require some minor variations to their plans, and this amendment will allow those changes to go through without having to go through the complete consenting process. Again, it will reduce costs, save time, and increase productivity.

Finally, this bill also makes obtaining a project information memorandum voluntary. The reason a project information memorandum was first introduced was to provide advanced warning of issues when developing a building project. But, as it has turned out, the majority of project information memoranda are not applied for until after the consent process has been completed. Making the project information memorandum voluntary will reduce unnecessary costs to owners and developers—and they are big costs. There are costs for professional fees, territorial authority fees, and delays in starting the building.

National supports this Building Amendment Bill (No 2) because it is time to streamline and simplify the Building Act 2004. Although the Act is only 4 years old, National has always considered it to be very prescriptive and overburdened with bureaucracy. These amendments will cut through that bureaucracy. In the face of a worldwide recession we urgently need to cut the costs involved, and the length of time required to consent building work, for two reasons: so we can keep our building industry working and so we can make housing more affordable for Kiwi families. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : Less than a month ago I stood up during question time and asked the Minister of Housing what steps he would be taking to address the reported decline of homeownership rates amongst Māori. The context for my question was the staggering fact that the proportion of Māori who own their home has fallen from 61.4 percent in 1991 to 45.2 percent in 2006. Putting it another way, the proportion of Māori now relying on rental tenure has increased from 38.6 percent to 54.8 percent. Here we are, before a month has gone, with a solution of sorts. The Maori Housing Trends 2008 report told us that although the hike in property prices and rents has impacted negatively on Māori, as it has on other New Zealanders, the impact has been exacerbated for Māori, particularly because they often need larger houses, which are more costly to rent. So any initiative to help first home buyers is an initiative we look at with particular interest, in terms of how well it will assist Māori into homes.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) is a fast-track approach, which we in the Māori Party hope will be an avenue to providing starter homes to first home buyers at a quicker and more affordable rate. That would be good news for Māori and good news for Aotearoa. Māori homeownership is of particular concern to me as the member for Te Tai Tonga, with the Canterbury region having the lowest ratio of Māori homeownership in New Zealand. This bill amends the Building Act to reduce compliance requirements and costs to developers and homeowners, in order to improve the efficiency of the building consents process. According to the Registered Master Builders Federation, approximately 40 percent of all new homes in New Zealand are built by volume builders.

A key initiative introduced in this bill is that of national multiple-use approval. Multiple-use approvals will streamline the consent process for building work that uses the same design and that will be replicated nationwide. There will be a Lockwood in every street—Lockwood Homes, that is. Having multiple-use approvals in place will mean that developers and project managers can devote more time to the building itself. All of the time devoted to the paperwork can be compressed into one focused approach. A new pre-approval system will fast track the building consent process, but councils will still need to assess site-specific matters.

Another initiative introduced in the bill is the voluntary project information memorandum (PIM) proposal. PIMs—not the liquor—are currently required before any building projects can begin. In the usual order of things, project information memoranda are applied for at about the same time as a building consent is issued. Yet when we looked into that we found that, on the basis of evidence, less than 5 percent of project information memoranda are actually applied for in practice before the building consent application is made, so the point of the whole process is lost. What started off as a good idea—that the project information memoranda would be a one-stop shop boutique, hosting all information related to building consent—failed, in reality, because only a few project information memoranda were actually applied for prior to building consent application being made. This bill will make it optional for a building consent applicant to obtain a project information memorandum from a territorial authority. These measures are honourable in the intent to dramatically increase the supply of good-quality, affordable homes. The thinking is that the bill will help to reduce unnecessary delays in the building consent process, in order to streamline the process.

The whole point of the legislation is to increase flexibility and efficiency in the building consent process. The amendments include the reduction in the statutory time frame for processing a building consent application from 20 working days to 10 working days when the application includes a national multiple-use approval. The hope is that owners and developers will benefit from reduced costs associated with the construction process, while at the same time ensuring that quality homes and buildings are constructed. This is where the key concern rests for the Māori Party. Although we can fully appreciate that the potential economies of scale are able to be achieved through volume, we must not see any compromise in quality or building compliance. This is where we are pleased that the capacity to record the process is still formalised through the functions and powers of the Department of Building and Housing. There are still some specific requirements to meet the technical application, as set out in clause 30B of the bill. In short, this is that the application will be in writing and contain prescribed information, with the required plans and specifications necessary. The last thing we ever want to see replicated is leaky building syndrome.

Although this bill speeds up the process, removes unnecessary compliance requirements, and will achieve economies of scale, we must be mindful that in the haste to speed up things we do not dilute quality. We will be looking to the select committee process to ensure that there is due support for best-practice models to be expressed in managing amendments to building consents. Although we are sure that every party in this House will gladly support any proposals that reduce and remove unnecessary costs and delays to the building process, we must be careful that in streamlining the process we do not end up creating a rod for our backs. This is where I return to the questions I asked of the Minister not too long ago. In his response about how to improve the levels of Māori homeownership, the Minister said he would be speaking to a number of iwi and hapū groups and to the Māori Party. He also suggested that he would be seeking specific feedback from these groups about how the Housing Innovation Fund can help and how papakāinga housing can be advanced.

These were welcome signals from a Minister who is expressing a commitment to increase the availability of affordable social housing. We want that commitment to come alongside the goal to resource iwi and Māori organisations themselves to develop sustainable housing initiatives. We will therefore support this bill at its first reading to facilitate housing opportunities that we hope will reap benefits for Māori, alongside other New Zealanders. But we will be watching particularly for submitters to bring to the select committee their assurance that the quality of building construction will not be compromised by the amendments. We want to see, too, that the reduced construction costs for developers will actually translate to reduced housing costs for buyers and renters and that the downstream costs will contribute to improved housing affordability. And we want to be absolutely convinced that the monetary savings are actually substantial enough to affect housing affordability.

Having all of these factors in mind we will support the bill today in the hope for a better tomorrow for so many of our whānau who have not yet enjoyed the opportunity to buy their own homes. Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : Speaking as a person who has built three of his own homes, I am pretty glad I built them prior to 2004, by the sounds of things. I did not really build them; I was the project manager. I did build one wall, which had to be rebuilt, so perhaps my skills are in project management rather than with a hammer and nail.

The building industry is a very important part of the New Zealand economy. Housing is a basic necessity and a human right, and affordable housing has become an increasing concern for all New Zealanders and members on both sides of the House. In March 2008 the then Prime Minister’s office released a report into house prices. It claimed that, in real terms, house prices had increased by 80 percent since 2002. That is more than the increase in the 40-year period between 1962 and 2002. The cost of land has also doubled since 2001. We identified tremendous concern in our country, particularly for young people trying to get into their first home. The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) is very advantageous to the hope that we will see the price of housing come down, with measures taken to reduce compliance costs and regulation costs but without reducing the quality of the homes that builders in New Zealand construct.

House prices have fallen since those statistics were produced, but the historical house price to household income ratio of close to three and a half times annual earnings has changed considerably. Affordability requires household disposable income to increase by 80 percent or house prices to fall by over 40 percent. This bill will begin to address that alarming increase we have seen.

Although there are a number of drivers to this increase in unaffordability, one notable driver is the increase in regulation costs and compliance costs. Last year National members pointed out—and some members have stated so here this afternoon—that the Building Act was estimated to have loaded up to $20,000 on to the cost of building a new home. When we came to building our first home, if another $20,000 had been added, we would not have had a home. Not only would we not have had a home but I am sure that the builder and subcontractors—plumbers and electricians—would have been without the benefit of that employment.

So we see, as we begin to address some of these costs, that not only are we making the issue of housing affordability important so that it is within the grasp of young people and families, in particular, but also there is the opportunity for more work to flow to subcontractors. At a time such as this, when we are facing a global recession that is affecting the construction industry, in particular, there are people out there in our communities right now who are perhaps on their last job or wondering whether in a week’s time they will find more work. We will not get this bill through in time for that to be resolved, but it will address that issue and housing affordability and increase work opportunities in time to come.

Not only does this increased cost act as a huge roadblock to people but removing it will make it far easier for people who are in the subcontracting industry to find work. The National-led Government sees streamlining as important because it will free up our economy and promote growth, particularly at this point in time. As part of our first 100 days in Government we introduced a bill to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act, to improve the processing of resource consents and cut compliance costs. The reform of the Building Act has the same intention as our work on the Resource Management Act. It is part of this Government’s ongoing commitment to cut red tape.

One instrument with which to streamline the building industry is to employ multiple-use consenting, which we have heard about this afternoon. It will help drive improvements in housing costs and affordability by removing barriers to achieving potential economies of scale. Another change this bill seeks to bring about is reducing the statutory time frame for processing a building consent application from 20 working days to 10 working days, where the application includes a national multiple-use approval. That makes great sense and enables expeditious timing to take place in building projects.

These proposals follow consultation with the industry and local government. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I look forward to working in that group to progress the bill to the next stage.

The bill introduces another two changes. The first is to differentiate between major and minor variations to consented building work. Let me tell members, as someone who has designed houses and built them, that plenty of variations come along. Halfway through the project one sees a cost saving, or halfway through the project one thinks of a better idea. Kiwis have ingenuity and want to make things better, if they can, without having to load up extra costs for a good idea, or to save in the overall expense or put a better design element somewhere in the house. That is a good move and will offer the flexibility that people involved in construction and building enjoy. It will allow for creativity and changes to come, without making it overtly or unnecessarily expensive.

The second change involves project information memoranda, which we have heard about. They include great information for somebody who wants to go forward in a project, but many builders and developers know everything they need to know about a particular property. A project information memorandum is a compulsory requirement in the consenting process, but, as we have heard, only 5 percent of people seek that memorandum before the consent process takes place. Obviously, they get the memorandum at the same time as the building consent in order to comply, but the other 95 percent of people find it unnecessary. It adds cost. There is a range of fees all the way up to $1,189 for particular projects. It just adds cost that many people feel is unnecessary. It also adds time.

The project information memorandum is still available, and it is a very interesting and perhaps positive report for people to seek, if they are not sure. But many people are sure, and we feel that in making them voluntary, rather than compulsory, it will be very good in keeping down compliance costs. It is a great service that councils can offer. For example, a project information memorandum will show whether there could potentially be erosion on the property, falling debris, subsidence or slippage, or silt build-up because the land is susceptible to flooding or, in fact, whether flooding could happen on the property. All that information is very useful, and councils feel that giving this information is pre-warning people so that later on they are able to proceed with full knowledge.

Hon Maurice Williamson: It would have been good if that had been around in Noah’s time.

JONATHAN YOUNG: That is right. However, a project information memorandum adds expenses—professional fees to advisers, territorial authority fees, and the cost of delays in starting the building. All of those can cost money. Even though there is a fee regime from a territorial authority, there can be very high expenses, in terms of professional fees to support that project information memorandum. This bill does not do away with that cost but makes it voluntary whether someone seeks a memorandum.

This bill will streamline many aspects of the building industry, and in that regard I believe that it is very well supported in the House. It is part of National’s commitment to reducing red tape in order to get this country growing again. I thoroughly support this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). Quite simply, the bill is about improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the building consent process, therefore ensuring that quality homes and buildings are constructed quickly and at less cost. I am in favour of any legislation that makes it easier for whānau to get into new homes.

I come from an area in the Bay of Islands where, not too many kilometres from the townhouses and condominiums on the Paihia waterfront, if one were to take the time to travel some of the gravel roads into the heart of Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi one would see whānau living in conditions that many would describe as Third World. It is not too uncommon to see homes that are little more than corrugated iron huts, which one would expect to see overseas and not here in Aotearoa. Those homes are usually unlined, leaking, cold, and damp dwellings.

I think of my home valley of Kāretu, just below our urupā of Puketohunoa, where there is a structure we call “the barn”. Not surprisingly, it has been used as a barn at times, but in-between being used as a barn it is used by cousins and family who come home to the valley and need somewhere to live while their homes are being built. So any legislation that shortens the length of time my whānau have to stay in the barn, and in similar dwellings, I am in support of.

Legislation such as this that extends the Department of Building and Housing’s functions and powers to allow it to issue multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings, and therefore to speed up and lower the costs of building homes, gets my support. Given that 40 percent of all new homes in New Zealand are built by volume builders, it makes sense that some efficiencies can be achieved by a streamlined approval process under the Building Act, for buildings that are replicated on a nationwide basis.

There is, as a number of members have alluded to in the course of the debate, the need for individual buildings to have consent sought at a local level, because each site has unique characteristics, such as ground conditions, slope, foundations, connections to water, and other utility services. So it makes sense that these are inspected and OK’d by the local authority. In fact, one of the conditions in my home town of Kawakawa that needs to be looked at is the fact that there is subsidence due to historical coalmining in the town, so that needs to be inspected at a local level.

This bill—which Labour introduced while in Government—is designed to help reduce unnecessary delays in the building consent process, which, aside from causing frustration amongst builders, also causes frustration for those whānau wishing to get into their new homes as quickly and as cheaply as possible. As well as cutting bureaucratic red tape around the issuing of approvals for dwellings, this bill also seeks to reduce the statutory time frame for processing a building consent application from 20 working days to 10 working days—again, as a number of members have alluded to. This is especially so when the application includes multiple-use approval.

Again, I say that I support any legislation that helps my whānau, hapū, and iwi members to move out of their small, cold, and dingy homes into larger new, warm, insulated homes. A point I failed to make earlier when describing the homes and living conditions of many of my whānau, hapū, and iwi up north is that those dwellings are, without any doubt in my mind, part of the reason many Māori suffer from poor health. I doubt that anyone in this House would be brave enough to say that living in cold, damp, cramped, unheated, and uninsulated homes would not put the health of the occupants at risk, thus leaving them susceptible to flu, colds, pneumonia, chickenpox, measles, and other diseases of poverty. If for no other reason, the lives of families is reason enough to support this legislation.

This legislation also differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work. In other words, the homeowners who want to make minor, non-structural changes to their homes do not actually have to jump through major hoops in delays and costs in order to make simple alterations. This bill will also reduce for owners and developers both the direct and indirect costs associated with the construction process, while ensuring that quality houses are constructed. This bill is part of a coordinated approach to assisting in increasing the supply of good-quality, affordable homes.

Late last year I attended a housing hui in Kaikohe, a town not known for its glitzy homes and extravagant lifestyles. A local businessman there had a plan to build a housing estate for the elderly in three stages. Stage one consisted of 30 or so identical homes, and if that stage was successful, then stage two and stage three would be built, with 30 more homes, respectively, for each stage. I applaud the attempts of this businessman in his desire to care for the elderly, but if his plan is to be successfully embraced by the community, I would like to think that those of us sitting here could make it as simple as possible for the plan to be achieved, as we know that the elderly are some of our most vulnerable citizens. The intentions of this bill would help our kaumātua and kuia, both Māori and non-Māori, to have access to warm, comfortable, and, in that case, may I say modest dwellings close to whānau, friends, and community facilities.

There are a lot of more important things we could be talking about, such as developing work and jobs for New Zealanders, so, although not wanting to diminish what I have just been saying, I will conclude. Basically, multiple-use consents that reduce the statutory time frame for processing building consents from 20 to 10 days, and the ability to make minor variations, will help not only those elderly members of the Tai Tokerau community but also every other whānau up there living in their shanties—as well as the wider New Zealand population—to more easily afford warm, comfortable, and healthy dwellings. Therefore, I support this bill.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I rise to speak in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2), put forward by the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson. For many hard-working New Zealanders, 9 years of a Labour Government has meant that the dream of owning their own home has slipped further from their grasp. I am thrilled that this bill means that housing affordability will get a little bit closer for those who have that dream.

The issue at the moment is that to construct a house is very time consuming and very costly, and the layers of bureaucracy are incredibly difficult to navigate, to wade through. There is such an amount of unnecessary paperwork, steps, and hoops to get through in this process, so I am really pleased that this bill will fix a number of problems. Firstly, there is the issue raised in terms of issuing multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings. For those organisations or businesses that want to construct multiple dwellings, it will mean a much simpler process and therefore it will mean that the costs will be significantly fewer. There will also be less time involved in getting a project to completion.

Another component of the bill is the reduction of the statutory time frame, whereby the time for processing a building consent application will be reduced from 20 days to 10 days. This is significant if we look at the amount of time involved with these projects. Another key purpose is to differentiate between the major and minor variations to consented building work. That will mean that minor pieces of work do not have to go through this huge, drawn-out process. It will reduce time, and it will reduce money. Another thing that this bill will achieve is that it will be voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum—a PIM—from a building consent authority that is a territorial authority.

I thought it would be quite useful to look at a couple of case studies in relation to the proposed legislation. The first issue is around compliance costs. Any time compliance costs are added on to a business, they flow through on to the end-user, and the end-user in this instance is the person who wants to get into a house. I firmly believe that it is an important part of the New Zealand way of life that we, each and every one of us, are able to aspire to homeownership. Some of us have big hurdles to overcome, but if we can do anything to make that goal more achievable by reducing compliance costs, and by reducing the time and energy involved with the building process—without sacrificing quality, I might add—then it will be a great thing for average, hard-working Kiwis who want to get into a home of their own.

The other thing that is particularly important at the moment, given the recession we are currently in, is the impact that those sorts of extra costs and delays are having on those organisations or companies that are in the building trade. I met with the representative of one of those organisations in my own electorate on Friday. This is a local business that has been around for 10 years. It was recently employing 10 staff but is now down to four. The business has an apprentice but the owner is not sure whether he can hang on to his apprentice. The lag time between an owner deciding to push the go button and build, and all of the time involved before the business can actually start construction, is a delay that I hope will not put that business into the ground. Every time a building firm goes under in this recession, it also takes the guy who builds the cabinets, the person who sews the drapes, the carpet layers, and the people who put the glass in. You name it, there is a whole industry of people who go down every time one of our building companies fails. Anything we can do as a Government to reduce unnecessary compliance, reduce the time, and reduce the costs has to be a good thing.

I want to see that these local businesses are able to survive and weather the storm of the recession, and that they come out on the other side so we can build more houses and so hard-working New Zealanders can achieve their dreams of getting into a home. I agree with Kelvin Davis; I think it is disgraceful that we have large numbers of New Zealanders living in substandard housing. If we can trim $20,000 off the price of a house, then we can get more people into houses that are worthy of them and not tolerate the sub-standard conditions that too many of our New Zealanders are putting up with.

That is the first case study I wanted to look at. The second is around simplifying and streamlining. I know that changes were made to the Building Act in 2004, but I have to say to Labour members: “Sorry, guys, you did not do a good enough job, so we’re going to have to do some tidying up.” I worked in local government at the time that this Act came in, and I can tell members that the layers and layers of bureaucracy and additional work that got wrapped around the building process were absolutely outrageous. Possibly a small amount was necessary, but the reality is that there was extra paperwork and extra work built in for no sound reason. We are getting in there, cutting the red tape, getting it back to basics, and making sure that the process is as simple as it can be. The bill is getting rid of some of the things in the building and consenting process that are completely unnecessary.

It was really interesting to watch the implementation of the Building Act, and it will be interesting to watch from a different perspective now as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to see that local government is efficient and productive, just as there should be a level of productivity in other parts of the public sector. It is really important that we get on and focus on the actual job. For me, the priority is getting people into housing at a price that they can afford. In terms of housing affordability, some would say that we are in good times at the moment. We should be seizing the opportunity and making the most that we can of the economic conditions in terms of affordability.

The third area I want to look at is the affordability side. Most days when I drive from Pūtāruru to my home, I drive past a Habitat for Humanity home. This is a project where people are getting into housing that they potentially would not be able to get into otherwise. It is about making sure that social housing and community groups are assisting people to get into their own homes through innovative programmes. I personally want to see obstacles like red tape reduced for those sorts of organisations. If people want to build multiple dwellings, then it should be much easier to do so. This legislation that I am standing in support of today will enable that. That is why I am really proud to support this legislation.

Another thing that is important in this legislation concerns waiting times. I want to emphasise the lag time for business people. From the time a person wants to start his or her project, there are time delays in terms of actually picking up the hammer and putting the first nail in a piece of wood. It is just a waste of time for any builder or the builder’s team to be sitting around and waiting for someone else to do the paperwork, and it does nothing for us in terms of productivity. I really believe that this bill will take us quite a way forward in terms of improving productivity. The end goal in respect of that productivity is that more people will be in homes that they can afford and that provide a good standard of accommodation.

Before I conclude, I make the point that, yes, we are talking about driving down costs, cutting through red tape, and reducing the costs involved. But we are not talking about compromising quality. It is really important that the houses built in New Zealand are of the standard we expect and that we are able to move people out of sub-standard housing. The measures we are talking about in this bill do not compromise the quality of the housing we are talking about. I am very thrilled to stand in support of this bill, which will ensure that home affordability and good-quality housing become an end goal for more of our hard-working, ordinary New Zealanders.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I rise to take a brief call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). The origins of this bill do not lie in the recession. Although the provisions of the bill may have some positive impact on the recessionary experience that our construction industry is undergoing at the moment, that was not the origin of the bill. Its origin came out of the previous Government’s intention, commitment, and earnest desire to provide affordable housing in New Zealand. In order to get to a situation of affordable housing in New Zealand, a number of blocks and barriers needed to be taken down. Shane Jones brought this bill forward as a way of dealing with some of the frustrating and difficult regulations and red tape that compounded the process of arriving at building consents.

The bit that is particularly important in this legislation is that around national multiple-use approvals. The building industry was perfectly willing and able to recognise standard templates for building designs and to approve them according to the highest building standards, but the point was to enable developers to say they would like, in the course of building their hundred-house development, to build 20 C1s, 10 B2s, and five A3s, or whatever the name of the housing design was. The purpose of getting multiple-use approvals was that people could get standardised designs—they could be labelled anything at all; I have just used As, Bs and Cs—that could be replicated everywhere without having to go through the process of approval.

When in Opposition, the National Party thought that this meant the Labour Government was intent on building the same houses everywhere. That was absolutely not the case, and in fact I have not heard one of the Government members mention that objection in the course of this debate. Clearly, those members have now cottoned on to the fact that it does not mean that; what it means is that there are standard designs that can be approved nationally—across the country—and then be picked up by a developer, and all that the local body has to do is to ensure that that particular design is appropriate for the particular site. That eliminates the red tape and fast tracks the development for the developer. That is to everybody’s benefit.

The rationale behind this bill was the terrible situation that we found ourselves in by the end of 2007: recognising that the cost of houses had gone up by some 80 percent over the previous 5 years. That situation could not be allowed to continue without some remedial action being taken. This bill was a small step, but a tiny part of the jigsaw that needed to be put together, along with other Government initiatives—whether they be shared equity or using State-owned land for developmental and residential housing purposes—that could be brought together as a complete package to address the housing affordability problem.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move, That the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 11 May 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189, and 190 (1)(b) and (c).

• Motion agreed to.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.

Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the previous Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Lianne Dalziel, for the work she did for the last Government in preparing this legislation. It is now timely to advance it.

Alcohol is a challenging issue for any Government, because any attempt to ameliorate the negative impact of alcohol abuse must be balanced against the freedom of the majority of the adult population to drink responsibly. Those who cast their minds back to the so-called sherry tax of 2003 will recognise that liquor reforms must be targeted and relevant if they are to help fix the problem without punishing the innocent.

However, the problems caused by excessive drinking are undeniable. In the area of criminal justice alone, it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of offenders were under the influence of alcohol at the time they committed their crimes. Police estimate that 50 to 70 percent of their work is associated with alcohol, including disorder, assault, criminal damage, family violence, drink-driving, taking drunk people home, or detaining them for detoxification. This bill attempts to address the problems associated with the availability of alcohol, youth binge drinking, and alcohol advertising, through amendments to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, the Summary Offences Act 1981, and the Land Transport Act 1998.

A key provision of this legislation relates to the availability of alcohol in our communities. The number and range of outlets selling alcohol is much larger than what was envisaged by Parliament when it passed the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. Since 1990 the number of on-licences has more than tripled, and the number of off-licences has similarly tripled. In response to public drunkenness and alcohol-related offending, communities from Mount Roskill to Riccarton are protesting against the marked increase in liquor outlets in recent years. In this regard I wish to acknowledge the work of the Hon George Hawkins in bringing to the House a local bill that would enable his constituents in Manurewa to object to any application for a liquor licence on the basis that if granted it would have an adverse social impact.

The Government’s bill addresses all communities’ demands for more say in local liquor licensing decisions. At present there is nothing to stop a local council from creating an alcohol management plan, but that plan will not have a formal status in liquor licensing decisions. This bill will enable local councils to create local alcohol plans that must be given effect to in liquor licensing decisions. Local alcohol plans will be able to set restrictions on the number of outlets in an area, on the proximity of outlets to other community buildings like schools, and on hours of operation. In short, local alcohol plans will give communities greater control over where and when alcohol is sold.

This bill will also clarify Parliament’s original intentions for the types of premises that are eligible for an off-licence and the alcoholic beverages they can sell. In 1999 Parliament voted against allowing dairies to sell wine and beer, which may come as a surprise to those who have seen a number of shops that would normally be regarded as dairies selling alcohol. This bill will commence the argument to ensure that, except in very limited circumstances, grocery-selling stores will not be able to obtain a liquor licence unless they have a floor area of at least 150 square metres. Whether 150 square metres is the best benchmark will no doubt be the subject of careful scrutiny at the select committee, and I encourage full and open debate on that issue.

The bill will also ensure that grocery stores and supermarkets continue to be restricted to selling beer, wine, cider, and mead. This is designed to avoid situations where spirits are sold by setting up a store within a store, or an immediately adjacent liquor store that sells a full range of alcohol. Again, I expect that the select committee will pay close attention to what constitutes an immediately adjacent store for the purposes of this restriction, and I welcome submissions and debate on this point.

I cannot overstate the importance of the second set of provisions in the bill—the provisions that address the harm arising from youth drinking. A recent study from Christchurch found that children as young as 4 were trying alcohol, and that the onset of drinking rises very steeply from the age of 12. Harm to minors is most significant when alcohol consumption is unsupervised, and most consumption is. The bill changes the current approach to the social supply of alcohol to minors, by making it an offence for adults to supply liquor to minors without the consent of their parent or guardian. A small but significant number of liquor outlets continue to sell alcohol to minors, so the bill will increase the penalty for managers who do that. The bill will also restrict the legal defences available to a person who sells liquor to a minor, by repealing the defence that a seller had a reasonable belief that the minor was aged 18 or older. This means that the only available defence will be that the seller viewed appropriate identification.

I have already mentioned the impact that alcohol use can have on offending, but, obviously, it can have a broader social cost. Inexperienced drivers are particularly at risk of alcohol related-crashes, so the bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998 to reduce to zero the allowable blood-alcohol content for drivers under 20 who do not have a full licence. In recognition of the need to address problem drinking as early as possible, the bill will also allow police to refer a minor to an alcohol intervention programme as an alternative to paying an infringement fee for certain offences under the Sale of Liquor Act.

Finally, the bill incorporates recommendations arising from the review of regulation of alcohol advertising. That review found a small but significant association between the level of exposure to alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption. The bill proposes to insert a new part into the Sale of Liquor Act that provides for a system of enforced self-regulation by setting out the principles of the proposed system, the roles of the body responsible for administering the self-regulatory system, and the new offence. These provisions require very close scrutiny by the select committee.

This bill tackles what can be done immediately to help limit the harm caused by alcohol. My intention is that it will be complemented by the Law Commission’s first-principles review of the entire regulatory framework for the sale and supply of liquor. I have asked the commission to speed up that work, so it is now planning to produce a discussion paper by the end of July, with a final report due by the end of June 2010. Of course, both that review and this bill deal only with the laws that govern the sale and supply of liquor. There are, quite rightly, limited laws in other areas. That is a product of our culture, the way we drink, and it will change only gradually, over time. But that does not mean we should not try. I commend this bill to the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : I rise very much in support of the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. This is another bill that I get to speak on that was originally introduced by the previous Labour Government. A lot of hard work was done then by Lianne Dalziel, as was acknowledged by the Minister of Justice, Simon Power.

The bill amends the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, the Summary Offences Act 1981, and the Land Transport Act 1998, to implement recommendations arising from the recent reviews of the sale and supply of liquor to minors, the sale of liquor, and liquor enforcement issues. It also introduces a new system of enforced self-regulation of alcohol advertising.

The objectives of the bill are to support a more moderate drinking environment and culture to reduce the normalisation of youth drinking, to enhance the responsibility of friends and adults who supply alcohol to minors, to increase youth responsibility and accountability, to improve compliance and responsibility of the industry, to increase community input into licensing decisions, and to clarify the types of premises that may hold off-licences.

The health impacts of the misuse and abuse of alcohol are wide ranging and deeply felt by our community. They range from injury to cancers to heart disease and several other health impacts. The costs in dollar terms are quite immense where they can actually be measured. In New Zealand we estimate that the alcohol harm costs somewhere between $1 billion and $4 billion a year. It costs the public health sector something like $655 million. In crime and related costs it costs $240 million. In social welfare it costs $200 million, and in other Government spending it costs $330 million. In lost productivity it costs about $1.17 billion. Those numbers are enormous, and drive the need to address the drinking culture in this country. It is something that we have talked about a lot, but finding some form of legislation to deal with it has been difficult. This is a good first port of call.

Labour introduced this bill whilst in Government because we take the issue of alcohol-related harm very seriously. Labour, of course, also initiated the Law Commission review of New Zealand’s liquor laws, and I look forward to the results of that review. As the Minister pointed out, it is timely that we take a look at our liquor laws, because it has been an extraordinarily long time since the last comprehensive review back in the mid-1980s.

One of the things that I think is most important about this bill is the opportunity it gives to communities to take ownership of the alcohol issue within their own community. The ability for local authorities to provide an alcohol plan, and for that plan to have some meaning, is a substantial part of this bill.

It is worth noting the support that this bill has received from within the health industry. Recently the Canterbury medical officer of health, Dr Alistair Humphrey, said: “Our pubs and clubs, by and large, are responsible hosts, just as the specialised bottle shops are responsible retailers. That so many of the central city outlets sell to children who are so young demonstrates how difficult it is for these businesses to stay within the law. A move towards restricting off-licences in the central city will protect our children, protect our city communities, and, indeed, protect the convenience store businesses themselves from the further prosecutions they will undoubtedly face.”

Alcohol is very much a public health issue. Certainly the Minister has covered the justice side of the issues, but it is very important that we pay attention to the public health issues and the harm that the misuse of alcohol does to our communities. It is for that reason that the Labour Party is supporting this bill being referred to the select committee, and we look forward to the submissions that the select committee receives.

We need to think about what this bill is not going to do. It is not some sort of witch-hunt for people who drink responsibly, nor is it a witch-hunt for retailers who have a responsible attitude towards the sale of liquor. It is about clarifying the rules, it is about communities taking ownership, and it is about reducing the harm related to alcohol. It is not about cracking down on the sensible, responsible use of alcohol by the majority of New Zealanders. It is about the responsibility of families, and the responsibilities that parents have in taking care of their children and the young people whom they are responsible for, and building a responsible drinking environment and culture within their families and within their communities.

I look forward to the progress of this bill. I look forward to the work that will be done at the select committee. We take note of the Minister highlighting the areas he would like the select committee to look at—

Hon Darren Hughes: Very subtly!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY:—ha, ha—particularly closely, and I look forward to speaking again on this bill when it returns to the House.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am delighted to follow my most excellent colleague the Hon Simon Power, who has done a magnificent job in this regard. It is interesting to note that this year actually marks the 10th anniversary of the lowering of the drinking age to 18, and the 20th anniversary of the Sale of Liquor Act, which made it easier for dairies and superettes to sell alcohol, so—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: There is no drinking age. There never has been.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Well, the lowering of the drinking age to 18?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, there is no such thing as a drinking age.

Hon Member: Purchase age.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Oh, purchase age. OK, righty-o! Oh, semantics! So in 2009 it is timely for New Zealanders to re-examine their tolerance, or lack of tolerance, of heavy drinking. It is also interesting to note that researchers are actually finding linkages between alcohol and some cancers, as well as a raft of other health problems, such as cirrhosis of the liver—well, that is pretty well known—anxiety, and psychological issues.

The social costs are much harder to quantify, but can be pretty substantial. The fatal and non-fatal road accidents that occur because someone is drunk behind the wheel are devastating for families. One constituent recently wrote to me expressing a huge amount of concern in that regard. He had lost his wife of 33 years and his children had lost their mother, as a result of a drunk driver. It was quite a tragic situation. It would be tragic for anyone in that circumstance.

The domestic violence, the absenteeism, the poor productivity, and the decision to buy alcohol rather than groceries—these social costs are almost too huge to take into account. But it is good to note that some communities are already taking steps to help reduce the toll that alcohol is taking on their residents. In Clendon, South Auckland, a community support group organised a protest against a local superette applying for a liquor licence, and that, in turn, led to some superette owners withdrawing their liquor licence applications. I think that is a worthy step in the right direction.

Liquor bans that councils have adopted have been hugely successful throughout the country, in many, many communities. Families feel much safer being back in areas where they might not normally have congregated because of the amount of drinking and inebriation in the streets. I have to say that a place like the Coromandel is inundated with people during the summer period. The population increases to about 150,000 throughout the district. The liquor bans have been very, very successful in making members of the community feel that they are safe at that time of year when people are celebrating.

So it is wonderful to be supporting the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which amends the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, the Summary Offences Act 1981, and the Land Transport Act 1998, to implement recommendations arising from recent reviews of the sale and supply of liquor to minors, and the sale of liquor and liquor enforcement issues. It also introduces a new system of enforced self-regulation of alcohol advertising.

When I was looking at the bill and listening to my colleague speaking earlier, I saw that new section 84A, “Territorial authorities may adopt local alcohol plans”, is to be inserted in the Sale of Liquor Act by clause 37. This section has been mentioned by other speakers in the House. I am delighted to see that it states “may”. There is always a cost to local authorities when they enter into any of these sorts of processes, so if we have the word “may”, it means that they may or they may not do that.

But if they decide to do that, they may be able to recoup their costs through the liquor licensing process, because there is a charge for that process. As members will be aware, if a council is to adopt any sort of plan, it has to go through a consultative process, which is hugely costly. Councils have to weigh up whether the benefit of having the plan is worth the cost, or whether they should just introduce some of those conditions at the time of issuing a licence. I am not clear on that point, but I understood that when local authorities issue licences, they specify some conditions around them.

In seeking to address the drinking behaviour of minors, an integrated approach is necessary. Solutions rely on changing the behaviour of individuals and communities, and this involves a supportive regulatory environment, public awareness and ownership of issues, and an understanding of rights and responsibilities. There certainly is not enough of that in this country, where individuals should better understand their responsibilities if they expect to have some rights. Consistent and effective enforcement is also important. Improving the compliance of the liquor industry will also make a contribution, and the proposals in the bill are intended to contribute to this change.

Research indicates that parents are the main suppliers of alcohol to minors. Sixty percent of minors identify their parents as the primary source of supply. That is of huge concern. Around 30 percent of the alcohol supplied is supplied by friends, and 10 to 15 percent is purchased from licensed premises by minors themselves. That is 10 to 15 percent. In the context of these findings a large majority of parents—92 percent—agree that the primary responsibility for helping teenagers to learn how to handle alcohol responsibly belongs to parents, and so it should. Again, it is that word “responsibility”. Parents need to take some responsibility and to step up to the plate, and that is what it is all about.

Common locations where minors consume alcohol are their own home, someone else’s home, and public places. Well, liquor bans can deal with the public places, so parents and other people need to take responsibility when alcohol consumption is occurring in their home or in somebody else’s home.

There is also increasing concern regarding the extent of alcohol-related harm, and communities are frustrated by their inability to manage that harm. There is a need to improve local control over where, to whom, when, and how alcohol can be sold in communities, to ensure that social impact is taken into account in licensing conditions. In this context the policy objectives of the bill are to improve the compliance and responsibility of industry, to increase community input into licensing decisions and to support a more moderate drinking environment and culture, and to reduce the normalisation of youth drinking. As anybody knows, a young person of 18 years of age is still not physiologically developed enough to really handle alcohol effectively. The bill is also designed to enhance the responsibility of friends and adults who supply alcohol to minors, to increase youth responsibility and accountability, and to clarify the types of premises that may hold off-licences. In addition, this legislation introduces new offences for adults supplying liquor to minors without consent, and it increases penalties and limits the defences available to those selling.

There are amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998, as I mentioned earlier, that inexperienced drivers are particularly at risk of alcohol-related crashes. These proposals aim to make it clear to young, inexperienced drivers that alcohol and driving do not mix. So there can be no doubt that drivers aged under 20 years who do not have a full licence will have an alcohol limit of zero. I will just repeat that: if people are aged under 20 years and do not have a full licence, they will have an alcohol limit of zero. People cannot have even one glass of beer if they are 20 or younger and driving. I think that is an appropriate condition in order to ensure that we reduce the level of incidence of young people who have been drinking and are behind the wheel, and I know that this will be welcomed by many. However, some young people say that often it is the older folk who are inclined to be drunk behind the wheel.

There are other points to note. This legislation is a priority area for this Government, which is looking at a variety of alcohol-related issues. We hope to pass this bill through its first reading to enable select committee hearings on it to commence in the not too distant future.

In addition, as members heard earlier from the Minister of Justice, he has asked the Law Commission to speed up its in-depth review of the law concerning the sale and supply of liquor in New Zealand. The final report, after feedback has been received, is due by the end of June 2010, and, depending on the outcome, another bill could be introduced by the end of 2010.

We are delighted to be supporting the passage of this legislation through the House, and we know that the wider community of New Zealand is delighted about the content of this bill and will be looking forward to constraints being exercised around the sale and supply of liquor.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : As I was the Minister who introduced the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on its first reading.

The main features of this bill put the power of controlling the availability of liquor where it belongs—in the hands of local communities and in the hands of parents. The bill allows liquor licensing bodies to take social impact into account when making licensing decisions. It gives local communities standing to object to the granting of licences. Currently, they have to show a greater interest than the public generally. The bill gives real teeth to local alcohol plans, by requiring the licensing bodies not merely to take them into account, but, rather, to give effect to those local alcohol plans. It comes the closest this country has ever been to having a drinking-age provision by making it an offence to supply liquor to a minor without parental consent. There are provisions that deal with a misunderstanding that the licensing bodies had over Parliament’s intention in respect of the exception that allows supermarkets and grocery stores to sell liquor, and for that liquor to be limited solely to wine, beer, mead, and cider.

I proposed to Cabinet that we seek to address this issue by putting in place a size threshold to reinforce the decision of Parliament in 1999 that dairies would not be allowed to sell liquor. It has been very disappointing to see licences granted to premises that Parliament never intended to be allowed to sell liquor. It is equally pleasing, though, now to see that the Liquor Licensing Authority has itself drawn the line in the sand where Parliament intended it to be drawn, diminishing, as it does, the need to use size as a proxy for this definition. I never regarded that definition as being particularly satisfactory. Size is an unfortunate proxy to be used in this context, and I am sure that as a result of the Liquor Licensing Authority decisions, in future there will not be the granting of licences to dairies in this country. The Justice and Electoral Committee should consider this matter very, very carefully when considering the content of the bill, and, hopefully, in its report back it will have some sensible comment to make on that matter.

I will comment on another trend in liquor licensing decisions, because it will impact on how this bill is considered. I have been following the Liquor Licensing Authority’s decisions recently. This is largely as a result of some work that I did with a community group involved in opposing an application for an off-licence in Halswell, in Christchurch. I know that other communities have started to take a real stand by putting in combined opposition to liquor licensing applications, and having that stand recorded in a very public way. The objection in this case, though, stemmed from the fact that the owner of the licence was also the owner of the supermarket. The supermarket was, essentially, next door to the proposed premises for the bottle store, which was a matter of metres from the hotel bottle store, which faced into exactly the same car-park. The members of the community said enough was enough. They counted the number of licences that had been issued in Halswell, and they felt that a bottle store that actually faced on to the same car-park as the hotel bottle store was a ridiculous proposition to put to their community. It was not needed. Unfortunately, because of the limited scope of the criteria listed in the legislation, the Liquor Licensing Authority really had no option but to approve the licence. However, the Liquor Licensing Authority did reduce the hours that the applicant had applied for. The applicant had originally applied for 11 a.m. until 11 p.m., and that was knocked back to an 8 p.m. closing. I thought it was very good that the Liquor Licensing Authority took that position, and it has adopted that position consistently for first-time licences since it has reconsidered its approach in these matters.

The other thing that happened as a result of the community taking up this issue was an approach that has now been put in writing in respect of the impact of loss leading. I will read directly from the decision itself: “We believe that the retail initiative known as loss leading—that is, advertising and selling goods at less than cost in order not only to attract customers to the store but, in the process, sell more products—needs to be looked at more seriously by licensees. If a licensee uses liquor to loss lead, then he or she is stimulating and not meeting demand. Where liquor is involved it is not good enough for a licensee to say, as they do,”—and as they did in this case, I might add, because I sat and listened to the hearing—”that they have to continue with this business practice because of competition. Most licensees understand that they are dealing with a drug, and that they have a duty under the Act to help promote the reduction of liquor abuse. In our experience loss leading helps to promote the abuse of liquor, and future examples of loss leading by an off-licensee will be treated as an indication of lack of suitability”. I hope that the supermarkets in this country sit up and take notice of that warning from the Liquor Licensing Authority.

I am disappointed that the decision has not received as much media attention as I thought it deserved. It is a major statement of a new position, and it is one that is welcomed by those of us who believe that the worst decision made by this Parliament was the decision in 1999 to allow beer to be sold in supermarkets. This exposed liquor to the norms of the retail industry, which treats liquor like all the other items on its shelves. That is why members of the hospitality industry—quite a different industry, and one more akin to the sale of liquor—tell me that they can buy beer more cheaply from their local supermarket than they can from their wholesale distributor. The vote for beer to be sold in supermarkets in 1999 was carried by 58 votes to 53 votes. It is appalling that such a major decision, which has had a huge impact on the accessibility of alcohol in this country, was passed by such a narrow and ill-informed vote. There were people on both sides of this House who voted for that resolution. I certainly did not.

My reaction to what happened on that vote has been to criticise the conscience vote, but the bottom line is that only a few MPs get to sit on a select committee and hear the evidence. That is why these sorts of matters should be subject to the kind of analysis that the Law Commission will be undertaking. I know that people think that, yes, it is fine that the Minister has asked the Law Commission to speed up the report back. But I do not want the speeding up of the report back to be at the expense of quality research and analysis, because that is what this Parliament needs in order to exercise what continues to be a conscience vote.

I hope that members of the House do not see this bill as an opportunity to move ad hoc amendments. The legislation has suffered for long enough from that approach. My message is to deal with the issues that have been raised in this bill, then await the Law Commission report, to allow sound judgment to be applied to the next substantive proposals to provide a legal framework that contributes to the reduction of liquor abuse.

I want to end by talking about the purchase age. I am sick of the media referring to there being a drinking age. This country has never ever had a drinking age in our laws; we have a purchase age. There is nothing in the law at the moment that stops anyone from supplying liquor to an under-18-year-old, as long as the liquor was not bought with that intention in mind. This bill fixes that issue by requiring parental consent. But the real question is whether we should have a debate about the purchase age. I think that we should, but given the very many exceptions that used to exist to allow on-licences to sell to 18-year-olds, we should, perhaps, also debate the difference between on-licence sales and off-licence sales; between supervised drinking, where the alcohol is drunk on the premises and licensees face consequences for breaches of their obligations, versus unsupervised drinking, where the licensee faces no consequences for what happens when the liquor leaves the premises. I personally think that would be a very worthwhile debate, which is why, in my view, the Law Commission review of the legislation is so important. I believe that it would be a huge mistake to invite submissions on matters not contained in the bill, because MPs and submitters alike may be trapped into thinking there are simplistic responses to these issues. There are not.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party is supporting the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. From the time when alcohol was first introduced by the settlers many decades ago, our country has had a drinking problem. That drinking problem led to the establishment of very big organisations such as the New Zealand Women’s Christian Temperance Union, which was a motivating factor in women being given the right to vote in 1893 to try to control the drinking problem, the level of alcoholism, and the binge drinking. I think binge drinking was reinforced by the 6 o’clock closing time that we had for many years. People drank huge amounts up until the, in effect, 6.15 p.m. closing time. It is good that this bill will make some progress in controlling binge drinking, particularly amongst young people.

I will comment on a couple of provisions, such as the local alcohol plans. I was struck by the need for such plans a year or so ago when I went to my local barbershop—hairdresser—about 30 metres off Karangahape Road in Auckland, which is a retail area. I went there at about half-past 10 on a Saturday morning, and about 10 metres away from the barbershop and other retail premises there was a liquor outlet—a bar—going full bore. Apparently, the way things went in that K Road area, the bar only really got going at about 3 a.m. and it was licensed to go through until midday. So people like myself who were arriving at the hairdressers could not hear ourselves. Basically, the neighbouring retail premises to this liquor outlet lost all their business on a Saturday morning because of the drunkenness around them—people being sick on the pavement and the like.

The suggestion in the legislation, once it is implemented, of local alcohol plans to be adopted relating to the sale or consumption of alcohol within a local district, particularly with the consultative way in which this plan is to be formulated, will mean the end of situations that I have described, which are totally out of sync with community interests. There is no way that that bar should have been open at those hours right in the middle of a shopping community on a Saturday morning.

The other point I will address is the question of advertising and promotions. The Green Party is not in favour of alcohol advertising. We have campaigned against it in relation to advertising in the media and elsewhere. This bill here goes a step towards the Green goal but not far enough, because there is a little bit of a contradiction in some of its principles. The bill states: “liquor advertising and liquor promotion should not hold strong appeal to children or young people.” Well, anyone who looks at liquor advertising will know that it is directed primarily at young people; it is not directed at people who are 40 or 50 years old who are set in their drinking ways in one way or another. Advertising tries to increase consumption of a particular product among young people. Members could look at any advert on a billboard, on television, or whatever and see that that is the reality. If this legislation can restrict that, then good on it, but it will be a bit difficult.

The bill states: “liquor advertising and liquor promotion should not be inconsistent with the promotion of responsibility and moderation in the consumption of alcohol;”. Again, I think the whole point of advertising is to get people to drink more than they otherwise would. It would be good if adverts stated “Don’t drink more than one glass.” or whatever, but I have not seen them and I think that even under this bill I am probably unlikely to see them.

Restricting advertising is very important for the health of people and particularly for our young people. When we have alcohol companies promoting a sport—and Lion Red is used a lot at sports events—there is a contradiction there. We have a big debate in relation to the New Zealand Rugby League, which the Warriors are part of. The league is arguing about whether it should ban its players from using alcohol at all. It has said it would be a bit difficult to do that, but the very fact that it is having that debate at the same time as we are having teams being sponsored and promoted by alcohol companies is a little bit contradictory. It is a step forward in the advertising area to go beyond our previous voluntary self-regulation to what is called enforced self-regulation.

It is good that under the advertising provision proposed in new section 136B, in relation to the recognition of the liquor advertising advisory body, it states: “when reviewing its codes, devising appropriate ways of engaging with the community to elicit a range of views on them;”. I think that is critical, and Lianne Dalziel also recognised that if the community becomes aware of this new law and its powers, together with the local bodies, then we will see big change in terms of the way in which New Zealand liquor advertising is conducted—and hopefully in the extent of that advertising. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. I intend to take only a very short call, in line with my own personal view that if one has not got something worthwhile to say then one should not say anything at all.

Hon Darren Hughes: That’ll change!

DAVID GARRETT: I try to resist the temptation to become like Mr Hughes, but, in the meantime, I will say that I noticed when looking through the bill—which I obviously was not familiar with because it was introduced last term—that two things, in particular, stuck out. The first thing was the provision for local alcohol plans. I note that a territorial authority may adopt an alcohol plan relating to a number of matters that are listed in proposed section 84B. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible way to proceed.

I have the pleasure these days of living out in the country north of Auckland in an area that I commonly refer to others with great approval as “old New Zealand”. One does not have a lot of the problems out there that one has elsewhere. But I used to live in the North Shore of Auckland and, again, that is very different from other parts of the city. I must admit to having been a bit doubtful about claims that liquor is available at “every dairy down the street”, but just the other day I had reason to be down in South Auckland and, sure enough, in premises that were the local dairy there was liquor on sale and one would not need to go very far to find another one.

I can very readily see that the intent of laws in the past has been abused, and it seems to me that these local alcohol plans in which such factors may be taken into account as to where the outlet may be located, the maximum density for outlets—which harks back to the speech by the Hon Lianne Dalziel—and the minimum distance from other outlets, etc., are eminently sensible. Who could disagree with them?

The other provision that I noted with great approval was the concept of “three strikes and you’re out”, which seems to have been introduced by the previous Labour Government. Proposed sections 135A and 135C provide for the mandatory cancellation of managers’ certificates after three incidents relating to minors within 2 years. As the House knows, I am backing the “three strikes and you’re out” laws for more serious violent crimes, and it is very heartening to see that the previous Labour Government recognised that the idea of having two chances but then being struck out, as it were, on the third is sound reasoning and a sound way to proceed. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou, i tēnei pō. Members might not know that I do not drink too much these days, but I find myself thinking that I may be a bit of a hypocrite talking about this sort of bill and about the rights and wrongs of drinking or purchasing liquor. I have to admit that once upon a time I did venture into a pub—before I was supposed to—

Hon John Carter: By mistake.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I purchased alcohol, by mistake, ahead of the right age, and, yes, I got led astray by some of my friends, by mistake, and lost my mana.

Hon Member: That must have been Te Arawa.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: By mistake, it was. In those days drinking seemed to be all about fun; that was the focus. But in reflecting on this bill it seems to me that times have changed a little bit. I say that because last August, as most of the members of the House will know, in the southern regions down in the Te Tai Tonga area in Dunedin, riot police had to come out to battle with crowds of drunk university students as they threw bottles and burnt couches in what is generally known as the Undie 500. We understand that 30 people were arrested for disorderly behaviour, obstruction, and breaching the liquor ban in the annual riot that is all too often dismissed as, some would say, student pranks. Somewhere along the line the alcohol-fuelled trip organised by the students union blurred the distinction between off-campus fun and behaviour of a criminal nature. This seems to be the case more often than not these days.

As I stated last week in a debate on a similar bill—and despite my feeling a bit of a hypocrite—the Māori Party is greatly concerned about alcohol and drugs and the part they play in youth crisis situations. It did not seem to be like that in my time. During the debate last week I spoke of the fact that alcohol-related harm is a major contributor to preventable health and social costs on young people. I also spoke of the reality that young people are more than twice as likely to suffer from alcohol-related harm as those in other age groups. As parents, grandparents, and, in some cases, great-grandparents, we hear stories about the drinking behaviour of our rangatahi. As a caucus, we of the Māori Party are determined that we have to do something about it.

We know that, overall, a lower proportion of rangatahi Māori drink alcohol compared with non-Māori. That is pretty great from our perspective, in the sense that most of the statistics around our people are not all that crash hot. Unfortunately, compared with all non-Māori and with people aged over 30 years, those young Māori people who drink alcohol appear to be disproportionately engaged in heavier and riskier drinking.

Young people themselves report that alcohol is usually supplied by parents, in about 60 percent of cases, and by friends aged over 18 years, in 30 percent of cases. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill is intended to improve industry compliance and responsibility, in order to put the focus fairly and squarely at the feet of the alcohol barons and the alcohol industry.

As other speakers have said, this bill seeks to regulate where, to whom, when, and how alcohol can be sold in communities. Importantly, this bill will implement the recommendations arising from the review of the sale and supply of liquor to under-18-year-olds in New Zealand. Well, we say that is all good, but, of course, it misses the point. It is not the fact that we are buying booze that is the problem; it is the fact that we are drinking.

Nothing in this bill specifically focuses on those whom the young people identified as handing over the alcohol to them, namely their parents and friends. The bill targets the industry, local authorities, on-licences, and off-licences—in fact, everyone except the person holding the wallet, which is our concern. That is not to say it is not important to have the wider community take responsibility for this problem but more to suggest that we must target our efforts on those who are within the immediate orbit of the young people who are the focus of this bill.

The Māori Party has always said there should be a variety of strategies, both legislative and non-legislative, to reduce the overall supply of alcohol to young people, in order to limit their drinking and its associated harms. We know, as other speakers have said this evening, that to stem the tide of this desperate problem of binge drinking by young people we cannot put up ad hoc proposals in isolation from the overall drinking culture of the nation. This bill is a step in the right direction, in terms of putting in place different approaches to addressing the responsibility of those supplying alcohol to our young people from a commercial premises.

The bill attempts to address drinking behaviour by improving industry compliance and responsibility to regulate where, to whom, when, and how alcohol can be sold in communities, and to ensure that social impact is taken into consideration in licensing conditions. That is all good, and we support any moves to bring responsibility to the front of the kōrero. We understand that that responsibility is specified in the bill in a number of ways, and other speakers have mentioned them. Firstly, the bill introduces local alcohol plans to be adopted using consultative procedures provided for in the Local Government Act, thus increasing community input into licensing decisions. Secondly, any application for an on-licence, an off-licence, or a club has to be consistent with the local alcohol plan. Local authorities need to notify the authority to state that they support the granting of the licence. Thirdly, the types of premises that may hold liquor licences are defined. Off-licences cannot be granted in small premises and are restricted to selling wine and beer. Finally—and importantly—those supplying alcohol will be subject to more stringent rules around their own performance in the industry.

A lot of these changes are to do with self-regulation and self-control. In 2000 at Manu Ariki, near Taumarunui, the first Māori alcohol and drug summit took place. Two of the key recommendations from the summit were, one, a need for leadership to advise and guide kai mahi—workers in the drug and alcohol area—and, two, a need for cultural competencies to standardise drug and alcohol services. Leadership may be about having Māori staff and Māori counsellors who have knowledge of tikanga, and kuia and kaumātua as mentors, explaining and promoting the programme to whānau so they understand what is involved.

Turning to the cultural competencies, it is all about developing a whole-of-whānau approach, especially if there are drug and alcohol issues at home. Since that first summit, Māori alcohol and drug service providers have been meeting regularly, I am told, to ensure that Māori retain mastery over our own solutions to address alcohol-related harm. Their commitment is that Māori are able to honour and respect themselves, others, and their places of belonging. To do that, Māori need to be free of the behaviours that threaten our way of being.

When we look through the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill we can say that although we are pleased to see the greater clarity around the roles of managers of off-licence premises and of licensing authorities, we know it is but a partial solution. Real solutions are likely to be most effective when coordinated at multiple levels in society. Real solutions involve stakeholders at all levels and, we believe, our families and whānau. Real solutions engage our whānau and are directly run with those who are at the centre of this bill: our rangatahi.

We will support this bill at its first reading because we want to encourage a debate that is as wide as possible on an issue of such critical and fundamental importance to our nation. Our policy as the Māori Party has been to support whānau-focused alcohol and drug addiction recovery and restoration services. We are particularly concerned for the futures of our young people. More than 53 percent of the entire Māori population is under 25 years of age, so we have plenty at stake here.

We cannot turn a blind eye and ignore the profile of young people who drink in Aotearoa New Zealand. We know that the consumption of large quantities of alcohol in one sitting seems to be an accepted norm these days, and if there is one thing we would most like to see this bill achieve it would be to change the attitudes that lead to the behaviours of binge drinking and getting wasted, which we all condemn. We will support this bill and we look forward to more changes to come to ensure a huge and meaningful reduction in drinking-related harm for our young people. Kia ora tātou.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) : I could not agree more with my colleague who has just resumed his seat, Te Ururoa Flavell. Much of what he had to say was absolutely right. I also say that it would be hypocritical of me to take a pious view of the consumption of alcohol now at age 49, or to, while thinking back to when I was in my 20s, take some sort of position that would be inconsistent with my own lifestyle.

As the father of two young adult boys, I am fully aware of the impact that alcohol can and does have on a lot of families. I also say that I believe that this generation of young New Zealanders is actually far better than we were. On the whole, they are much more responsible and much less likely to get involved in alcohol-related activity, shenanigans, legal disobedience, or other such activities than was our own generation, notwithstanding some of the television footage we see of students in Dunedin and other places—and that is certainly at the top of the news at the moment. I firmly believe that, percentage-wise, they are not as bad as some would have us believe. That said, we do see a large number of young people—and I mean very young people—overindulging in alcohol. Whom do we blame for that? Whom should we ask why that is so?

I congratulate the former Labour Minister, Lianne Dalziel, who recently took a call and put forward some of the research that had gone into the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. The bill states that something like 60 percent of the minors surveyed identified their parents as being the suppliers of alcohol. Their parents, of course, are people of our generation, so we need to look no further than the type of culture that has developed in our time, rather than in the time of the children who are now offenders.

The bill itself, as other speakers have said, covers a number of issues around the advertising activities of licence distributors and other such things. But according to the research done for the bill, only 10 to 15 percent of those who are involved in under-age drinking actually purchase the alcohol themselves. There is already a fairly powerful law around the purchasing of alcohol by minors, which is that one must present either a driver’s licence with a photograph on it, a passport, or a special identification card before the licensed premises can serve alcohol. If the licensed premises do not obey that law, then some fairly hefty penalties apply. So clearly the argument, in that regard, is about enforcement rather than about a change of law.

We must come back, then, to the basic principles. Some speakers have talked about advertising. My 23-year-old son arrived home from Victoria University wearing a T-shirt that stated “Tuiversity”. I asked him what “Tuiversity” meant and whether he knew how big the cheques were that I was writing out so that he could enjoy this so-called higher level of learning in Wellington. We never had to have T-shirts with “Tuiversity” on them to learn the values of the consumption of that fine product from Mangatainoka. I asked him what he was doing wearing these T-shirts. He said to me that I needed to get with it and that if he wore the “Tuiversity” T-shirt to the Speight’s Ale House often enough they would give him a Speight’s T-shirt so that he would be kept in clothing throughout his university studies without it being a burden on his parents. I do not know how much one has to invest in the Tui product to be eligible for these shirts, but certainly he collected a fair volume of them.

I will also share with the House a small anecdote. On the weekend a number of colleagues and myself went to the Hurricanes match in New Plymouth and watched the Hurricanes thrash the Australians again. At that great occasion I ran into the father of a close friend of my son, who was also a Victoria University graduate. He said to me that at his son’s wedding the “teenagers”, as we call them—but they are not actually teenagers; they are young adults now—were very, very responsible. There was no drunkenness or stupidity. In fact, they behaved at a very high standard. He was surprised; I do not know why that is, but he was. I suggested to him that I had experienced that situation a number of times in that I had been nervous about one or two things that were likely to take place at our place, and then I had been pleasantly surprised not to have had my apprehensions borne out. I suspect that a minority of children consume alcohol—that is, children from the age of 14 to the legal age of being able to purchase alcohol, as the Minister rightly said—

Hon Paula Bennett: Former Minister.

SHANE ARDERN: —as the previous Minister said. Of course, that is right. The law has never, ever prescribed a drinking age; it has prescribed a purchasing age. There is a lot of debate around at the moment about whether that issue should be revisited. I suggest that it should be properly enforced. That would be a better approach.

An expert, multidisciplinary steering group reviewed the self-regulatory system for alcohol advertising. It considered a broad range of evidence and concluded that alcohol advertising plays a role in shaping the culture of drinking, and that it reflects and amplifies drinking practices in the context of a country’s social, economic, and cultural history. I suspect that that is absolutely right. Hopefully, this bill, once it becomes law, will go some way—at least we hope it will—to addressing the culture that has developed in society around the problem drinking that we see so often now in television bulletins, particularly around universities, and the behaviour that is taking place as a result of that drinking, as well as some of the crime statistics that we see from time to time.

The review also found that there were a number of gaps. The gaps are that industry is largely accountable for the system, with limited opportunity for influence by the Government. In other words, there is a self-governing regime, as far as advertising is concerned. This bill goes some way to giving both local and central government the opportunity to say: “Well, look, we have given you guys a go. You haven’t played ball, in terms of what society expects from you in general, so you either do that or we will bring in some law, regulation, local body law, or other such thing that will make you do so.” The report identified that there was no real legislative framework to do that, so this bill brings that in.

The system is not underpinned by clear policy goals. In other words, in one area one thing applies; in another area another thing applies, so therefore there is confusion and uncertainty around what is expected of various providers. We have heard tonight in this debate a lot of anecdotal evidence, at least, of various suppliers running loss-leader wars on alcohol. The previous Minister said that in her view it was a great pity that we allowed beer to be sold in supermarkets. Well, as someone who goes into the supermarket on the way home occasionally and picks up a few dozen for friends who are coming round to watch the rugby match or whatever, I actually find it very convenient to buy beer from supermarkets. Why would she penalise 90 percent of society for those who would offend, given, as has been stated many times, that it is the parents themselves who need to be accountable for teaching young people or showing responsibility in respect of the use of alcohol? I am not sure I agree with the previous Minister on that point, but some clear guidelines around advertising and how supermarkets and other outlets should run loss-leaders and other such things in the promotion of alcohol may need to be looked at.

There are no infringement powers in cases of persistent and serious non-compliance, so clearly this bill does something in regard to giving local authorities, in particular—but not just local authorities—an opportunity to do something about that.

This bill is a small step to overcoming what has become a growing problem in our country, but I think it is a problem that is more cultural and more parent-driven and will be resolved within the community, as opposed to being resolved by legislation. But the legislation will give more powers to those who wish to do something. Thank you.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) : I support the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, but I am under no illusions that it needs to go much further than it does if we are seriously to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Alcohol causes between $1.5 and $2.5 billion worth of economic and social harm each year in New Zealand. It is by far the most damaging drug in this country. It is the most damaging drug not because it is intrinsically the most dangerous drug—far from it. It is the most damaging drug because it is the most available drug. In recent years, when alcohol was made much more available, predictably the harm caused by alcohol has also risen. In recent years we have lowered the drinking age, and more young people are being harmed much more often. We have allowed more widespread alcohol advertising. We have allowed the sale of liquor in more places and for longer hours. The resulting harm is there to be seen by anyone who cares to look: in the carnage on the streets and in alcohol-fuelled crime waves.

Nothing makes it more obvious that the Government has its priorities wrong than the casual attitude towards alcohol that we just heard from the previous speaker. If the Government truly wanted to reduce crime, it would make alcohol less available. If the Government truly wanted to reduce the health bill and make New Zealand more productive, it would reduce the availability of alcohol. It is cynical if people come in here to Parliament and pronounce grimly about the toll that alcohol causes yet they do not take effective action against it. Some of the Government members were the first to sneer about a nanny State when someone tried to fix problems such as this. They claim to be anti-crime but they also sneer and call anyone who tries to reduce crime the “fun police”.

Let us look at what they mean by “fun”. In 1999, 500 people were killed on our roads. By 2007, total road deaths had declined to 410—a reduction of 90. But the number of road deaths among 15 to 29-year-old New Zealanders did not fall anywhere near as much as that. Last year, if the toll among 15 to 29-year-olds had fallen by the same amount as the rate fell for the general population, there would have been 20 fewer deaths of young New Zealanders. In the context of 410 deaths, 20 fewer does not sound much, but the Transport Agency values the life of anyone killed on the road at about $2.5 million. If we multiply that by 20, we are up to $50 million, and that is only the direct economic cost. The social and human cost is much greater. So why would the toll not fall among young people in the way it fell among the rest of the population? There is only one reason: the drinking age was lowered.

In the years prior to 1999, when the drinking age was lowered, the number of dead drivers who had an alcohol level above the legal limit was tracking down. Since 1999, when the purchase age was lowered, the number of dead drivers in that category has stopped tracking down. Because we reduced the age, more young people are being killed and injured. Those are the brutal facts. In 2000 there were 4,079 15 to 29-year-old car and van drivers involved in injury crashes. In 2007, 7 years after the lowering of the drinking age, there were 6,538 injury crashes involving 15 to 29-year-olds, which is an increase of 60 percent. Is that just an accident of history or is there a causal relationship between lowering the drinking age and that figure? I leave members to draw the obvious conclusion. The number of injury crashes among young people is far greater than the number among the general population. The research in New Zealand and around the world is clear: there is a direct link between the availability of alcohol and the level of harm caused by it.

Alcohol is also an enormous factor in crime. Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated in some way with alcohol abuse. If we talk to police on the front line, we will hear many of them say that over 90 percent of the criminal activity they deal with is caused through alcohol abuse. That is what they are dealing with. Between half and three-quarters of all police work is associated with that problem. Two out of three people whom the police deal with as offenders have been using alcohol prior to the offence being committed. Is that some kind of accident, or is there a causal factor there?

So I support the measure in the bill to reduce access to alcohol, and I have no truck with people who call it “nanny State” or who call anyone who is voting for this bill the “fun police”. This issue is not funny. I condemn anyone who says that a vote for mild restrictions on this dangerous drug is a vote for prohibition. Sensible control of alcohol is not prohibition, and pretending they are the same is both irresponsible and distorted. Restricting the availability of alcohol will make a huge difference.

About 5 or 6 years ago, some members who are now in the Government bitterly attacked me when, by accident, I was acting for the then Minister of Customs, the Hon Rick Barker, who was in the Chair just a little while ago. I copped all the flak for what actually happened, but I took steps on that night to increase the excise rate charged on alcoholic drinks in the range of 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume. Those drinks were euphemistically described as light spirits, but they were 23 percent proof alcohol by volume. They were being sold cheaply, and were being advertised in the school holidays, so the kids could buy bottles of gin, vodka, brandy, and whisky for around $8. The increase in the excise duty on those light spirits stopped, almost at once, those spirits being sold and the binge drinking that had taken place as a result of drinking them. The reduction in alcoholic drinks released for sale as a result of that excise duty increase was 80 percent. So 80 percent of the light spirits—23 percent proof alcohol—were stopped by an increase in excise duty. That shows how sensitive alcohol is to price, in terms of young people. The decline in the quantity of so-called light spirits drunk by young people was half a million litres.

I was criticised for not making any difference. I think half a million litres of high-level alcoholic spirits not being drunk is a pretty good result. I must say that some parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House were abusing me for being the “fun police” or the “nanny State”, saying none of it would work, and all the rest of it. Well, it actually did. One of the principal manufacturers immediately reduced the alcohol content of the product from 23 percent to 13.9 percent, because that complied with the new law, but, eventually, the company went out of the business because the increased cost was effective in terms of restricting use. That shows that we can make a difference. To anyone who asks what we can do, I say it was done. That measure meant half a million fewer litres of high-level alcohol were drunk, sales were 80 percent lower, and eventually the product was driven off the market.

I support the objectives of this bill. I support reducing the availability of alcohol, particularly for young people. I support more restrictions being put on alcohol advertising and availability in the community. I must admit it is a constant irritant to me to see major sporting events celebrating the use, and abuse, of alcohol. After every game people are going out to “have a few quiet ones”, and we see the result of that in the newspapers, usually on a Monday morning. So if the Government wants to keep the wild promises it has made to seriously reduce crime in New Zealand, it had better come back to this House very soon with some more significant issues on alcohol abuse. I am not at all confident that it will, because the issue is not very popular. I know that, but it happens to be right. I support the start that is being made here, but I hope it is not the end of what we need to do in this matter.

MELISSA LEE (National) : I rise to support the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which amends three Acts relating to liquor, including the 20-year-old Sale of Liquor Act 1989. The attempt to reduce the opportunity for society and individuals to be harmed by the misuse, or excessive consumption, of alcohol is obviously supported by the whole House, and many statistics have been given by previous speakers more senior than me. It is lovely to see, for the first time since I have been in the House, that everybody agrees or seems to agree.

New Zealand has a permissive drinking environment. We have quite a relaxed attitude towards having a few after work, at social gatherings, and at the dinner table. Like my colleague, I, too, will not try to be pious about my drinking. I enjoy a glass of wine; about this time of the night I like a glass of wine, but I did not partake tonight. Yet with our relaxed attitude to alcohol consumption, there is a concern around the social supply of liquor to minors. At one time or another, we have all witnessed unsupervised drinking in large quantities by minors, and some of us have participated in it—several decades ago.

To address the drinking behaviour of minors, we need to change the behaviour of individuals and communities. To make this happen we need a supportive regulatory environment and a public that is aware and owns up to the challenges we face with this issue. We need consistent and effective enforcement. Having been the holder of a liquor licence, I know how important it is for licensed premises to be responsible hosts. Compliance by industry will also help to address drinking behaviour.

I learnt how to drink from my parents. I was allowed to drink the froth off my parents’ beer when they were having one; I was allowed to acquire the taste for wine and spirits with little sips; and I was eventually allowed a full glass of wine when I became legal age. Many responsible parents do this. In fact, 92 percent of parents agree that the primary responsibility for helping teenagers learn how to handle alcohol responsibly belongs to parents. However, there is growing concern regarding the extent of alcohol-related harm, and I know that many communities are frustrated by their inability to manage that harm. There is a need for us to improve local control over where, to whom, when, and how alcohol can be sold in communities, to ensure that the social impact is taken into account in licensing conditions.

Something I really like about this bill is the introduction of new offences for adults supplying liquor to minors without the consent of a parent or guardian—that has to be good. The bill increases penalties and limits the defence for those selling alcohol to minors. For me, the best part is that inexperienced drivers aged under 20 who do not have their full licence will have to have a blood-alcohol level of zero. I know that that will not be popular with some young people, but most of New Zealand will applaud it.

This legislation is part of a priority area for this Government—looking at a variety of alcohol-related issues—so I support this bill and hope it passes through its first reading to enable select committee hearings to commence in the not too distant future. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I am proud, after many sitting weeks in this House, to finally be discussing a bill that goes some way to addressing some of the social harms and social issues that contribute to crime. We in this House all know that crime has been a major topic of discussion and debate, and I am pleased that we have moved on to alcohol as part of that wider discussion.

The Minister, the Hon Simon Power, at some point, I believe, pointed out that between 80 percent and 89 percent of serious crime has some association with alcohol. There is an intrinsic link, which means that this bill is particularly timely. There are, of course, other links with health and well-being, which have been drawn out by previous speakers, but I want to dwell on those with particular reference to young people.

The Youth 2007 survey, which I do not think has been raised in this House to date, was recently released. It is one of the largest surveys conducted in New Zealand, covering over 9,000 young people who are currently attending high school. It is the most comprehensive youth health and well-being survey that we have. What did the most recent survey tell us? It told us what many have already asserted in this House—that 72 percent of students have tried alcohol.

There is a difference, though, between those who have tried alcohol and those who consider themselves drinkers. Of those surveyed, 61 percent currently consume alcohol, and of those who drink, a third do so weekly or more often. But that does not strictly bring them within the definition of binge drinking. Of those who do consume alcohol, one-third has five or more drinks within a 4-hour period, and for young people in New Zealand that is the definition of binge drinking.

Obviously, those results have consequences. We have already talked about the impact on crime, but there are further consequences that we intuitively know. Young people are more likely to indulge in risky behaviour when they are under the influence of alcohol, and the Youth 2007 survey told us that of current drinkers 14 percent have partaken in unsafe sex, 7 percent have partaken in unwanted sex, and 22 percent have suffered injuries whilst under the influence of alcohol.

I think it is important that we put all of this into context. Not all young people are prolific drinkers. It is really important that we underline that fact in this House—not all young people are binge-drinkers. In fact, the Youth 2007 survey showed us that, in comparison with the Youth 2001 survey, there has been a decrease in the number of young people who could be defined as binge-drinkers. But that does not mean that we do not still have an issue to deal with—we do, and all of us in the House acknowledge that.

I highlight again, though, that it is not a new issue, and some members have highlighted that fact from their own personal experiences. Where we perhaps differ, in some parts of this House, is on how we address the problem. One thing I have heard many members acknowledge is that we have a cultural issue to address. Drinking is an issue of culture in New Zealand, and 14 percent of young people drink to get drunk. Let us compare that with the adult figure of 9 percent. Some might perceive that there is a much bigger divide between the behaviour of our young people and the behaviour of adults—there is not; it is 14 percent versus 9 percent.

This fact has been recognised by a number of our more eminent members of the sector. In fact, the chief executive of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC), Gerard Vaughan, is quoted as saying that young people’s drinking has to be seen in the wider context of the adult drinking culture in New Zealand. He has said that young people learn their drinking behaviours from those around them, and that until we change the adult drinking culture, we will not change the behaviour of young people.

This is the collective responsibility of community leaders, recognised role models, the youth sector, and us. But what can we, as legislators, do in addition? Obviously, we have an additional role beyond just being role models and exemplars. Availability is one of the issues that has been talked about already, and that is addressed in this bill. Dr Sue Bagshaw from the 198 Youth Health Centre in Christchurch, someone I have been lucky to meet with briefly, has already identified the fact that nothing will change unless there is some restriction around the marketing of alcohol, and alcopops in particular—alcopops being cheaper and more sugary versions of spirits, which some young people consume. So I think that a wider debate is needed on that.

The chief executive of ALAC also recognises the contribution of alcohol availability to our levels of consumption, and this bill goes some way to addressing that. But the issues of availability and responsibility are also intrinsically linked. Some members will recall that when the issue of the purchasing age was debated, the common perception was that if we lowered the age to 18, the supply age would drop by virtue of younger adults supplying their peers and those even younger still. I think that that was a bit of a distraction in that debate.

If we look again at the Youth 2007 survey, we see that 53 percent of young people claimed to be supplied with alcohol by friends. We do not know whether they were within the legal age. The bill looks at parental consent—and rightly so. Those young people will be drawn into the legislation as they will be required to have the consent of a parent before supplying a peer. But, as already has been acknowledged, parents are in fact the biggest suppliers. That is highlighted by the Youth 2007 survey, which states that 54 percent of young people are supplied with alcohol by their parents.

We cannot assume that parents always act responsibly when they supply their children with alcohol. To say they do, I think, is a fallacy. In fact, Deb Fraser, the manager of Dunedin’s Mirror Counselling Service has stated: “Parents will sometimes provide their children with a 1 litre bottle of vodka and not actually follow up where their child is going. At times it is challenging to educate those parents because they drink and smoke in the same way as their kids. It is not about not supplying alcohol, at all, but doing it in a responsible way and leading by example.” Again, that has been highlighted in the House, and it is something I wanted to reiterate.

The final source of supply is someone else buying alcohol on a young person’s behalf, and the bill addresses that issue also by tightening up and clarifying, I would say, the requirements around a retailer checking ID. A defendant will now have to prove that what seemed to be evidence of age was produced, and that that defendant could believe on reasonable grounds that the evidence was in fact legitimate.

There are two major points I want to conclude on. A journal article recently—in fact, last year—on social science and medicine found that marketing and pro-alcohol advertising in social features created an environment where drinking to a state of intoxication was naturalised, and it concluded that action was needed to regulate exposure. That is another area that the bill addresses through self-enforced regulation.

The point I want to finish on, and to underline the House, comes off the back of some evaluation work that has recently gone on around youth access to alcohol projects that have been undertaken in 30 communities. Early evaluation from those programmes has again demonstrated that parents continue to be our major challenge in this area, and I would also assume, based on my experience of growing up in a provincial and rural area, that off-licence consumption is also one of our bigger challenges. That evaluation work also found that involving young people is integral to the success of the programmes.

We cannot vilify young people in this debate. If we vilify young people, it will impact upon our success and act as a distraction from the real issues. Instead, young people must be involved in this debate. They must be a part of finding the solutions. I challenge the Minister to ensure that that is exactly what happens in the continuing development and work around this bill. We will find solutions that minimise the harm caused by alcohol only if we continue to go beyond the first steps of this bill.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : Tonight we are discussing very important legislation that has come before this House. We are looking at the balance between liberty and responsibility, but we are also looking at it within the framework of families with parental concern for their children. One of the things we understand, especially through the growing teenage years, is that alcohol seems to be a rite of passage that many young people seek. It seems to be one of the things that they consider marks their growing up and becoming more mature, whereas in fact we see the misuse of alcohol as a sign of immaturity. Liberty without responsibility inevitably leads to a long list of ills whereby someone pays, and pays tragically. This legislation will bring in measures that will protect our young people oft-times from themselves, but also from adults who are less responsible than they are, and protect them and our communities from the harm that the abuse of alcohol can bring.

There is never an age where excessive drinking that leads to abusive behaviour is acceptable, but it is exceedingly unacceptable when it is a minor who is affected by excessive alcohol. When we see the abuse, the pain, and the destruction that happens to adults and to families because of alcohol abuse, it grieves us to think that such a path can be taken at an early age by those so young amongst us. It is unacceptable, because they are forming values and behaviour patterns that often govern the entirety of their adult lives. A pattern of alcohol abuse can become ingrained in them. In our society there are many what I would call eases of attitude towards things that we would normally consider to be elements that we want our young people to move away from. We find ourselves today facing these situations with this legislation being presented to the House, and I think it is very good legislation.

This bill seeks to address the drinking behaviour of minors, but it also seeks to address the behaviour of adults who enable minors to have access to alcohol. It brings a legislative framework that makes alcohol abuse amongst minors difficult. There is a change in attitude in New Zealand at the moment around alcohol issues that has been spearheaded by individuals and communities. They are demanding a say in liquor licensing decisions. Our nation has developed a drinking culture that feeds into crime, violence, family breakdowns, and injury in all sorts of different ways. We as a nation need to focus on and address this drinking culture, and this legislation goes a long way towards doing that. The harm that results from our drinking culture is very high, compared with a few years ago when people did not accept that we had a binge drinking culture in this country. We have a drinking culture that oft-times seeks to alleviate the pain, anger, and frustration that adults carry, but amongst young people we have a drinking culture that seeks to lift a person up, to be idolised by his or her peers.

Peer pressure is very strong, especially amongst teenagers. Last weekend I had a conversation about peer pressure with some 13-year-olds. Peer pressure is something that tends to make our young people, and even adults, do things that would not normally be acceptable, or are unsafe or unwise. Our greatest concern regarding alcohol and young people is the injury that occurs, especially with the use of motor vehicles. It is very good to see that this legislation provides for a zero tolerance regarding alcohol consumption for people under 20 who do not have a full licence.

There is also increasing concern about the extent of alcohol-related harm. Communities are frustrated by their inability to manage that harm. There is a need to improve local control over where, to whom, when, and how alcohol can be sold in communities, to ensure that social impact is taken into account in the licensing conditions. In this context, the policy objectives of the bill are to improve the compliance and responsibility of industry, to increase community input into licensing decisions, and to support a more moderate and responsible drinking environment and culture to address the normalisation of youth drinking. We want to see the responsibility that friends and adults have towards each other improved and enhanced. They are the ones through whom young people in particular can have access to alcohol. We want to see an increase in youth responsibility and accountability, and clarification of the types of premises that may hold off-licences.

Accountability is a word that this Government has used on a number of occasions. Accountability basically says that there are areas in our communities and society that need redress, and we want people to be thinking about them and acting in responsible ways. In addition, this legislation introduces new offences for adults supplying liquor to minors without consent, and it increases penalties and the limitations of defence for sellers of liquor. It is very important that these aspects are brought to the select committee to be discussed, and are then brought back to the House.

Solutions rely on changing the behaviour of individuals and communities. The answer is not, and never has been, just legislation. There has to be an intent, a decision, and a commitment within a community that we want to have safer communities and healthy environments for our young people to grow up in. I would much prefer that parents teach responsibility to their sons or daughters, rather than their learning to drink somewhere else, away from the jurisdiction of their home. I believe that parents have a part to play in this whole process. Legislation must gird the efforts of parents and communities to train their children to become people who have a responsibility for the freedoms that our democracy affords them. Where there is an absence of legislation, there is a great lag in support for parents and communities.

The addressing of these problems involves having a supportive regulatory environment, and we must also have public awareness through informed community groups and discussion forums in our communities talking about these problems—particularly in areas where our young people are involved, such as sporting venues and clubs. There needs to be an ownership of the issues, an understanding of the rights and responsibilities, and consistent and effective enforcement.

This bill introduces a number of new measures. It introduces a new system of enforced self-regulation of alcohol advertising. The present regime is voluntary self-regulation. I believe that enforced self-regulation hardens up an area that must be attended to. This legislation takes into consideration the frustration that communities have with the number of liquor outlets popping up. Communities in Mairangi Bay, Oranga, Mount Roskill South in Auckland, and Cannons Creek in Porirua, have all protested against proposed new liquor outlets. One hundred people were drawn to a protest march in Porirua on 8 December, and there were almost 1,000 signatures on a petition against the latest proposed liquor store in Roskill South, which would be across the road from two schools and a kindergarten. There are some changes coming to this country, changes that I believe are well due, and I commend this bill to the House.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

STUART NASH (Labour) : I stand in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. As I said when I spoke in favour of this bill during its second reading, we should all be in favour of any legislation that promotes consistency across an industry or product, especially when that consistency benefits an organisation with the public health mandate such as the one that the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) has. Again, I spoke at length on the council previously, and my colleague Jacinda Ardern quoted its chief executive officer extensively in her recent speech in this Chamber. We should be even more in favour of the bill, given that the proposed amendments will have minimal impact upon those who will pay this levy—that is, the customers who purchase alcohol. Therefore, industry, consumers, our communities, and society benefit from this amendment bill.

It is a technical amendment bill, but that does not detract from its importance or its function. Basically, as has already been alluded to, this bill amends the Alcohol Advisory Council Act of 1976 by simplifying the current mechanisms for setting the Alcohol Advisory Council levy. It solves the problems that exist with the current levy-setting mechanisms by introducing an updated and simple calculation system that reflects the current alcohol market as well as future-proofs the levy against new types of alcoholic products. The amendment bill also provides for regulations to be made by Order in Council to fix the rate of levy payable. Of course, the debate on this bill is not the occasion on which to debate the concern around alcohol-related harm, but, as with the last bill debated, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, any legislation that helps our communities—in this case, through the good work of ALAC—to be better served through education and enlightenment around the healthy and safe use of alcohol is a start. Our communities demand this, and that is why the last Labour Government introduced this bill.

I think we all agree that one of the positive aspects of this bill is that alcoholic beverages with a higher volume of alcohol will contribute a higher portion of the levy. This is salient in today’s environment where evidence shows that young drinkers are drinking the dreaded alcopops—in essence, alcoholic fizzy drinks—and the role of ALAC has reached a new level of importance and relevance. The new system will not affect the total sum collected for the levy, and the effect on prices for consumers, through shifts in the levy payable between beverage types, will not be significant—approximately 2c for a 750 ml bottle of spirits, and a difference of less than 1c for a bottle of wine, a six-pack of beer, and a four-pack of ready-to-drink beverages.

This bill has its genesis in the 2004 Ministry of Health review of the current levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976, which found four major problems with the way in which ALAC’s levy was calculated and apportioned. The first problem was that it was outdated—the industry has changed considerably over the past 30-odd years. The second finding was that the spirits category required a calculation of proof litres; this concept is no longer in use. The third problem was that the current levy-setting mechanism was unnecessarily complex, and the fourth was that section 27 of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 allowed the levy to be set by the Minister of Health by Gazette notice; hence there was no process for Cabinet to be involved in the levy-setting process. This bill rectifies all those anomalies; therefore, I support it wholeheartedly. Thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : Unlike the previous bill, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill is not intended to contribute to reducing alcohol-related harm. Instead, the bill aims to simplify the calculation of the levy that funds the Alcohol Advisory Council. I must say what a very important job the council does. It receives in levies about $12 million, and that sum helps it to continue its work in research, in dissemination of information, in educational programmes, and in innovative treatment programmes. But the whole point of this bill is that it is a technical bill that is designed to simplify the machinery of levy setting.

It is interesting that the bill was brought in, I believe, in about November 2007. Here was a classic example of something that could have been simplified, but the previous Labour Government had other things in mind—things like the Electoral Finance Act. Labour was not going to simplify the entangled mesh of bureaucracy it had made over the previous 9 years, so it is a very positive thing that this new National Government has, with alacrity, brought this bill into the House and is passing it expeditiously. This bill is here to simplify and align the levies with the export duties that were out of line in the past.

Part 1 is the major part of the bill. However, I believe that by sleight of hand we are on to the transitional part. It is important to make it clear that this bill creates new definitions of wine, because in the past those definitions were not flexible enough to encompass the various drinks that have come on to the market, including ready-to-drink beverages, the alcopops, which change rapidly from moment to moment as the marketers think of a new product that they are able to sell. So it is important to put in a new definition and align that with a rate, which is done so in the schedule of this bill, in order to make a flexible regime in line with the excise duties. I note that the bill repeals the old definitions and brings in the new ones. The definition of “wine” substituted in clause (4)(a)(i) includes: “cider, perry, and mead; and (ii) fortified wines such as sherry, port, and fruit or vegetable-based liquors; but (b) does not include—(i) beer or spirits; or (ii) any liquor containing no more than 1.15% volume of alcohol.”

I note that the bill has a very clear mechanism for determining the amounts of levy of each class of liquor. It goes in five steps that are very, very—

Hon Tony Ryall: Sequential.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —sequential steps, that are clearly delineated in an elegant but non-verbose manner, which, again, is in line with the philosophy of the new Government to make sure—

Paul Quinn: Sharp.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —that things are, indeed, sharp—

Paul Quinn: To the point.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —to the point, and relevant. The steps are described in proposed new section 26(2) of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act, paragraphs (a) through to (e). The rate of the levy is fixed by Order in Council, and that, again, is defined in the schedule, and is quite clear. It goes from class A to class F, and if indeed there is more than 1.15 percent but not more than 2.5 percent, the rate is 1.5 percent, but if it is more than 2.5 percent but not more than 6 percent, it is variable; and so forth, according to the schedule.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : I do not intend to take particularly long. As the previous speaker said, the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill is very clear. It sets out its intentions very clearly, and the amendments that have been made at the Health Committee are excellent; they clarify a couple of matters very well.

It is only natural, I suppose, that speakers have drawn a comparison between the previous bill, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, and this one. As we were debating the previous bill, a number of statistics and points of view were quoted from the health industry and the justice sector, and all of that information is brought together by the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). I think that is one of the most important things about this organisation—it allows a reasoned, evidence-based, sensible debate around alcohol issues to take place. That is why it is fantastic that we can tidy up the funding mechanism. It is got out of the way, it is nice and easy, and ALAC can focus on the good work does in supporting the kinds of issues we have heard debated this evening. There is universal support for the bill, although we heard a number of slightly different opinions, all with some evidence to back them up. That is excellent to see.

This is one of the benefits of treating alcohol in the way that we do. We regulate it. It is a legal substance, but it is regulated. That allows us to include the ALAC levy within the taxation of alcohol. It provides for the funding of an organisation like ALAC so that we can look seriously at the issues and at the balance, as the member opposite mentioned, between liberty and responsibility. I just add my support to the bill and to its speedy progress.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : I stand to support the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. I, too, will not take too long over this. This bill is a technical amendment bill, and it provides for a levy-setting regime that is fair, up to date, and simple to calculate. It replaces the current levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976. That Act was reviewed by the Ministry of Health in 2004. It found that there were problems in the way the levies were calculated and apportioned. Clearly, there was a need to move this levy system into the 21st century, and, effectively, this bill does just that.

The functions of the Alcohol Advisory Council, as far as we are aware, include research, dissemination of information, educational programmes, and innovative treatment programmes. These functions are vital if we are to arrest the damage alcohol does within our society. However, this bill does not address that damage, unlike the previous bill that was debated—the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. As I mentioned, this bill stems from a review carried out in 2004 by the Ministry of Health of the mechanisms used to set levies in the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976. The review found that the levy-setting mechanisms were outdated, and that there were four problems in the way the levy was calculated and apportioned.

Firstly, in 1976 the classes of alcoholic beverages were limited. In fact, there appeared to be only four classes of alcohol. From my perspective as a 9-year-old growing up in Northland in 1976, those four classes appeared to be Lion Red, DB, cask wine, and top shelf. The point is that the range of alcohol available in the market has changed considerably since 1976, and the levy-setting provisions no longer reflect the diversity of alcohol available for purchase in New Zealand. I welcome the future-proofing of levies against the emergence of new types of beverages. The ready-to-drink products, which contain about 5 percent of alcohol and taste little different from Thrifty or Raro, were not available in 1976, so we can only imagine the jet-fuel mixes that will be released on to the market in the years to come. So I welcome this bill, which streamlines the levy classification of emerging beverages.

Secondly, the spirits category requires the calculation of proof litres—something that no longer exist. It is, therefore, an anomaly that needs rectifying. Proof litres are no longer recorded by the New Zealand Customs Service, which instead measures spirit volumes as litres of alcohol.

Thirdly, the current levy-setting mechanisms are unnecessarily complex, especially when viewed alongside excise duties, which are set on the basis of alcohol content. Alcohol importers and producers have noted that this procedure could do with simplification. There is no process for Cabinet to be involved in the levy-setting procedure, and that is inconsistent with the more robust procedures for setting levies such as the problem-gambling levy.

This bill corrects technical anomalies around the collection of levies, and does not, in fact, increase by much the amount consumers pay for the various alcoholic products. It makes the new system fairer, and ensures that a greater levy is paid for beverages containing more alcohol. Therefore I support this bill.

• Part 2 agreed to.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to support the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill in the Committee stage. However, the title “Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill“ is a little misleading. The bill does not amend the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). It is a technical amendment to the method of calculation of the levy that is applied to alcohol in New Zealand, and that is used to support ALAC. This amendment updates, simplifies, and streamlines the levy calculation to make it easier, and to make the process more transparent.

The method of calculation takes the existing levy and aligns it with the separate excise and excise-equivalent duties that are also calculated on alcohol. This levy was first applied back in 1972 when the council was set up. The method of calculation was designed to reflect the drinking culture of the 1970s. Since then our drinking habits—where we drink, what we drink, and how we drink—have changed dramatically, and probably not for the better. It is time to update the calculation. The new calculation is future-proofed in that it is flexible enough to adapt to future changes in drinking habits, new products, and new ways of consuming alcohol.

The money from the levy is used positively by ALAC. When ALAC was set up it was designed to educate New Zealanders to use alcohol sensibly, and to reduce alcohol-related harm. It does that in four different ways. It does it by commissioning research about alcohol—about how we are drinking, and what we are drinking. It disseminates information. The ALAC website is a treasure trove of information about alcohol. It allows us to make good decisions about what we should be doing with alcohol in our society. It also develops education programmes, which are delivered in schools, in the community, and also on television and through other media.

The very hard-hitting ALAC message of how “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” accompanies these ads. About 94 percent of all New Zealanders remember those ads. They are very powerful ads; in fact, they are a little bit sickening. I do not know about other members, but when I see them on television I tend to turn away. The one that is particularly disturbing is the story of a family barbecue, with a young father playing with his son. At the beginning of the ad there is a lot of fun, there is a lot of laughter, and everybody is having a good time. But as the evening progresses and the father drinks more and more, he becomes drunk. He then plays with his son, there is a nasty accident, and the thud of the child’s head hitting the furniture is absolutely shocking.

We are shocked by those ads. They are very powerful. In fact, ALAC has won an award for producing such well-remembered ads. I think that even if people occasionally complain and say that they are too realistic, we need to face the fact that this sort of behaviour is going on, night after night, in our communities. The ads reflect what happens when dad is a drunk, maybe mum is a drunk, or maybe somebody in the extended family does not know how to manage alcohol.

ALAC is doing very effective work in our community, and this new bill will ensure that the levy that underpins its work is collected in the most cost-effective, simple, and efficient way. Therefore, I support the bill.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : As the previous Labour Government—in the form, specifically, of the then Minister the Hon Annette King—wrote the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, we will, of course, be supporting it. I do not think there is a lot of politics around this bill. It is based on the clear principle that crime must not pay.

Part 1 looks at significant criminal activity and other terms around that. The major change proposed by this bill is that a criminal conviction will no longer be required for property representing the proceeds of crime or the value of unlawfully derived income to be confiscated. We support this measure; we know that crime in any form is nefarious. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, has proposed a Supplementary Order Paper—which I know we will get to later—that provides some tidying-up and some technical amendments. I note that another Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 5, has been put forward by Mr Flavell. After some discussions with the Minister and others, I think that Supplementary Order Paper 5 presents some difficulties, and I believe that the Minister may want to provide some advice on this to the Committee. I am advised that he has taken a high degree of advice on this and, as a learned lawyer himself, he is well briefed. He may want to provide some clarification around that matter.

Currently the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allows the Crown to confiscate the profit made from a crime after someone is convicted of that crime. The profits of the crime, however, can be spread among many people, not all of whom are able to be convicted of the crime. Organised crime is an example of this, as we know. The bill deals with this problem by providing the Crown with the power to confiscate profits and assets obtained through criminal activity on the civil standard of proof. The bill will also allow us to tackle gang leaders who do not—shall we say—get their own hands dirty. Many of them, as we know, do not wear patches. This bill addresses and provides a huge weapon in the fight against organised crime and gangs, as opposed to—meaning no disrespect—the bill put forward by the Wanganui District Council and Mr Borrows, the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, which addresses apparel rather than providing key tools to attack gangs and organised crime. Again I say that I mean no disrespect, but I think that this bill is a substantive measure that will actually go quite a way towards addressing, hitting head-on, and dealing with gang leaders and organised crime. Some of the most insidious gangs and elements of organised crime in our community do not parade around on motorbikes and wear patches. In fact, they loathe any sunlight being poured on them or having any profile. They deal in the shadows and cause devastation with their activities.

We in the Labour Party believe that this bill provides an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. As we know, Australia, Ireland, and the UK have passed similar laws. I think that the Law and Order Committee has done a serious job on this bill. The report of the select committee has recommended a number of changes, which we will address as we go through. The key recommendations are that the police should be the recovery body, that the definition of owning “property“ should be extended to include those who might have an interest in it—hence dealing with many of the nefarious activities of organised crime—and that the definition of “instrument of crime” should be amended to include proceeds from the sale of property. There is also clarification of the circumstances in which property acquired can be restrained after a restraining order has been made.

I think this is a good bill. As I have said, it addresses very simply the notion that crime should not pay. There is a high degree of bipartisanship on this; we support the bill. I look forward to the Minister providing us—as I know he can as an expert in this area—with a very extensive extrapolation of the facts and the legal tenets behind the pitfalls or pluses we might find in Supplementary Order Paper 5.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : It is always a good sign when the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and I agree on an issue. I am pleased that this first occasion has arisen after 9½ years.

Clause 9 relates to one of the areas where the Law and Order Committee made a technical amendment. It was contentious for some submitters. The Legislation Advisory Committee and the Law Society held the position that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill was essentially a penal statute and should therefore not apply retrospectively. The Law and Order Committee did not share this view. It considered that the rule against retrospectivity, as provided for in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Sentencing Act and the common law, did not apply, because civil forfeiture is not universally considered to be a penalty, and does not increase penalties under New Zealand law. Also, the Committee might be interested to know that the bill is not completely retrospective in its application. It is limited to criminal proceeds obtained up to 7 years previously. This period was chosen for consistency with tax law requirements, as there is more likely to be a record of a person’s legitimate financial activities over this period.

I turn to clause 5, and in particular to Supplementary Order Paper 5, which has been offered up by the Māori Party—by Te Ururoa Flavell. It excludes, amongst other things, Māori customary land and Māori freehold land from the definition of “property” in the bill. The National Government is not in a position to support this Supplementary Order Paper, as I indicated to the member earlier.

Officials advise me of a matter that may help to put to rest the Hon Clayton Cosgrove’s mind as well as the mind of the promoter of the Supplementary Order Paper. The residual rights of innocent parties who are caught up in the forfeiture regime continue to attach to the procedure. This means that if an innocent party who can show an interest in Māori customary land, Māori freehold land, or the other land indicated on the Supplementary Order Paper makes an application for that land to not be dealt with under the regime—in other words, confiscated; well, caught by the regime, sold, and then the proceeds are divided—the court has an option of hearing that application and retaining the land. But the party involved in making the application needs to bring a clean slate to the proceedings—in other words, the party cannot be tainted by the criminal activity surrounding that application. As I understand it, that is the position.

So although the member might have genuine concerns about the multiple-ownership structure of, for example, Māori customary land or, indeed, Māori freehold land, to an extent—and I am not saying that it is as full as the member would like—there are options for application by parties who hold that status and are innocent in respect of the matter under consideration, in the same way as would apply, by the discretion of the court, if a spouse of someone who was caught under this particular recovery regime was completely innocent or unaware of the criminal activity. Those applications, and the capacity to make those applications, are available to that party.

As I understand it, the legislation does not run with a “must” but with a “may”. In other words, the court retains discretion in this area. But the legislation does mean that not all residual rights that would otherwise be held by an innocent party caught up in the application, when that innocent party had no part in the criminal activity, are completely lost. I hope that gives the member some assurances.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I had wanted to defer to the representative from the Māori Party in particular as he has a really important Supplementary Order Paper on the Table, but obviously he is not going to take the call. It is a bit difficult to comment on that Supplementary Order Paper without having the benefit of his contribution to the debate, which is why I was very keen for him to speak first but I may take an opportunity to speak again after he has.

I am deeply concerned about the proposal in the Supplementary Order Paper to exclude Māori customary land and Māori freehold land, land that has ceased to be Māori land, and land acquired from Māori for public works, etc., as listed in this proposed amendment. I am a little unclear from the Minister’s explanation as to whether he has received advice on whether this particular provision adds anything to the existing status of Māori land. Does it represent something that is required to be addressed in the legislation, or can we leave it to the application of existing principles under current statute? I suspect it is the latter rather than the former, and because this has been brought to the Committee by way of Supplementary Order Paper and we have not had a presentation from the person proposing it, it makes it very difficult for us. My instinct would be to vote against the inclusion of Part 1, clause 5 definitions, but not on the basis that, in principle, I object to what it is trying to achieve; I just believe that the current law already enables that to be the case. A very clear statement from the Minister—not just in the Committee stage but certainly in the third reading on the bill—would be very important to clarify that, in order that there is a clear statement of record in terms of the Government position on the application of the existing law.

There are important issues to have consideration of and I am very mindful of the fact. It may sound as though I am not speaking to the bill itself but that is because this amendment raises the issue of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, which was—of course—the Act that was under consideration in respect of what has become known as the foreshore and seabed issue. The reason I raise that is because the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 would never have been written the way it was written if in fact the In re the Ninety-Mile Beach case had never been decided in the way it was decided; there was no way a National Government in 1993 would have passed legislation that would have allowed for parts of the foreshore and seabed to become classified as Māori land and able to have a registrable interest under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act if it were not for the In re the Ninety-Mile Beach decision that actually limited the application of that registration to land that was contiguous to land considered Māori land under that Act.

I think it is an extremely important provision because most people do not understand the foreshore and seabed issue. All the court did was to overturn the In re the Ninety-Mile Beach case and that had a huge impact on legislation that had been passed in the belief that that law would stand. That is why it is really important that we have a very clear statement about what the legal rights and obligations are in respect of this issue and why it does not necessarily need to be dealt with in the context of this legislation.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Kia ora tātou, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of Ms Lianne Dalziel, I say that the example we used in respect of this particular issue in the second reading of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is about the land. I used the example of some of the constituents in my area, although not a lot of them are involved in such a situation. For example, we believe that a whānau could potentially lose its ancestral land as a result of another person growing cannabis on a farm without the whānau’s knowledge or even consent—hopefully, it would not be the consent at issue, but more the knowledge.

In the sense that there have been some precedents in the past in respect of some laws that have, unfortunately, alienated Māori land, I placed this issue fairly and squarely in front of the Minister Simon Power. His explanation was that there are some mechanisms. It is of real concern, particularly in the case of multiple-owned land where the owners live throughout the country, that people may not even know that this is going on. A family member or a trust member of some kind is caught up in some sort of wheeling and dealing, and all of a sudden the court has determined that some proceeds come from criminal activity. Firstly, the whānau members, being innocent parties, do not have any knowledge of the issue. Secondly, they have to apply to the court to maintain that land under their ownership, when they should quite rightly have the use and ownership of that land. That is of real concern.

I join with Ms Dalziel in the sense of asking whether there is a possibility of Supplementary Order Paper 5 adding to and benefiting the bill in one form or another in those circumstances. There should not be any doubt in the minds of anyone in this Parliament that the Māori Party is determined to protect any issues around Māori land interests. If there is any move towards the further alienation of land by any means, through the courts or unwittingly, then I think we certainly want to deter any thoughts about that. I seek the Minister to take a call to consider this line. For it is very important.

It is not that we do not have other concerns about the bill, of course, but this is the key one. It is just one example, but, nevertheless, its ramifications are quite far-reaching, particularly around issues of land. With that as a very brief explanation, I ask the Minister to perhaps take some consideration of how the bill might be added to. Kia ora.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is good to take a call at this stage of the progress of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, and to speak on Part 1 and on the purposes of the bill. I agree with the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that really its purposes are summed up by the words “Crime does not pay, and it should not pay.” I also agree with the member that gangs these days are no longer just the gangs that we see wearing patches, or the gangs that we talked about when we debated the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. They are often much more sophisticated than that, and it is important that we have a strong response to those gangs, as we do through this bill.

Where I suppose I part company from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is that although Labour has talked the talk on this issue, it was sad to see that in 2005 and the years following it, the previous Labour Government did not walk the walk. I note that at the election in 2005 the previous Government promised to pass into law a civil forfeiture regime to allow gangs to be stripped of the proceeds of crime. It did not do that; the bill languished on the Order Paper. Over Labour’s time in Government we had a situation where in fact although crime went up, the proceeds of crime that were seized went down. Since 2002-03 the total value of proceeds that were seized was one-third of what it had been, dropping from $3.6 million to $1 million, and at the same time the average value of each seizure dropped from $183,000 to approximately $24,000. That was a shame indeed, when, anecdotally, any police officer or prosecutor on the street could tell us that the amount of crime committed by gangs and in relation to P has gone up. So it is a shame that this bill has languished, but it is here now. It is good to see that the Opposition is in support of the bill.

I say to the Committee that the law on the proceeds of crime has been seen as a bit of a poor cousin in the criminal law arena. It should not have been; it is vitally important that we do more than send a message but actually make sure that crime does not pay. That is vital in the war on gangs and P. As I said at the first reading of this bill, it is quite clear to me—and a case in Mount Maunganui in my home electorate made this clear, when police swooped in over Christmas time and seized multimillion dollars worth of ingredients for the illicit manufacture of P—that the money that can be made in crime really does go not just into one or two million dollars but into tens of million dollars. As I said, I agree with the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that as the criminals and the gangs have become more sophisticated, then so must we. This bill here does that. It hurts the gangs to take their assets—not just to lock the gang members up but to make sure their Harley Davidsons, their motorbikes, and so on are taken. This bill goes towards that.

What does this bill and Part 1 achieve? As the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said, it repeals, effectively, parts of the confiscation regime we had previously, whereby it was only when we had the owner convicted that we would see the proceeds of crime seized.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.