Don't let red tape dampen Te Kaha's historic opening weekend

Cameron Luxton is calling on Parliament to accelerate liquor licensing reform to ensure Christchurch hospitality does not miss out on a multi million dollar windfall during the grand opening of Te Kaha.

The opening weekend of Te Kaha, One New Zealand Stadium (24–26 April), coincides with the Super Rugby Pacific “Super Round”, but national restrictions mean hospitality venues are legally barred from serving alcohol after midnight on Friday, 24 April.

“Christchurch is about to host a landmark national sporting and tourism weekend. We have 10 Super Rugby teams, thousands of fans, and a long awaited new stadium ready to go,” says Mr Luxton.

“While local businesses are eager to open, Section 47 of the current Act imposes a national ‘blanket ban’ that the local council cannot override. Only Parliament has the power to fix this, and we have exactly 51 days to get it done.”

ACT is supporting the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Amendment Bill to remove these restrictions. To ensure the law changes before the first whistle blows at Te Kaha, Mr Luxton has drafted targeted amendments to bypass the bureaucratic backlog.

“If we don’t get this Bill into shape, we are effectively telling thousands of international tourists and domestic fans that Christchurch isn’t ready for the big leagues.

“I have raised this with the Leader of the House, Chris Bishop, who has confirmed to me that Parliament will have two members’ days prior to ANZAC Day, so we’ve got time to pass the Bill. We just need to make sure it is amended to cover bars and pubs, not just restaurants and cafés.

“The objective is simple: stop treating hospitality operators like criminals for wanting to serve a drink during a major international event. Let’s get the red tape out of the way so Christchurch can show the world what a world class opening weekend looks like.”

As currently drafted, the Bill would allow only restaurants and cafés to serve alcohol, while bars and pubs would be forced to remain closed. This is because it does not address the broader trading restrictions that prohibit a business from opening unless its principal business is selling food.

“I have put forward an amendment to allow businesses whose principal business is selling drinks to also open.”