Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): As chair of the busy and effective Justice Committee it gives me great pleasure and great surprise to take this call as the second speaker in this debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill which our committee debated long and hard over the past few months. This is important legislation which addresses a longstanding issue for New Zealand's wine industry and will provide significant benefits for our winemakers cellar door operators and the broader tourism sector. First I want to commend the member for Kaikōura Stuart Smith for his tireless work in championing this bill. He's a bit of a bill good luck charm I believe. This is not his first time around. And as a former chair of the New Zealand Winegrowers association with deep industry knowledge Mr Smith understands intimately the challenges faced by cellar door operators under the current regulatory framework. This bill is the culmination of years—and in this case of this particular House it is literally years of effort and consultation with stakeholders across the wine and tourism sectors.At its core the legislation aims to fix what we see is an anomaly in our current alcohol licensing laws that has made it unnecessarily difficult for wineries to charge for tasting samples at their cellar door—that's about it. It's a very very simple change. As it stands today before this bill passes many cellar door operators are forced to give away free samples of their products as outlined by Mr Smith which is both economically unsustainable and out of step with international norms for wine tourism. So by allowing wineries to charge a reasonable fee for tasting samples—very small samples—this bill will help put cellar door operations on a more sustainable financial footing.Now this is especially important for our smaller more boutique wineries. Now there's not too many of them around mid and south Canterbury but I know there are plenty in and around Queenstown-Lakes District where the member Todd Stephenson lives. There's plenty around the Marlborough district and of course Hawke's Bay and other parts of the country. It's worth emphasising that New Zealand's wine industry is actually a major contributor to our economy and our national brand. Wine is our sixth largest goods export by value earning the country over $2 billion in export revenue annually—$2 billion Mr Rutherford how's that?Importantly as noted previously by Mr Smith in his contributions our key wine export markets are largely OECD countries. Now as Mr Rutherford knows these are very discerning consumers who associate New Zealand wines with quality and help burnish our reputation for premium products across other sectors.Now wine tourism also plays a vital role in our broader tourism industry which happens to be our second largest export earner. The cellar door experiences are an integral part of New Zealand's tourism offering attracting both international and domestic visitors to our wine regions. And you only have to look at what's happening in Martinborough and in the Wairarapa to show how valuable domestic tourism in the wine industry is to that particular region. These visitors on average tend to stay longer and spend more and so they deliver higher economic benefits that ripple through regional economies.This bill is good for regional New Zealand. So by enhancing the viability and the professionalism of cellar door operations the bill will help strengthen New Zealand's wine industry. It will encourage more wineries to open cellar doors and invest in high-quality tasting experiences enriching our tourism product and helping to attract more high-value tourists.Now I do want to take the time to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the bill throughout the committee of the whole House stage and throughout the Justice Committee's deliberations. Some members throughout the committee stage have suggested that the bill could be exploited by retailers or bars to circumvent existing licensing requirements. I think the word speakeasy" was raised throughout the committee stage process. And I had to actually look that up because like Mr Rutherford I'm very very young and I don't think I've ever visited a speakeasy in my life. But I do believe these fears are misplaced. The bill has been carefully crafted with input from officials and the industry to prevent such unintended consequences. It includes a specific definition of a winery cellar door: a common-sense definition that limits the legislation's applicability to genuine wine producers. I think the fears of these speakeasys popping up around the place are misplaced.The bill also explicitly states that to qualify a business must be producing and selling grape wine products or selling wine produced on their behalf. Now I know there'll be members opposite who will argue that this is too ambiguous but we think it's pretty clear. This effectively precludes retailers or bars from taking advantage of these provisions.And then in addition to that the economic reality is this: it is very highly implausible that anyone would attempt to exploit this legislation to set up some kind of quasi bar operation. The maximum sample size as outlined by Mr Smith is set at just 35 millilitres—that's seven teaspoons of wine; about a fifth of a standard glass of wine. So no business could viably operate by selling such tiny samples as their primary offering.Some members have argued that the bill unfairly advantages the wine industry over craft brewers or distillers. We had some submitters from those sectors who brought their submissions through to the Justice Committee and some of their concerns that they raised were valid. Why not expand this bill to those industries? The committee's view was that this is a specific bill targeted towards fixing the anomaly for wine cellar door operators and that if members thought it would be appropriate to expand the bill to other industries they would be welcome to bring a member's bill themselves. There may well be merit in considering similar provisions but it would be more appropriately addressed through separate legislation.Finally I also want to rebut the suggestion made by members that this somehow will turn cellar doors—c-e-l-l-a-r doors—into mere sellers—s-e-l-l-e-r-s. And I know during the committee stage we had a lot of fun with sellers cellar doors and salary but fundamentally this misunderstands both the intent and the effect of the legislation. Far from diminishing the cellar door experience this bill will actually enhance it by allowing operators to invest more in creating high-quality educational tasting experiences by being able to recoup some of those costs. The ability to recoup those costs through very modest tasting fees will enable wineries to offer more comprehensive tastings potentially including older vintages like Mr Smith or limited release wines that they simply can't afford to pour for free.Moreover the bill includes several more provisions to ensure responsible service and consumption. As Mr Smith outlined it mandates the provision of water snack foods sets strict limits on those sample sizes and maintains existing host responsibility obligations. In many ways this legislation actually enhances safety and responsibility compared with the status quo; where today wineries can if they wanted to pour unlimited free samples with fewer controls. That's the current situation we're faced with. There is a reasonable argument that this bill will actually enhance the host responsibility obligations of those providers.Now some members—and we had submitters also raise broader concerns about alcohol harm in our society and we are very much aware of this. They are legitimate issues that deserve serious consideration. However I would argue that on balance this is a bill which narrowly focuses on addressing cellar door tastings. It's not the appropriate vehicle for tackling complex social problems. And that may well be in a wider look at the alcohol legislation which in fairness has been done over and over and over in time and yet we are yet to come to a satisfactory conclusion for many members. However I think that's probably a discussion for another day. But this bill if anything will help promote hopefully a culture of moderate appreciation focused wine consumption in controlled settings. Cellar door experiences can actually contribute to a more mature drinking culture.It is also worth noting finally just as chair of the Justice Committee it did undergo quite robust scrutiny through the select committee process. We received approximately 72 submissions from a diverse range of stakeholders. We had submitters from Waiheke Island we had submitters from the Wairarapa we had them from central Otago we had them from Blenheim. It appeared that most submitters happened to come from the places that the members on the committee came from so next time I'll be encouraging many more from mid Canterbury and south Canterbury with the multiplicity of vineyards that go through that fine region. And we also heard from 12 of those submitters in person.Throughout this process those submissions led to the several constructive amendments that we believe will have improved the bill and have refined the legislation and reflect on a pretty collegial process that the committee went through. Just to summarise those major amendments that we made did include tightening that definition of winery and cellar door adjusting the maximum sample size from 40 millilitres back down to 35 millilitres adding those requirements of water and snack food and clarifying the bill's applicability to remote cellar door operations to cover those operations where the vineyard was not necessarily on the same block or the same site as the cellar door.In conclusion this bill represents a sensible targeted reform that will deliver real benefits to New Zealand's wine industry and tourism sector. It will enhance the financial sustainability of cellar door operations improve our wine tourism offering and contribute to regional economic development. Importantly it does so while maintaining appropriate safeguards and responsible drinking practices. As this is a conscience vote I do urge all members present to support the legislation. It is an example of pragmatic industry supported reform that can make a tangible difference to New Zealand. I commend the member for bringing the bill to the House and I commend it to the House."