Foster Andy; Smith StuartANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Look out of interest I'm going to ask two questions in relation to a couple of the Amendment Papers which are here and I'd like the sponsor of the bill to respond to these. The first one of them is that the idea of having a 10-kilometre radius seems to me to be very arbitrary. I understand that the idea is to try and avoid having grapes grown in say Marlborough and then sold—as we've heard about—in Auckland. I understand that concern. Was any thought given as to whether this should be say within the province within the district or within the territorial authority area or whatever it might be so that wine grown in Marlborough is sold in Marlborough and that becomes a cellar-door sale. But if you wanted to sell it in Auckland or Canterbury or whatever that might not be. There might be some boundary issues there but was any thought given to that kind of an idea because 10 kilometres seems very arbitrary and obviously there's some concern that there is no limit in terms of the distance. The second question I wanted to ask is in relation to Amendment Paper 31. The mover of that particular amendment Dr Duncan Webb wants to move away from just talking about grape wine and I note that when I look at the definition of wine" it actually says that it is grape wine and so if you want to make it something different you've got to make it fruit wine or something else like that. But we've got in the Amendment Paper "brewery cellar doors" we've got "meadery cellar doors" but what we don't have—and I heard some discussion around cider. I was wondering where are the cideries and I don't see those. My preference would be cider rather than beer—but you know. So we don't have that but I wonder if any thought was given—and I look both across the aisle there but also to you Stuart Smith—about making it just simply "alcoholic beverages" because we get ourselves into the situation of trying to micromanage these things to say that that one's in and that one's out. But why not be just more flexible because the one thing I do know from having been a district licensing commissioner in a past life and having had to work with the instruments that central government imposes on local government is that sometimes things are so closely defined it's actually really really unhelpful. So I just wondered about those two questions: first of all whether there's a different way of approaching the distance one and secondly whether there's a different way of approaching the definition of what other beverages might want to be helped by this bill. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I think I've covered this adequately before but I'll do it again. Once you get an arbitrary line there's always going to be someone on the wrong side of it and it was felt to be simple and it's covered here. The licensing authority as the member Andy Foster will know having himself been involved as one—we'll leave it to the judgment of them as to whether it's a valid cellar door or not. In terms of—what was the other question?—the cideries and so on we covered all that as well. That wasn't in this bill. Originally it was tried to be added to the bill but it was ruled to be likely to be out of scope. The member Dr Duncan Webb has brought it in legitimately through Amendment Paper 31 and it is legitimately here for the vote but the reality is that the work hasn't been done on it. All of those little rough edges that were in the bill have been sorted out through the select committee process but the ones in those Amendment Papers haven't and it's not actually in my view suitable at all—those particular Amendment Papers. Thank you."