Arbuckle Jamie; Kuriger BarbaraJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. This bill is I must say common sense and that's something New Zealand First supports. Firstly I'd like to say New Zealand First supports this bill eight members have given me the proxy vote to be able to vote in favour. So we will be voting eight votes for you to support this bill to go to the next reading.The wine industry in New Zealand is a growing industry and where I'm from in Marlborough it's an industry that keeps on growing. We talk now of a $3 billion industry—this is an industry that has put New Zealand and places like Marlborough on the map—a $3 billion industry that is growing and out of a $3 billion industry that's created a massive amount of tourism. Where I'm from in Marlborough tourism and wine tourism is a massive thing. People specifically come to visit Marlborough to see the vineyards to visit the cellar doors. Where I am also in the heart of Renwick which is the heart of the wine industry people come and they go from cellar door to cellar door. It is a thing. On the weekends my wife and I do it. We go around and we visit the cellar doors. Generally we don't walk; generally we start on the bike and we get off to the first cellar door and we go along and we visit. By about the third cellar door the bike's probably put away and we're walking along.But the cellar-door concept is such a great thing for tourism and it's a great thing for linking up businesses. So as you go along and you visit different offerings—and those different offerings are growing in the offerings that are put out there; it is a reason to come visit. And it's not just about international tourism; it's about local tourism. So everyone comes to visit and has a look around.So in Marlborough for instance we've got over 80 percent of the wine industry and that's something we are really really proud of and something we want to promote. Tourism as I say is one of my favourite things; it's one of my portfolios. And when you think of it people come into the Marlborough Sounds the beautiful Marlborough Sounds—we all know where that is. People come in they come in on the cruise boats and they get off in Picton and sometimes they get on the bus or they get on to the flyer or on to the train and away they go and they go off to the cellar doors.So once they get to those cellar doors the offering's there but the person the winery cannot charge. In most cases they cannot charge. It's not common sense. So all of a sudden the businesses are giving away their product. And the most ironic thing was that—and we heard this through the submissions—businesses—and for one particular submission they said their bottles of wine were worth between $70 to $90 and they were giving away eight of them a day. You do the maths on that. Seven eight $900—and they're not getting nothing in return.And here's the rub. The rub about it—[Interruption]. No no listen. No this is the rub about it. Those same people that get off the cruise ship boat—they can't actually sell a bottle of wine to them because they can't take the bottle of wine back on to the cruise boat. So the only thing about that is the person gets the offering the person gets to go on the trip but the actual business doesn't get to make any money out of it. So this bill allows a small charge to cover the cost of that tasting. That to me is common sense.The Justice Committee was chaired by our leader—by our chairman—James Meager. Over 72 submissions came in but we heard a number of submissions—Hon Willie Jackson: Never heard of him.JAMIE ARBUCKLE: And we'll be hearing a lot more—hearing a lot more.Those submissions they were an eye-opener. We heard submissions from large producers; we heard from those little boutique wineries as well. And the majority of those submissions were in support of being able to charge to cover their costs. Red tape—and we've heard a lot about red tape on this side of the House. This is getting rid of a silly piece of legislation something we can change quickly to make businesses—the wineries—more profitable. It was really through the election campaign in Kaikōura that I first heard about this bill and I heard what Stuart Smith had done. He'd put this in as a member's bill and it had been pulled out and I must say that even while I was campaigning at that stage against Mr Smith this was well-received. Everywhere we went he could get up and say This is something that I can achieve—something that will do real good for the industry." and I must say that I couldn't say anything bad about it. It was actually a really good idea. Then hearing the submissions through the Justice Committee and hearing the arguments for and possibly against it was by far favoured and we heard in the first reading that I think it was one of the bills that was the most supported of any bills going through a first reading. It was also well supported through those submissions that we heard. What we are trying to stop here is a free-for-all so to anybody who would want to vote against this I would say to you why would you want to vote for a free-for-all because that's actually what you've got at the moment. You can turn up—my wife and I on that bike—to the first winery have one have two and there's no limit. Maybe we'll get back on that bike and we'll go to the second winery the second offering and you just keep on going and keep on going. There's no offering of food no offering of water but a lot of offering of wine—I've already forgotten the bike; I don't know where the bike is any more—so it makes a lot of sense to stop that. It's common-sense responsible consumption so we can get responsible consumption and we can actually charge. It's actually going to make a situation where when you turn up you're actually going to think a lot more about what you are purchasing and what you are tasting because you are going to be charged for it. Also there are going to be the offerings of food and the offerings of water. Also another thing we heard through the submissions was the size of the samples and it was quite surprising to hear that the size of the samples ended up being quite contentious. I think originally in the bill it was a 40-millilitre pour and through hearing about that and through maybe the views of some members on the other side of the House it has been reduced to 35 millilitres. A standard pour of wine is 30 millilitres and we heard from the sponsor of the bill Mr Smith that the people have wine glasses especially for the wine as it's poured so that that's done in a controlled way. So 35 millilitres 40 millilitres—to me that doesn't make a lot of difference there. The provision of having the snack food there is something again that is common sense. Having provisions of water and giving people water and provisions of food just makes sense. I think also that some of the definitions—through the Justice Committee we heard about the definition and another member of the House said that he is worried about the definition. But I think that the definition gives enough ability to control who can sell and who can't and so that has also been well thought through I believe by the Justice Committee. There were some differing views and I think we're going to hear this as this proceeds through the House. We did hear from the brewers around craft beers and that is something that has to be dealt with in a different bill. It can't be dealt with here. We've had a bill with this scope and we've heard about the scope through the Justice Committee. The scope here is not about bringing in other providers—not about bringing in craft beers. So I think what we have in front of us and the changes that we've made through the Justice Committee are common sense. New Zealand First will support this and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call Ricardo Menéndez March. Te Pāti Māori have indicated to me that they won't be taking their call."