SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Madam Speaker thank you. Good to take a call although it feels I suspect for all members a little bit of déjà vu. Because of course we're rushing this through urgency which means we've done the second reading committee of the whole House stage and now the third reading. So in some ways I'm not going to be saying anything particularly new including that National is not supporting this bill.The key reason—the key reason—is that ultimately this is going to affect local businesses and good locals neighbours and friends of ours who run their businesses in a good constructive way in the community. But the way that this bill has been structured is going to see some of those closed or to create so much uncertainty into their business environment that it's incredibly unhealthy.I just want to tease that out very briefly. Look first and foremost I agree with the speaker who's just taken her seat Vanushi Walters: alcohol harm is a problem in our society. How we address it has been a vexed question for as long as I've been in Parliament will be after I've left and has been well before I got here. We haven't got it right but I don't believe this is the way forward.I just want to illustrate coming out my own electorate—the great seat of Tāmaki—there are many liquor stores throughout the electorate. Many of them have been there for 10 20 some of them 30plus years. I'm not going to name them or particular people—they may not as liquor store owners want to be mentioned in the House—but they run an important service into the community. But a number of them for example are very close to schools. I'm thinking of one and I'm not a cricket player but even I could just gently throw a ball from the front door of their liquor store and hit the local school—not with any intention or malice. But we know with local alcohol plans—and understandably these plans want to put guidelines in place to say Hey look we really shouldn't set up a liquor store within 50 100 500 metres say of a school or a church or a community hall a marae whatever." Well that makes sense or somewhat can make sense to a new facility. But it's been very clear as this law has been progressing through the House that that could also apply to existing businesses which is what draws me back to my original point. Those existing businesses like the liquor store owners in Tāmaki and right across this nation are going to find that their businesses all of a sudden are under threat. That at any moment in effect local alcohol policies could see them close down. Close down.Again I want to be really clear: this is not about the providers or liquor store owners who are providing poor service. Most actually are great. They're our friends they're our neighbours and they're our locals. I don't believe that degree of uncertainty should be put to them. That's toxic—toxic—to any business.Secondly as I say I think New Zealanders—certainly my Tāmaki constituents—will be very surprised and disappointed if someone who's been there for 30 years is closed down because of this bill. So for that reason almost alone we're voting against it.The other part of it too—and it's one of my particular concerns—is the vexatious dynamic which could occur. We talk about community participation—and let's take for a moment that's a good thing. I have no problem actually with the people of Tāmaki wanting to talk about liquor stores in Tāmaki. But I think it's important for anyone listening at home and probably—hello Mum and Dad. That's at least two of the viewers; that might be all of them who knows?Hon David Bennett: One of them might have gone.SIMON O'CONNOR: One of them might have gone but—well I hope you don't mean literally gone. That would be a hell of a shock. Particularly to one of them. That was David Bennett Dad who made that interjection. You can call him later.But no seriously this is about the community. But actually people anywhere in New Zealand—anywhere within the Realm—can actually be submitting on a liquor store in Tāmaki. I don't know why they'd need to do that and I would argue it's somewhat vexatious. So I think it's too broad. But again the fundamental reason is I think this is going to be detrimental to existing local businesses. With that I cannot support this bill to the House."