Robertson GrantSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. Look it's still no surprise to Minister Robertson and obviously to the House that National's opposing this bill. So what are effectively three questions from me Minister: the first is how is this bill going to deal with existing liquor stores? Because as I read the new section—is it clause 12 where section 133 is being replaced? Long and short it could potentially—I just want to stress that word potentially"—hang existing liquor-licence holders out to dry.I think in my own electorate we actually have—not sure if this is a great thing to confess in the House or not—quite a number of liquor stores throughout the Tāmaki electorate and actually they are well-patronised by locals and well-liked and respected. But a number of them—using this as the example—are very close to the likes of schools and community centres and the like. And you know the ones that are coming to mind—I won't name them in the House per se but they've been there for many many years and are actually well-loved and respected not just for what they're selling but also for the people that they are. There's a risk or a perception of a risk that they're going to potentially lose their liquor licences with this new community participation amendment bill going through. So I'm wondering if the Minister can give us—or them in particular; and too my constituents in Tāmaki—some surety that they'll be able to continue so long as they're continuing in good practice.The second is around objections. As you read through the bill basically anyone in the country anywhere can put in an objection. So again a local Tāmaki liquor store in Saint Helier's could have someone—no offence to my excellent colleague here Penny Simmonds but someone in Invercargill could be complaining about the liquor store in Saint Helier's or Glen Innes or Ōrākei. Does he see any potential issues there and whether or not he'd be open to change that or at least put something in to push back on vexatious and I would argue irrelevant engagement?And the last is around the new section—sorry clause 14—apologies it's the new section 203A. I hope I can articulate this question well. It is a concern that so many conditions are being placed on the licensing committee to make sure someone feels happy giving their submission that it could almost become counterproductive. And what I mean by that is everything from the time and the layout of the venue the time table the languages used. I mean in themselves there's nothing wrong with that but to be slightly facetious if someone walks in and decides they don't like the colour of the carpet does the committee have to basically dissolve and set things up for the permission of the submitter? That's where I'm trying to get to actually. Is the law—and particularly that clause—setting things up so that a submitter really dictates how these events are structured? Because as I read the legislation they are. The submitter holds a lot of the power because the committee has to as it says "establish appropriate procedures to consider the applications." And it's all based after that on effectively the person giving the submission. So yeah does the submitter hold all the cards around how and where the process should be held?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): At the outset I'm obviously indicating that I'll endeavour to respond to all questions. I may need a little bit of time here and there given that it's not a bill that I have been following all the way through but I'll do my best to answer the members' questions as they come forward.And so clause 12 was the first question that the member Simon O'Connor raised around the position of existing stores. I do think it's important to note that while this does now introduce a discretion element in terms of a renewal of a licence that discretion is not completely unfettered. It's limited to deciding to renew the application regardless of inconsistency and the district licensing council may only decline to renew the licence if there is inconsistency around location or density in the local alcohol plan not other matters like trading hours. This change means that there's now greater consistency between renewal and new licence applications.So yes at a certain level I accept the member's point that this introduces something new for an existing licence holder but what the clause endeavours to do is create a consistent approach. I think the member will know that as a local MP of some reasonable time these issues are commonly raised—prior to this bill—around why licences are not renewed. I've had plenty of contact from those who've had them around their views of district licensing authorities. So actually I think the outcome here is a better one that provides for a consistency between the two approaches but it is limited to those matters around location and density within the local alcohol plan as it stands.In terms of the question the member raised around objections I think it would be pretty challenging for somebody to be able to make objections in every case. There's thousands of these sorts of applications that come through. Really what we're trying to do here is strike a balance of allowing more people to come into the process but for the process not to be used for commercial or trade reasons which is what's unfortunately happened to this point. So our view is that we are enabling community application. It's highly unlikely that we're going to see a big flood of objections from people cutting across the country given the situation and we do want communities to have the right to be involved.The final question from the member I will come back to him on but quite clearly whenever there is a committee set up to do anything it's a two-way street. The people organising the meeting have to be able to be there and run it and the people who are participating need to be given a fair chance to participate. I actually think members across the House would I would hope celebrate the general principle of the third of the goals of this bill which is to use technology to endeavour to find ways to make it a lot easier for people to participate in the public process. So I will come back and see if there's anything further—I'll get advice on that—but from my perspective I think we've got the balance right in that clause as well."