O'Connor GregSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh look it would be lacking if an O'Connor didn't stand up and actually speak on an alcohol bill. I probably just impugned a pile of O'Connors across the country but anyway.Look I'm actually happy to support this. I think whenever there are competing issues rights goods values whatever you want to say there's always a bit of a competition. And some of the debate and discussion rightly tonight is on alcohol harm. It's one of if not the worst drug if you will that exists in this country and causes enormous enormous amounts of harm. I suppose the counterfactual is that it's something that's been socialised into human history for at least 6000 years of recorded history which for me begins to knock out a whole lot of the other drugs which people try to compare things with. Tonight's not for us to discuss I would say everything from fentanyl to methamphetamine—get my tongue around that—through to cannabis and others which is just a new harm. We've got the smarter approach.So really just what I want to draw attention to is this is a very good particular bill. I think Ian McKelvie as an electorate member of this House is responding to a need which he has seen in his community and across New Zealand which is ultimately that small racing clubs with moderate means are just wanting a little bit of flexibility around alcohol laws. And understandably when this Parliament passes the overarching laws which we do around well anything to be honest but in this case alcohol it doesn't always fit every circumstance. We try as best we can but it doesn't always fit. And so this is just a very simple tweak tonight.Others have referenced why there's a difference between say small and large racing facilities. Quite simply the larger ones—in the likes of my electorate—they are well managed they are huge large incomes they've got plenty of staff it's easy to manage in this space. Much much smaller racecourses struggle. So I think this is for me quite sensible. But I think again it's prudent that there's discussion and debate around harm. But personally as someone who has gone to the races as an Irish Catholic family it's very much part of our—I don't know what you'd call it—tradition. By and large if not most of the time—I'm not talking about my family here—for those going to the races it's well respectful for what they're doing. I'm not actually particularly worried about any particular harm or harms that is going to come from this. I think it's a sensible move. I think it's a good proactive—actually it's not proactive; it's a reactive move strictly. As I say Ian McKelvie is responding to what he's heard from his constituents. And if our Parliament is to do anything proper and right it is to respond to the people on the ground saying Hey we want this law change."Look it's clear listening to the contributions tonight and reading the select committee report there's been a lot of discussion and debate around how this could be improved or changed—is it necessary or not? Again I'll be supporting this time because I think it is in the right space. And look I can't speak—I come from the great electorate of Tāmaki in the heart of urban Auckland. We've got the likes of the Ellerslie Racecourse there and just across the ball at Alexandra Park. It's not going to affect these guys. They already do an amazing job. But when I think of some of the smaller racecourses that I visited over the years and different members will have gone around—I think my dad if he goes up to the likes of I don't know Dargaville or Ruakākā they need a little bit more help and support. So I think this is a sensible move. Look for those who are concerned—and rightly so. I think there's been discussion and debate tonight. I don't think anyone's actually wrong. This is the nature of any of these sorts of conscience votes—anything that's particularly ethical. I don't think anyone's wrong. If for some reason we find in six months or six years that this change in legislation has increased harm I'll be one of the first to stand in support to repeal it—to pull it back. But I think this is quite sensible. And realistically it's very particular and also it's relying on Kiwis particularly those that we know in the rural provincial areas who actually are quite responsible. That's a really important starting point.The next point I want to make is there's always a lot of debate and I'm sure we'll have it later in the House or in the coming weeks—it's always around the phrase "harm minimisation". And it's an appropriate phrase to use. But as I pointed out before to media and other outlets or other points of debate: where do you want to put the emphasis on that little phrase—harm minimisation? Some people will always put their focus on the word "minimisation"; that's fine. I put the focus on harm. Ultimately I don't think this is going to create the wave of harm which some are concerned about. But I just again want to stress for those who vote against this bill it's the absolute for them right thing to do and I think there's a nuance in this debate. I think it's one of those little ethical issues which is not if you will black and white. And on that I want to finish with one thought coming out of this second reading and it's related to this bill specifically but it's also broader. I am concerned with this House that we're having select committee reports coming back from well strangely enough the select committee that do not take positions and I think that's unfortunate. I want to be really really clear to the select committee responsible for this that I do understand. I've sat on many select committees—arguably a select committee that's dealt with probably the most contentious or actually one of the most contentious issues and it too chose to go down the route of "We as a select committee should not give an opinion." I think that's a valid argument. I think the idea of the select committee taking a fairly neutral approach reporting back to the House allowing this whole Chamber to make a decision is a consistent position but I don't think it's the right one.For me personally I actually trust my colleagues across the House. It doesn't matter if you're left right blue green red it doesn't really matter. When we send these bills to the select committee I'm wanting my colleagues as with this bill to examine it and to tell me what their conscience what their beliefs what their mind thinks. I'm grown up enough old enough grumpy enough to be able to—I was hoping actually someone would call me out there to say I'd misled the House but anyway. I am grumpy enough that I can actually look at what other people say and make my own decisions.So I suppose what I'm trying to say and in closing is I really hope that select committees including the ones that I am on for conscience votes and for personal votes to be strictly correct in the future do actually make an opinion like they should have on this Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill. Use their reason use their conscience use their beliefs and report that back to the House. I actually think that's going to enrich the debate when we see the different views because actually all 119 of us currently can exercise our judgments. We're not going to be misled misguided in any way when we get to a second reading. So it's just a plea from me to have that happen. I think it's becoming a little bit of an unfortunate norm in this House that we come back with these "Oh we can't really say much about the bill. We'll just leave it to the whole House." No. Guide us. Give us your thoughts give us your opinions.In fact the more robust that the report could have been out of the select committee on this Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill that will actually spur thought. And in a bizarre way this is happening now tonight. This has actually been one of the better debates personally all day. As different people have shared their thoughts and nuances it's created reactions and counter-reactions—that's a great thing. And I personally feel had we got to this second reading with a better report a more personal conscience-led report from the select committee we'd be in a better place. But I do want to finish by saying this: this is no reflection on that particular committee or the work that's been done. I've sat on many committees that have come to a similar position and I think that's not quite the right space. But anyway as I say I will be supporting this bill tonight. I am looking forward—I think one person mentioned earlier that this could be their first conscience or personal vote. Fantastic. It's a great moment. Make sure you point very clearly at your name as you move on through. It's a great moment. It'll confuse a number of our colleagues that the bells keep ringing before 10 o'clock but actually these are important moments.Anyway I'm just going to pause because I suspect someone else who's probably quite important around this bill might want to take a call not only because he's here it's also because his wife I suspect is in the gallery. And it'll be really important for him to take a call at some point. Thank you Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just indicate to members at the moment that there are now five speaking slots left and that they will be allocated by way of calls since we actually seem to be out of proportionality right now."