Sio William; Tisch LindsaySu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): The issue of alcohol is an issue that many throughout our communities are concerned about. It is an issue that local governments have to deal with on a regular basis. It is an issue that our police force spends significant amounts of time on. It is also an issue that prevails in our health system on a regular basis. In communities such as Māngere—and no doubt there will be many others throughout New Zealand—this is an issue that we have to consistently contend with and look at trying to prevent the harms that it causes. Although we support this particular bill and the Minister Nicky Wagner is correct in saying that the changes to the bill are minor and technical the reality is that the 2013 bill which this Government passed did not include or address the issues that were raised in the report commissioned by Geoffrey Palmer at the time.The bill basically addresses two things. It now provides for those drinks considered to be low-alcohol—under 1.15 percent ethanol by weight—to be included in the single alcohol spot in supermarkets. That is the first change. The second one is the clarity. In many ways it now just expands the ability for any company to have an on-licence or an off-licence to sell alcohol. That is a concern for those of us who have to deal with the harms that are caused because on the one hand we all know in this House that we have got to reduce the harm that alcohol causes in our communities but on the other hand in that particular clause we are pandering to and allowing the proliferation and sale of alcohol.I want to refer to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board and the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board which made a joint submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee. They asked the committee to make some significant changes to clauses 4 and 5. In respect of clause 5 their submission was that if we are going to display low- or no-alcohol beverages that are sold as beer or wine in the area where alcoholic beverages are displayed we should ensure that those same products are not then being sold outside that confined area. It seems to me and to our local boards that this is an opening that allows for the proliferation again of the ability for products to be displayed where alcoholic beverages would normally not be displayed.In respect of clause 4 the second point that this submission raised which still raises a concern for many is that when we allow companies—any companies—to be able to get an on- or off-licence we do not know who the directors of those particular companies are. If certain directors were involved in previous enterprises where that licence was removed from them that information ought to be made public so that those who are making the decision as to whether the company ought to have an on- or off-licence can make this determination with the full and complete information that is available to them. For our local boards that made the presentation to the committee it just seemed that allowing for any company to have an off- or on-licence without disclosure as to whether the directors of that company were involved in previous companies whose licences were revoked does not provide full and complete information to the general public or to the committees that are determining whether the company ought to get the licence or not.Another aspect that I want to raise is that although the Labour Party members support the bill because of its technical changes that are necessary there are other areas that we included in our minority report that we would like to raise and will continue to raise with this Government as areas of unfinished business. The first area is the lack of minimum pricing. It is clear that inexpensive readily available alcohol is one of the key drivers of alcohol harm yet the Government in this opportunity has failed to address it. The international evidence is unambiguous. Price is one of the most effective policies to combat alcohol-related harm. We understand from the research and work that others in the communities do that the problem is the reduced-price bottles of wine or the mixed drinks. We understand that there was an intention by a previous Minister not this Minister that the targeted alcohol reforms would address cheap alcohol. However he failed to do that during his time. We think that the Government's failure to stop retailers selling cheap alcohol at rock-bottom prices is standing in the way of genuine alcohol law reform.The second part that I want to again raise with this House is the availability of alcohol. There is a connection—an evidence-based connection; well researched—between accessibility and harm. It does not need a rocket scientist to know the harm that alcohol causes. One only needs to turn up late on a Friday night or a Saturday night at the emergency centres of any of our hospitals and you will see the evidence there. I do not believe—we do not believe—that that is being addressed at all by the legislation. People purchasing alcohol late in the evening we know are more likely to have been drinking beforehand. They may not have the judgment and self-control required to make good decisions. There are strong suggestions by many community groups who have to deal with the carnage on our streets that there should be a default closing hour and they believe strongly that 11 a.m. the next morning is just the wrong hour. We have got concerns about the inconsistency of trading hours. The advertising and sponsorship—94 percent of the submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee did say that this is an area that they ought to address. As I said on this side of the House on the face of it the bill is very short and it is technical. It makes those two minor changes in terms of allowing companies to sell low-alcohol or non-alcohol beverages together with other alcoholic beverages and it clarifies that companies—any company—can have a licence for on- or off-licence sales and yet there are those particular issues that communities such as mine have to deal with.I just want to finally mention an attempt by local communities such as Māngere-Otāhuhu such as Otara-Papatoetoe to highlight that we are not doing enough—not just this Government but Parliament as a whole—to address the harm that is alcohol-related. These two local boards in particular have reviewed their existing bans throughout that community and as of late last year decided to publicise that there are now 38 areas where the consumption of alcohol has been banned. Those areas were a direct result of input from police from individuals and from community groups that are having to deal with the harm. So I just want to relay that to the House. While we are congratulating ourselves on passing this bill with its minor technical changes the reality is that we have still got a long way to go in addressing the harm that alcohol causes not only to the individuals but to our families to our communities as a whole and that there is a cost to that harm that eventually all of us have to pay for. I would not be shouting at the rooftops to say that this is a wonderful bill. We support it because they are technical changes—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry your time has expired.