Meager James; Smith StuartJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Chair. Look we've got a couple more parts—or well clauses in the bill that I'd like to touch on one of which is the provision of snack food. But I needed to make a couple of responses.Rachel Boyack: Already talked about it—repetition.JAMES MEAGER: Oh well I needed to have at least a chance to talk about what's actually in the bill so I will talk about snack food. But I just wanted to—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah I am looking for new material. Snack food was—JAMES MEAGER: I'll make a couple of observations. The first of which is that the key witness for the Opposition Dr Webb is from Christchurch and then we also had Laura Trask saying it's such a waste to spit the wine out—also from Christchurch. So I won't draw any threads between the two but something's going on north of me in my neighbourhood. I just wanted to make a comment that perhaps an amendment to the bill could be to outlaw British chardonnays from being consumed in the Wellington area because I think that's close to treasonous. But I won't make that accusation of any member.Look I'm glad Mr Brewer got a chance to have a call. I'm hoping we could also have a call from Mr Foster—and the Foster's who might want to contribute to the debate.But just on the provision of snack food we haven't actually talked about why this clause is in the bill. It was quite a lengthy discussion at the Justice Committee and we actually went away to get some advice from officials on this. So this is a contribution which is not competitive—ah repetitive; it's very competitive. But it's not repetitive; it's brand new. The issue was that the member in charge Stuart Smith and the committee were weary of putting overly burdensome regulations and requirements in place for wine cellar door operators whereby they may have to go and get commercial kitchen - grade food licenses if they were to have to provide full host responsibility requirements where they may well be settled with thousands of dollars of compliance and costs all for the sake of making a bit of money back on the cost recovery for their sample sizes.So we actually went away and asked the officials to do some work on whether or not providers would be required to have significant compliance costs imposed on them if they were asked to provide snack foods which was a suggestion under the bill. The advice came back that the cost would be in the vicinity of $200 to $300 over two or three years—I can't quite recall what it was. The committee considered that piece of device and considered that in our view that was quite a reasonable amount to place on providers in order to offset again some of those alcohol harm minimisation aspects that might come with providing these sample sizes. So I did want to mention that—that is why some of the snack food provisions are in there.As the member in the chair Stuart Smith did point out there are definitions of what snack food is. We aren't expecting cellular providers to provide a full carvery. We aren't expecting them to put a full course meal on. We are expecting them to approach this with common sense. That is throughout the bill. The bill really does just implement and codify what is happening in practice. Sometimes we do get caught up in all the commas and all the colons and whether or not the right clause is in the right place. I'm sure over the next term there'll be lengthy discussions about whether a clause is appropriate and amendments to clauses and all these kind of things. But sometimes we just have to get back to the principle that if you take a common-sense approach to a lot of these issues you can actually resolve it—OK—in the first place.The final thing I'll add in my short contribution—before I ask the member just to make a comment or reflection on whether or not he does think it's reasonable for those snack food provisions to be in place—is that I'm also looking forward to the ability to charge for sample sizes on Good Friday or Easter Monday perhaps if another member's bill goes through. So we might see some further changes in this area which may allow some small businesses in parts of the country to continue to thrive which is what they really need at the moment. They need support from Parliament to make it as easy as possible to do business. I think this bill does this.I'm aware that my colleague Tom Rutherford—to my right—would like to make a contribution around the provision of water which we haven't talked about at all which is very important from a host responsibility perspective It's incredibly new material—I'm looking forward to it. As a man from a bay he knows a lot about water. But I'd like to congratulate the member Stuart Smith once again. I'm asking for his view on the issue of providing snack food the costs involved and then take us through the end of the bill.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Mr Chair and I thank Mr Meager who is the chair of the Justice Committee which did do a great job on this. There was quite a lot of discussion on snack food or food provision just per se and then we narrowed it down—well the select committee did—to snack food which was a sensible decision. Ultimately it's because of host responsibility. The costs are very reasonable. As you quite rightly say it will—I think the example I gave earlier of Pernod Ricard a large winery with a kitchen that couldn't get staff on a day. Well those are the challenges that small cellar doors would face every day. Ironically if you're giving samples away for free you don't have to provide food. Under this bill they'll be able to charge for samples but they'll have to provide food. Snack food isn't everybody's cup of tea—mixing metaphors there—but I think it's absolutely appropriate and it will be well accepted by the industry.