Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill in its first reading here tonight. The National Party is taking a joint view in this conscience issue and will be opposing this bill. As we've heard from speakers on this side of the House we oppose certain aspects of this bill one of them being the special appeals process and the fact that it's not going to be appealable; any of the decisions that are made won't be appealable by the applicant. We just find that that is an imposition on natural justice and they're the sorts of things that a real democracy enables. I did hear some of the earlier speeches talking about how big players can afford to go and make these appeals. The right to justice is not balanced against people's ability to pay; it is about the outcomes that we seek. But of course we do all acknowledge the serious harm that can happen to some people in our communities as a consequence of exposure and of course the drinking of alcohol. But that is for some people a problem; it is not for the whole of the population that this is a problem. And the problem we have got with this piece of legislation is that it dumbs down the population and treats everyone at the lowest common denominator. I think we need to remember that actually we have adults in this country that can make up their own minds and that are not easily influenced because an alcohol sponsor advertises in broadcasting sports. We think that grown-ups should be able to make up their own mind. But there is a fixation in this bill about focusing solely on broadcasting at sports games. And I don't know why that particular aspect has been singled out because there are other aspects. Like for instance we've just had one of the biggest festivals on the West Coast; it's the Wildfoods Festival. It's renowned for its big sponsorship but it's also renowned because it's one of the most enjoyable festivals that you can attend and I might be a little bit biased in that but there is a huge amount of sponsorship that goes on and one of them is from an alcohol company. It's no particular one because they actually bid for that right. So we have to wonder why there are things like festivals that are singled out or not included in this. And the other one of course is the concerts where concerts are sponsored perhaps by advertising for alcohol and they will display the advertising at those events. The exposure to the public of those is also equally as intrusive if you like to think of it. But then we have the other aspect of course which is the internet especially online gaming or you know other search engines that you might like to go to which also can have alcohol advertising. So you have to wonder—well I certainly had to wonder—if the broadcasting and advertising at sports events is just going to be the thin edge of the wedge and we are going to see the slow creep towards the banning of advertising and sponsorship making its way into a lot more aspects of our lives. I heard my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse talking about how alcohol has been around for millennia and it has. We've had alcohol dug up in the pyramids with the tombs down there. I mean people have been exposed to it for a very long time. But I have to think that there are some mummies" that think that they have to dictate to the rest of society and that's just not the case. But I think the biggest irony of this bill is the sponsor Chlöe Swarbrick who wants to ban alcohol advertising in broadcast sports—this is the very same person that thinks it's OK for marijuana to be legalised. So a drug inducer a mind-altering drug is OK but alcohol sports advertising is certainly not OK. I think that the double standard at play here is such an irony. And I think that if we're going to all be treated like nuns and priests the sponsor should probably start in her own backyard. Thank you Madam Speaker."