Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. I won't spend too long on this. Look whilst the bill's probably well intended I think it's actually just fatally flawed. To be perfectly honest I did my best to assist the member in tidying those things up but Stuart Smith has the uncanny ability that every time he speaks fewer and fewer people want to support this bill. It's truly quite extraordinary.Cameron Brewer: Aw that's not fair.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well I mean one of the things that I find stuck in my craw a little is this quite elitist notion that wine is special and the beer drinkers amongst us need to understand that the landed—you know the association with the land is so important and if you want to go and taste a beer then go and swill it down at some bar because it doesn't deserve this kind of protection.Now we went through quite a robust process to enable Amendment Papers to be put to the House so that cider and beer could be put not in any special place but just on equal footing with wine so that when they were brewed or fermented on site they could have the same licensing regime as wine. It was largely in Mr Smith's hands because if he had said Yes that's a good idea" the House would have supported it and I'm sure many of his colleagues would—certainly on this side of the House I'm confident it would have got a lot of support. But Mr Smith said "No this is just for wine. I like my wine I like my vineyard mates and we're not interested in expanding this to other industries." And there was no rational reason for that. So I'm really quite disappointed in that.There's scaremongering around you know—or there's been allegations of scaremongering around "cellar door" and the fact that you know craft producers like Pernod Ricard might take advantage the cellar door definition. The fact of the matter is—and look I mentioned I'm not averse to a glass of wine—there's an establishment in Christchurch called Cellar Door that sells wine by tasting volumes—right?—so the business model is already there. It's a very good very successful business and it's a high-end business as well so good on them. But the suggestion of a business selling small volumes in the inner city with no genuine association with their vineyard is a real one. Time of course will tell.There was an Amendment Paper that proposed that there should be a geographical limitation of 10 kilometres so that if you're in Waipara or Marlborough or Martinborough then yes you could have some distance from the vineyard but it had to be at least associated with it. But once again the member simply wasn't interested in entertaining sensible amendments that would actually improve the bill and further its actual objectives—he just dismissed it out of hand.So look all of the lovely narrative around our wine industry is quite accurate. But the fact of the matter is that this bill creates inconsistencies in our law and it creates risks and the ability for advantage taking. That's why for myself I won't be supporting this bill. I think if a different bill came to came to the House that was better framed more appropriate more even-handed then I would consider it because I'm not any kind of temperance advocate—Hon Dr Megan Woods: Far from it.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: "Far from it" says Megan Woods—and that's right. But I do want law which works that's good and that's consistent and fair and this isn't it."