Brewer Cameron; Smith StuartCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of brewers" up and down the country mainly in and around Taranaki.Look I just want to test the theory that's come out of Dr Webb's Amendment Paper 30(b) where he's pushing for "retail premises are located no more than 10 km from where the main ingredients [are] grown or the wine was manufactured". I want to test that theory—and the sponsor of this bill may be able to help me on this—as to the financial viability. We heard the Labour member across the way there talk about the Auckland viaduct. I want to test the financial viability of Leo Molloy setting up a shop—a bar if you like—that's selling 35-millilitre pours of wine from say the South Island the pinot noirs of Central Otago or the Gisborne chardonnays or the sauvignon blancs from where you are Stuart Smith.So I want to just test that; I want to get your view and I know you're listening intently to me as to the financial viability—because you've been in and around the industry long enough—of setting up one of these shops; these wine cellars. Say if we call it "Webb's Wine Bar"—W-H-I-N-E maybe; maybe. Webb's Wine Bar Oxford Terrace—Oxford Terrace. How given all the costs around rates leases staff everything else selling 35 millilitres which is the proposition that has been put to us. How much of a likelihood is that as a business model? With your entrepreneurial hat on.I also want to test Mr Smith just how strong when you put the intent of legislation in the legislation. So we might be flying off the handle that people are going to set up cellar doors unless Mr Webb gets his amendment through for a 10-kilometre radius maximum. But from what I understand and looking at the intent of this legislation—I know this was very important to the committee—is "It is not the intention of this legislation to enable opportunistic bars to operate as [testing] venues to avoid the protections otherwise found in the Act." So the intention is very clear of the legislation.So again my question to the sponsor is: is it in his mind a workable business model for the Leo Molloys to take off with this tomorrow—or whenever it's enacted—and set up a bar that's generously selling 35 millilitres of South Island pinot noir?Secondly would the Auckland district licensing authority look at this legislation and see the intention and say to Leo Molloy "That is not the intention of the bar—of the bill; or the bar—and we are not going to license you." So I want to test both those scenarios with the sponsor. Thank you very much.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well I'd like to thank Cameron on behalf of all the "brewers". Yeah look I think we've covered this before but we'll go with it for a minute. I would never want to second-guess what Mr Leo Molloy would find as a profitable business or not. But the reality is if he's selling 35 millilitres they can go down the street somewhere else and buy 150 millilitres or 115 millilitres or whatever it is. So it wouldn't really be a viable option.Generally if you've convinced—and I doubt you'd be able to convince the licensing authority that that was a valid winery but if you did it would only be selling those products from that vineyard. Whereas successful off-premises businesses have a wide range of products for sale and people would pick up no doubt a six-pack of beer and maybe some spirits. Well you can't do that with a winery cellar door so I don't think that's got any chance of flying at all."