SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Sometimes we have debates in the House where because a party or individual doesn't support the solution to a problem it's claimed that the member or party is in denial that a problem exists. I hope we don't get to that in this debate because I acknowledge the member for bringing this bill to the House and I agree with her to the degree that the local alcohol policy (LAP) part of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 isn't working as intended. Now Arena Williams kind of sheeted that home at the feet of the previous Government and I think that's probably half right but I think we put some sections into that Act where it was—for example appeals by people who might have had a greater interest than the general population. I think it was intended that that be the communities—not far-off distant communities but the communities into which the policies were being developed. It's been interpreted quite the opposite and the alcohol industry has used that I think in a way that is not becoming. Speaking to the Government's bill that seeks to change the local alcohol policy which again for considered reasons we didn't support I criticised my own home city of Dunedin for this kind of approach of throwing up their hands and saying We can't do anything."—well they can't do more than they have. Actually they can I believe and they can be more strident. We're aware that there are a significant number of councils around the country who haven't even implemented a LAP 11 years after the bill was passed. So I'm not denying there's a problem and I think we need to improve the Act but to remove the rights of appeal in the way that Ms Swarbrick's bill will do I don't think is the right approach.Now in respect of sponsorships I've been thinking about this a lot and some members of the House will have had presentations made to them by researchers including at the University of Otago who have put cameras on kids and observed the number of times their field of vision comes into contact with alcohol sponsorship or branding. The results are quite startling. I can't remember but there were tens or hundreds of thousands of images presented to kids that consciously or subconsciously they get them—well I won't name the brands but the beer sponsor on the poster for the Hurricanes or the Highlanders. It's ubiquitous and it's everywhere.The question then is: is one causing the other? Firstly is there harm? Yes. Is it going up or down? I'll come to that in a minute. Thirdly is that exposure the cause or a cause? So firstly yes there is harm and it disproportionately affects our young and certain socio-economic and ethnic elements of our community. Is that harm going up or down? Well we're drinking on average 25 percent less than we were on the 1970s and 1980s according to the best data I could find. And thirdly it kind of renders the last question slightly redundant because there's a correlation-causation paradox which is I don't know for example I could plot the rise of one-parent families positively correlated with the rise in the use of fridge magnets. One is not causing the other and that's on a positive correlation. What we're having in the sponsorship is that there may be an increased exposure to sponsorship images at the same time as our overall alcohol consumption is going down over the same period of time. So is one causing the other? I'm not convinced. Is it appropriate to try and find alternatives to alcohol and gaming sponsorship? I think so. Should the State mandate that it is a door that then becomes closed to community sports clubs? I don't think so.Chlöe Swarbrick: Broadcast sports Michael.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well you can say that but that's not where it's going to stop. I think the point is still the same. If consumption is going down at the same time as exposure to images is going up are we solving the right problem? I'm not convinced we are and for that reason I can't support the bill."