Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It's a real privilege to be able to contribute to this thoughtful debate and I hope that my contribution is useful. First along with acknowledging the sponsor of this bill Chlöe Swarbrick I'd like to also acknowledge my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene for all the work she's done over many years in this very vexed space I would say. The reason that I am supporting this bill is because I feel that fundamentally it redresses an imbalance over processes relating to access to justice and there's three elements to that. First really when I look at the bill around local voice and localisation I do think it's really important that local communities set their own rules and that they do have voice and that they are not subdued into silence through a lack of means to be able to challenge appeals that are lodged against them through the local alcohol policies. National when they introduced the legislation said it would be a level playing field that hasn't been the case. So that's my first point.Secondly around alcohol advertising as the Hon Michael Woodhouse has said there's evidence to show numerous exposures to alcohol advertising and I would say the normalisation to many of our children—and I attended the same presentation that Chlöe gave to members and I really thank her for providing a strong evidence base for the argument that she had. There are members of my own party for whom I have great respect who have said that the problem is around the void in sponsorship but actually we had the same debate around tobacco sponsorship many years ago and also there is evidence to suggest that perhaps some industries or sectors like the IT sector would be very quick to fill that void. So I cannot accept that argument.Thirdly just around timing the Government has got the Hon Kiri Allan's alcohol harm reduction work as well but I am also really mindful that this debate has gone on for a number of years many years and there is always a reason why the urgency of the problem that has been presented to us by communities both in South Auckland but also in Dunedin—and this bill is supported by the Dunedin City Council. The urgency is something that really speaks to me and so if I felt that we were able to perhaps get the urgency that we need through a Government bill I would not necessarily support this one but I can see that the member who's presented this bill is acting with urgency has done her due diligence has presented really cogent arguments. I also know that the South Auckland communities have been calling for this for years and years and live with the impacts of children walking to school and being confronted with up to five or six alcohol outlets on their way even to school let alone on their way home. That gives me a sense that really the time for us to be dealing with this is right now; it cannot wait. So that weighs on me as well.The other aspect is the Dunedin City Council. I am the member of Parliament for Taieri. I take very seriously the views of people in my electorate and the fact that the council themselves have come out to publicly support the member's bill gives me great confidence to know that they have done their own due diligence and research and that they too wish to carry the voices of the people that they represent.So in summary I just want to really acknowledge the member Chlöe Swarbrick for the really detailed research and work that you did the extensive lobbying. It's not easy lobbying and corralling members. This is a very fraught area and in different circumstances I might vote a different way but for all the reasons that I've outlined I wish to give this bill my support and I really want to thank members across the House for the really considered thoughtful and respectful debate that we're having on this matter tonight. I commend this bill to the House.