Rurawhe AdrianSALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.SPEAKER: Urgency will continue. Before the lunch break we were debating the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. Call No. 2 has concluded. We now have call No. 3.VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a call in relation to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I'd like to begin by thanking select committee members for a really robust process. Unfortunately we weren't able to recommend that the bill be passed as a full committee but certainly the majority of the committee did. It was however a robust process. We received 420 submissions and heard from 80 submitters. But I'm not surprised that we didn't get to agreement. I think listening to the committee stage submissions it was clear that the Hon Paul Goldsmith was really struggling to get his head around the fact that business exists within community—that business exists within community and within society—and so yes we did wrestle with the question of businesses who'd been operating for a number of years and whether it was appropriate for District Licensing Committees (DLCs) and Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authorities (ARLAs) to be able to decline to renew a licence and we landed on the fact that it was and that it wasn't unusual for an entity to have to comply with new rules with new research—and indeed we do this all the time. We're asking this of businesses now in terms of our climate response as well. It is not new at all. As the Minister pointed out in committee stage it is an essential part of democracy that we listen to people and communities to decide what the appropriate rules are now. There was also much made about the removal of the appeals process but there is still an ability of entities to bring a judicial review should they wish to so it is not removed in its entirety. If I speak briefly to the Opposition's objection to objectors I would say there are very valid reasons why you would want people and entities from across the country submitting on these and you only need to think a little laterally to understand who that might be. It might be that there's a group who are focused on harm to young people who identify that there's a particular area in New Zealand where we've seen alcohol harm at exaggerated levels. Should they be submitting? Absolutely. You might have mana whenua who aren't living in the area that they connect with who wish to submit in relation to an application. Should they be submitting? Absolutely. You might have someone who was affected by alcohol in a particular community who no longer lives in that community. Should they be allowed to submit? Absolutely. There were objections believe it or not to hearings being more accessible. I don't even know that I should respond to that other than to say there is flexibility within clauses 14 and 15. So what the select committee did is provide a non-binding non-exhaustive list of factors that the DLC could consider. This is all about putting decision making right on the ground levels where local authorities can be making the most relevant decisions for those communities. This is an excellent bill. I commend both the former and the current Ministers of Justice for bringing it before the House as communities have asked for it as local authorities have asked for it and I commend it to the House.