Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

When I first proposed this bill, I did so because the current Act isn’t fit for purpose for our winery cellar doors—and, in two ways, which I will explain.

First, right now, if you go to one of our beautiful winery cellar doors that just holds an off-licence—meaning you can buy wine to take home—that winery is not allowed to charge you a tasting fee if you try samples of the wine. The winery bears the cost of the wine itself, the staff who pour it, the excise tax, and all the other overheads associated with providing this service. This does not properly put a value on the premium product. The change in the bill allows wineries to charge and defines a sample as being no more than 35 millilitres—which is, I think, 7 teaspoons.

Second, you’ll know that some of our wineries have cafes and restaurants as well. The way the law works now is that they have to hold two different licences, and, to make that happen, they have to have set up another business, another legal entity, just to charge for tastings. This is expensive and unnecessary. What the bill does is allow a cellar door to share exactly the same licence footprint as a cafe or a restaurant, without the need to create a separate business or use a separate building. This change gives winery cellar doors the same flexibility that hotels and taverns already have.

During the select committee stage, a change was made that requires a cellar door to make snack food available when charging for wine samples. “Snack food” is a term that’s already defined in regulations, but it’s, basically, things like potato chips, biscuits, and crackers. Some businesses may decide that they want to offer more than that—say, cheese platters, for example—which would be welcomed by myself, if they chose to do that, but the minimum is defined in the Act.

Winery cellar doors are tourism businesses and they often are quite seasonal businesses. The industry association New Zealand Winegrowers mentioned at the select committee stage that the summer season is the busiest time for many of these cellar doors. What this means, if this bill passes successfully today, is that these important changes will allow cellar doors to be able to start using the flexibility straight away, just in time for the summer season.

This, at its heart, is a much-needed upgrade to the legislation, which is out of date. Now, I read that into the Hansard for a very good reason. Those people that are charged with administering the alcohol legislation, and anyone who knows—and, certainly, having had a cellar door myself, or a licensed premises, that sometimes it can be difficult when there’s a line-ball call. I wanted Parliament’s intent to be very clear in this piece of legislation so that there is no doubt about where the line falls on this. This is intended to allow wineries to charge for tastings. This has been quite a bone of contention in some jurisdictions about the way in which the law has been interpreted, and when a licence is renewed, it’s interpreted in a different way. Hence, I wanted that read into the Hansard.

At their heart, wineries are producing a primary product and then manufacturing it into a consumer product to be sold. As the sixth-largest export good, New Zealand wine is a success, with over $2 billion worth of exports. When I first joined the wine industry, it was around $100 million of exports. So there’s been a tremendous amount of growth along the way, and that’s no small part to the impact that cellar doors have had along the way. We have cellar doors right around the country—I’ve visited a cellar door in Northland and I’ve visited them all the way around the country and right down into the south of Otago, or the south of Central Otago I suppose it would be termed as. But we have some wonderful cellar doors around New Zealand, from really large wineries to quite small ones. We had one of the largest ones—Pernod Ricard—give evidence that they couldn’t charge for tastings on some occasions, even though they had a restaurant, because they lacked staff, sometimes, to open the restaurant, and, therefore, couldn’t charge for tastings.

This bill will help them, but also some very small wineries. The one that springs to mind is Tupari in Marlborough, in my patch, who have a vineyard which is about 13 kilometres away from State Highway 1; it’s quite remote. So they are able, under this bill, to have—and they already have a cellar door on State Highway 1 right along the cycle trail, the rail trail, which they will now be able to charge for the tastings when the tourists cycle past or come down by the steam train that travels down there during the summer. So this bill will be a great help to them.

There’s over 6,000 people who work directly in the wine industry, with 12,000 people in the rest of the economy who benefit from working in or with the wine industry. So it’s quite an important industry. But what makes wine different is what the French term as “terroir”, which is, effectively, in my translation anyway, the place in which the wine is produced and the people that produce it and the methods that they use, the soil that it’s grown from, and those various practices. And that’s what makes each wine quite different. One is quite different from the other. A Marlborough sauvignon blanc—they’re not all the same. Or a Hawke’s Bay chardonnay—they are not all the same. The individual influence from the people that grew the grapes, that actually made the wine, really does come through in those wines, and that is what makes a cellar door experience what it is.

People come right around the world just to do this, to go to New Zealand and taste wines. They will travel around those wineries and try lots of wines. If they’ve come on a cruise ship, they’re not able to buy wine and take it back on to the cruise ship with them, so some cellar doors have been reluctant to have cruise ship passengers to visit them, because they would have to give too much wine away and not really get anything for it. It may translate into sales when they get back into their home country, but it doesn’t really do the cellar door a lot of good. So this bill is absolutely essential for that. That tourism offering goes much wider than the wine industry, and I’ve witnessed this myself. The halo effect of the New Zealand wine industry goes over other goods and makes it easier to sell those goods because it is seen, internationally, that if you can make quality wine, you have a certain status that you wouldn’t have otherwise. So that flows over into our other goods. So this is not just a wine story; this is a New Zealand story.

We have some fantastic businesses, like Rocket Lab and all these tech industries, but it’s this industry that comes from the land that reflects not only the soil and the place that it comes from but the people that make it. So it’s with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

As chair of the busy and effective Justice Committee, it gives me great pleasure and great surprise to take this call as the second speaker in this debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill, which our committee debated long and hard over the past few months. This is important legislation which addresses a longstanding issue for New Zealand’s wine industry and will provide significant benefits for our winemakers, cellar door operators, and the broader tourism sector.

First, I want to commend the member for Kaikōura, Stuart Smith, for his tireless work in championing this bill. He’s a bit of a bill good luck charm, I believe; this is not his first time around. As a former chair of the New Zealand Winegrowers association, with deep industry knowledge, Mr Smith understands intimately the challenges faced by cellar door operators under the current regulatory framework. This bill is the culmination of years—and, in the case of this particular House, it is literally years of effort and consultation with stakeholders across the wine and tourism sectors.

At its core, the legislation aims to fix what we see as an anomaly in our current alcohol-licensing laws that has made it unnecessarily difficult for wineries to charge for tasting samples at their cellar door—that’s about it. It’s a very, very simple change. As it stands today, before this bill passes, many cellar door operators are forced to give away free samples of their products, as outlined by Mr Smith, which is both economically unsustainable and out of step with international norms for wine tourism. So by allowing wineries to charge a reasonable fee for tasting samples—very small samples—this bill will help put cellar door operations on a more sustainable financial footing.

Now, this is especially important for our smaller, more boutique wineries. Now, there’s not too many of them around mid- and South Canterbury, but I know there are plenty in and around Queenstown-Lakes District, where the member Todd Stephenson lives. There’s plenty around the Marlborough district and, of course, Hawke’s Bay and other parts of the country. It’s worth emphasising that New Zealand’s wine industry is actually a major contributor to our economy and our national brand. Wine is our sixth-largest goods export by value, earning the country over $2 billion in export revenue annually—$2 billion, Mr Rutherford, how’s that?

Importantly, as noted previously by Mr Smith in his contributions, our key wine export markets are largely OECD countries. Now, as Mr Rutherford knows, these are very discerning consumers who associate New Zealand wines with quality and help to burnish our reputation for premium products across other sectors.

Now, wine tourism also plays a vital role in our broader tourism industry, which happens to be our second-largest export earner. Cellar door experiences are an integral part of New Zealand’s tourism offering, attracting both international and domestic visitors to our wine regions. You only have to look at what’s happening in Martinborough and in the Wairarapa to show how valuable domestic tourism in the wine industry is to that particular region. These visitors, on average, tend to stay longer and spend more, and so they deliver higher economic benefits that ripple through regional economies. This bill is good for regional New Zealand. So, by enhancing the viability and the professionalism of cellar door operations, the bill will help strengthen New Zealand’s wine industry. It will encourage more wineries to open cellar doors and invest in high-quality tasting experiences, enriching our tourism product and helping to attract more high-value tourists.

I do want to take the time to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the bill throughout the committee of the whole House stage and throughout the Justice Committee’s deliberations. Some members throughout the committee stage have suggested that the bill could be exploited by retailers or bars to circumvent existing licensing requirements. I think the word “speakeasy” was raised throughout the committee stage process—and I had to actually look that up because, like Mr Rutherford, I’m very, very young and I don’t think I’ve ever visited a speakeasy in my life. But I do believe these fears are misplaced. The bill has been carefully crafted with input from officials and the industry to prevent such unintended consequences. It includes a specific definition of a “winery cellar door”; a common-sense definition that limits the legislation’s applicability to genuine wine producers. I think the fears of these speakeasys popping up around the place are misplaced.

The bill also explicitly states that to qualify, a business must be producing and selling grape-wine products or selling wine produced on their behalf. Now, I know there’ll be members opposite who will argue that this is too ambiguous, but we think it’s pretty clear. This effectively precludes retailers or bars from taking advantage of these provisions. And then, in addition to that, the economic reality is this: it is very highly implausible that anyone would attempt to exploit this legislation to set up some kind of quasi-bar operation. The maximum sample size, as outlined by Mr Smith, is set at just 35 millilitres—that’s 7 teaspoons of wine; about a fifth of a standard glass of wine. So no business could viably operate by selling such tiny samples as their primary offering.

Some members have argued that the bill unfairly advantages the wine industry over craft brewers or distillers. We had some submitters from those sectors who brought their submissions through to the Justice Committee, and some of the concerns that they raised were valid. Why not expand this bill to those industries? The committee’s view was that this is a specific bill targeted towards fixing the anomaly for wine cellar door operators, and that if members thought it would be appropriate to expand the bill to other industries, they would be welcome to bring a member’s bill themselves. There may well be merit in considering similar provisions, but it would be more appropriately addressed through separate legislation.

Finally, I also want to rebut the suggestion made by members that this somehow will turn cellar doors—c-e-l-l-a-r doors—into mere sellers—s-e-l-l-e-r-s. And I know, during the committee stage, we had a lot of fun with sellers, cellar doors, and celery, but, fundamentally, this misunderstands both the intent and the effect of the legislation. Far from diminishing the cellar door experience, this bill will actually enhance it by allowing operators to invest more in creating high-quality, educational tasting experiences by being able to recoup some of those costs. The ability to recoup those costs through very modest tasting fees will enable wineries to offer more comprehensive tastings, potentially including older vintages, like Mr Smith, or limited release wines that they simply can’t afford to pour for free.

Moreover, the bill includes several more provisions to ensure responsible service and consumption. As Mr Smith outlined, it mandates the provision of water, snack foods, sets strict limits on those sample sizes, and maintains existing host responsibility obligations. In many ways, this legislation actually enhances safety and responsibility, compared with the status quo; where, today, wineries can, if they wanted to, pour unlimited free samples with fewer controls. That’s the current situation we’re faced with. There is a reasonable argument that this bill will actually enhance the host responsibility obligations of those providers.

Now, some members—and we had submitters also raise broader concerns about alcohol harm in our society, and we are very much aware of this. They are legitimate issues that deserve serious consideration. However, I would argue that, on balance, this is a bill which narrowly focuses on addressing cellar door tastings. It’s not the appropriate vehicle for tackling complex social problems, and that may well be in a wider look at the alcohol legislation which, in fairness, has been done over and over and over in time, and we are yet to come to a satisfactory conclusion for many members. However, I think that’s probably a discussion for another day. But this bill, if anything, will help promote, hopefully, a culture of moderate appreciation - focused wine consumption in controlled settings. Cellar door experiences can actually contribute to a more mature drinking culture.

It is also worth noting, finally, just as chair of the Justice Committee, it did undergo quite robust scrutiny through the select committee process. We received approximately 72 submissions from a diverse range of stakeholders. We had submitters from Waiheke Island, we had submitters from the Wairarapa, we had them from Central Otago, we had them from Blenheim. It appeared that most submitters happened to come from the places that the members on the committee came from, so, next time, I’ll be encouraging many more from mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury with the multiplicity of vineyards that go through that fine region. We also heard from 12 of those submitters in person.

Throughout this process, those submissions led to the several constructive amendments that we believe will have improved the bill and have refined the legislation, and reflect on a pretty collegial process that the committee went through. Just to summarise, those major amendments that we made did include tightening that definition of “winery” and “cellar door”, adjusting the maximum sample size from 40 millilitres back down to 35 millilitres, adding those requirements of water and snack food, and clarifying the bill’s applicability to remote cellar door operations to cover those operations where the vineyard was not necessarily on the same block or the same site as the cellar door.

In conclusion, this bill represents a sensible, targeted reform that will deliver real benefits to New Zealand’s wine industry and tourism sector. It will enhance the financial sustainability of cellar door operations, improve our wine tourism offering, and contribute to regional economic development. Importantly, it does so while maintaining appropriate safeguards and responsible drinking practices. As this is a conscience vote, I do urge all members present to support the legislation. It is an example of pragmatic, industry-supported reform that can make a tangible difference to New Zealand. I commend the member for bringing the bill to the House and I commend it to the House.

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 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 of 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, and he just dismissed it out of hand.

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 that’s fair, and this isn’t it.

Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise and support this bill, especially as I was able to hear some of the submitters. I mean, we’ve got the wine industry from Karikari Estate—I believe is the northernmost—down through to Central Otago. But, of course, my favourite wine region would have to be the Wairarapa, with the Masterton, Gladstone, and Martinborough areas.

We heard from Ata Rangi—which is very excellent, top of the range, especially the pinot noir—that it is very expensive to be able to provide tasting volumes and that they want to be able to be part of the local tourism industry. We heard so much about cycle trails. I do hope we’ll be having more regional funding for cycle trails that are proving so successful; Central Otago, potentially the Five Towns Trail, lots in the Marlborough area, the Whale Trail, which will all be excellent. But it’s not only cycle tourism; it’s also walking tourism. I was delighted to be associated with the Wairarapa Walking Festival, and our sold-out walk was the Gladstone Wine & Olive walk, which is great, but they had to rely on people buying or ordering bottles, rather than be able to charge at the tasting level.

I absolutely agree that it was an improvement to include some kind of food; although, I would like to see our food industry work on the local, the locavore, side of things as well as the wine with the terroir. It should be that we are very proud of what’s produced and we don’t just go with a packet of some brand of chips to fulfil, but I agree that it would be inappropriate to specify, but I do have some hope for this.

I do support this bill, but I would agree with my colleague who says that it doesn’t go far enough. I would like to see a wider approach taken, and I hope that the Minister who introduced this as a member’s bill will have some conversations with the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality and think about a more comprehensive approach. First of all, you’ve got fruit wines; it’s not only about the glorious grape. You’ve got orchards—and I know there are many MPs here from areas which produce fantastic pears, apples—

Hon Louise Upston: Blueberry wine.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: That’s one I haven’t tried yet. But I’d also like to see—especially where there is a connection with a region. So we’re not talking industrial beer so much as the local water, the local hops, the places that make a difference. I know that the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality is keen to extend tourist visits wider into the regions and, also, through wider seasons than only the high-peak period of the summer. So this would be a fantastic autumn project to bring more people here for food and wine tourism.

I would also like to address the alcohol harm issue, and this is why it went to the Justice Committee, although, in some ways, you’d think it might go to economic development that included tourism and so on, because amongst the many drugs that are consumed wisely or unwisely in this country, alcohol certainly has got harmful effects. But charging for it, making food available, water available, and that whole host responsibility, I believe will reduce that effect.

I mentioned cideries, which would include perry as well—I just wanted to not leave anyone out of this. There’s meaderies; what fantastic honey we have in New Zealand. Whether all of the health-giving qualities of mānuka honey proceed into the mead is probably a question for somebody more technical than myself on this matter. Some of you may not know that in the south of Wellington, there is a meadery; why shouldn’t they be able to charge for tastings in the same way? And distilleries; you may think that gin is the same the world over, but when you start adding local botanicals, horopito, kawakawa, all of those different flavourings, then it becomes a thing of our place. So I really do support this bill. Just because it’s not big enough and broad enough now, in my view, is not a reason not to support it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate taking this call. As a member who is not on the Justice Committee that heard this but someone with a great interest—

Cameron Brewer: He can join.

CAMERON LUXTON: Oh, well—by all accounts, it is a great select committee. But as someone with an interest in seeing New Zealand businesses thrive, I’m very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill. The role of—I think we’re calling him “St Stewie”, after what he has done for the wine industry. The role of “St Stewie” has been a great benefit to that industry. I can understand the comments that have been brought up across the House about expanding to other types of beverages. But, I think, keeping it focused—I may call him Stuart Smith—as “St” Stuart Smith has done, is a very good way of supporting a core industry and making sure that this flows through into legislation in a way that’s understandable and prompt.

Businesses in New Zealand have had a hard time of it. We closed our borders; tourism suffered. I can imagine cellar door tasting and businesses that are in the background, growing the grapes, getting staff to do it, distilling it—finding the experts to come in and provide that service hasn’t been an easy time. So removing barriers is the theme of today in the House.

James Meager: What other changes could we make to remove barriers?

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, I think we have done a lot as a Government to remove barriers, and I’m proud to be supporting a member’s bill that would do the same. You know, there’s other barriers and businesses that need support. These businesses—wineries, distilleries, and others—are businesses that are employers in their community. Things that remove barriers to trade, such as repealing the restrictions around Easter trading, would be a huge addition to the sectors that need this, as this bill is doing in removing some of the barriers regarding on- and off-licensing. I can see a lot of similarities there: getting rid of this red tape.

Wineries provide, as we’ve heard, I think, a key role in the business community of the areas where they operate. As we’ve heard, they’re up and down the country, from South Otago and Central Otago to Northland. Acting as a core hub that drives people through tourism to enjoy themselves and then partake in the other amenities of an area is similar to how many businesses in New Zealand who are closed over Easter and find themselves with unnecessary restrictions on their trade—they provide the same sort of hub-like tourism value to the communities which they are in. In the same way we’re removing these restrictions and barriers around cellar door tasting, it would be a great thing to have support across this House to remove the restrictions on businesses who are employers and drivers of the local community, when it comes to Easter restrictions on those trading hours.

Also, you can imagine somebody who’s come over from overseas, they’re going along the rail trail and turning up and saying, “You can’t charge me for this? But it’s so good. Why wouldn’t you charge me for this?” I mean, I can imagine the visitor confusion. It’s probably quite akin to tourists coming to New Zealand over Easter and being utterly bewildered that they can’t enjoy themselves in the way they would with their friends, family, or people they’re visiting, when they go out over Easter weekend and find those restrictions. I think that’s a similarity that exists between the existing structure around cellar door tasting and our restrictions on Easter trade. The halo effect, which “St Stewie” has aptly said about this—the way that the—

Simon Court: Soft glow.

CAMERON LUXTON: —the soft glow, which is emanating from that side of the House, is something that expands out and supports a community. So when we remove barriers from business—and especially really silly ones, like the inability to charge for wine tasting—we increase the ability of everyone to thrive. Again, I would just draw attention to the fact that there’s a specific weekend, in New Zealand’s calendar, which has restrictions—

Simon Court: Which weekend?

CAMERON LUXTON: Oh, it’s actually Easter weekend. Thank you for asking, Mr Court. Removing some restrictions would act in the same halo effect, I believe, as what “St Stewie” is trying to achieve in this bill.

It’s a bill for which I’m happy to say that I’ve heard expressions of support from all ACT MPs. We will be supporting this bill. I thank you very much, “St Stewie”, for what you’ve done for the wineries—I look forward to doing it for Easter trading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. I also spoke on this bill at the second reading and I very much support this bill passing tonight. I also, as the New Zealand First whip, hold the proxy votes for our other seven members, and we all would like to see this bill pass.

Hon Mark Patterson: What does it say?

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: The proxy votes say that we all agree. So that’s very good. New Zealand First looks at this type of legislation, this bill, as common sense. We are a common-sense party. This bill, again, is common sense.

I’d also like to congratulate Stuart Smith, who has put this bill through the House. Looking back through the time period that this has taken—2022, I believe, it got pulled out of the “magical tin” and it’s taken until today to actually get it to this point. But it shows, for all of us MPs, the importance of that process and the ability of going through the select committee process and the readings. So that process has been, tonight, completed.

One thing I would like to say is that my wife and I live in Marlborough, and we very much enjoy the wine culture of Marlborough and the ability to get on our push bikes and get out amongst the cellar doors. As I spoke in the second reading, sometimes those ventures can take us on to some very interesting tours around Marlborough, with a variety of different cellar doors that are available. You’ve also, obviously, at the moment, got to watch yourself a little bit as you go on that push bike to the first cellar door offering, to the second offering, and if you can remember the third or fourth offering, you’ve probably done pretty well.

This bill is, as I mentioned, about common sense and it’s about being able to charge for samples. That’s something we’ve heard from a number of members, that you would expect when you go to a cellar door that you would actually pay for those samples. As I mentioned, with my wife and I, as you go around those different offerings, you actually feel quite bad sometimes that you don’t actually pay unless you buy a bottle of wine and take it on your way. I’ve got to say, for many years, going around some of the local cellar doors, they often used to say to me, “Because you’re a close neighbour, we’ll just give it to you for free.”, but there was actually another reason behind that, wasn’t there?

Through the select committee process, we did hear from 12 submitters, but there were 72 different submissions that came in. A lot of those submissions were very, very helpful. As was mentioned by Mr Smith, one of those submissions from one of the wineries was quite detailed in the fact that people come on the cruise ships that come into Picton and they often get on a bus or the steam train, they go out to maybe the Awatere Valley, and, ironically, those tourists, as they get there, they’re not charged for that sample. The unfortunate thing with the cruise ships is, also, they can’t take a bottle back with them. So that whole offering, apart from the experience—and, yes, there’s probably some people who order that wine, but it is a situation, at the moment, where a small charge that can now be charged through this bill makes common sense.

Also, Wine Marlborough, who made a submission to the bill—Marcus Pickens, the general manager, spoke on behalf of the wider Marlborough industry, and, yes, this is wider than Marlborough, but it was very detailed in the benefits the bill would make to a number of the different wineries.

Ironically, this legislation actually makes things more restrictive, and that’s actually, in a way, good because, as we have heard, at the moment, it’s a bit of a free-for-all. As much as that’s probably great for my wife and I as we go around and get all this free wine, there is no need for host responsibility. So, under this legislation now, the ability of having to supply snack food and also water is something, again, that makes a lot of common sense.

We also heard from a number of members about the scope of the bill. I support where we ended up in keeping the bill as it was first presented, keeping it narrow. We hear about beer or gin or cider, and that’s a great opportunity for another member to bring that bill to the House and work through the process. We heard from Mr Webb, asking why we couldn’t add those to this bill; well, quite simply, those tastings or offerings would (1) be different; and (2) we didn’t hear submissions from those people. So, to us on this side of the House, keeping it narrow and keeping it on track is the right thing.

The sample sizes, as well, from that 30-millilitre pour is the standard, but the bill gives you the ability to be able to pour up to 35. We heard from submitters of the efforts and the skill that actually goes into the wine glass and actually pouring that, and by actually giving that extra 5 millilitres in case of someone measuring it to the last millilitre makes a lot of sense. So you can pour up to 35, but the standard is actually 30.

The definition of a “winery” has been changed to the “winery cellar door”, which makes a lot of sense. A lot of it ties back to being the land that’s occupied by that person, so meaning that you can produce something and then sell it through the cellar door.

One of my portfolios is tourism. Wine tourism is a very important part of the Marlborough economy. When you think of the Marlborough wine industry, it makes up 80 percent of the New Zealand production. It’s also 20 percent of the GDP of the Marlborough economy. In the Marlborough region, it also supports one job in every five. So it makes a lot of sense around the wine industry, around wine tourism, but tourism in general, having this ability to actually charge for those samples.

We’ve also heard that this industry is a $2.4 billion industry. But, as I said in my second reading speech on this bill, that’s fast-approaching to be a $3 billion industry and is growing.

It is very much true that this has been a very well-received bill. It was well received when it first came in for the first reading into this House, but it’s also been very well received through the election campaign that was recently held. Many people, especially in the Marlborough area, see that this is a very good piece of legislation.

Through the Justice Committee, we heard, obviously, those submissions—we have made those changes that make a lot of common sense. Again, just going forward, I think this piece of legislation is common sense. Again, I congratulate the member for his efforts to get us to the point we are. I would like to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Members, it is time to suspend for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Members, the House is resumed, and when we suspended for the dinner break, we were doing the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill, and we’re up to speech number seven.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t think this is so much a competition as I think just this speech is being pushed back. But, look, it’s a pleasure to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. We support this bill. My colleague Celia Wade-Brown spoke previously about the Greens’ view around how this would improve the hospitality and tourism industry, and I agree with those assessments that she has made. I want to offer, I guess, a few more reflections, particularly from a drug harm minimisation point of view and as somebody, as well, who worked in a licensed premise prior to being in Parliament, for about seven or so years.

First of all, I want to say that, as somebody who worked in a licensed premise, I wanted to, once again, welcome the amendments at the select committee stage, that I know were canvassed—both at the committee of the whole House and in the second reading—particularly around the provision of snack food and water. I think what this bill shows is how we can evaluate a bill and look at the impacts that substances will have in our communities when we do regulations in relationship to access to a drug—in this case, alcohol—and whether we can come together as a collective of politicians to actually think of: what’s a consistent approach that’s been taken and, actually, how we can minimise harm, because the provision of food or snacks and water here is actually about minimising harm. We know, as hosts in licensed premises, that one of the key factors of having things like food and water has to do with ensuring that people who are consuming alcoholic beverages can actually not get intoxicated really fast, and we can minimise that harm. And, I think, for the wellbeing of the hospitality industry, we also have to think of the wellbeing of the people consuming that wine. And those are really, really welcome amendments.

As I’ve said in previous speeches, to me, the key reflection is that I wish we could take this very same approach that we have done for alcohol and how alcohol is treated in different venues and apply that to other substances to come from an evidence-based, constructive approach, rather than, I guess, just picking which substances we’re comfortable regulating, in a way that seems really sensible and collaboratively.

I want to reflect as well on the amendments that the Hon Duncan Webb had been trying to work through. I do think these are conversations we’re going to need to have at a later stage, because the door’s been opened now around samples for wine, effectively, and I think that there’s a very fair conversation we need to have around whether other industries are going to be—not so much disadvantaged, but whether we’re leaving behind other industries that could have benefited from this, and more than anything, again, if we’re going to take a drug harm minimisation approach to this piece of legislation to actually just kind of be consistent about it and to not just make a carve-out for wine and not actually then discuss what other alcoholic beverages we could have included in here. But I do encourage Government Ministers to think about what else they can do to have some consistency on the issue. I do think what the Hon Duncan Webb was trying to do was actually quite generous, in the sense that it was a generous improvement to this bill.

None the less, we do think that the bill, in and of itself, does not cause any harm and, if anything, again, just provides an opportunity for us to have those sensible conversations in a cross-party way around how we can regulate substances and access to those substances.

Finally, I just want to say that I really do hope that the businesses that are going to be having those samples continue to hold the wellbeing of our communities paramount. You know, New Zealand continues to have quite a high rate of use of alcohol and alcohol harm, and so, I guess, my message to those businesses that will now benefit from this piece of legislation will be to continue thinking of how we can centre the wellbeing of our communities when it comes to the consumption of alcohol.

But, as we’ve said, we do think this bill has merit. And I do, once again, want to welcome the collaborative approach that we’ve taken with this bill, and I do wish those amendments could have been taken on board. But that’ll be a conversation for another day.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a short call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. Can I congratulate my neighbour Stuart Smith; it has been a pleasure to be able to provide a bit of support to you throughout the process of this bill and I congratulate you on getting this far and what I hope will be a successful passing of the legislation tonight.

The Labour Party is treating this bill as a conscience vote, which is appropriate given that it is about alcohol. I think that, you know, I’d encourage other parties to consider doing the same when it comes to these types of matters. I’m really grateful to be holding some proxies tonight for those of my colleagues who will be voting in favour of this bill.

Hon Matt Doocey: How did they vote?

RACHEL BOYACK: They’re voting in favour of this bill, just like I will be, Mr Doocey.

Hon Member: Did you have a read?

RACHEL BOYACK: So you’ll get to see—if you’re keen to see who’s voting in favour, I can assure you that you don’t have too long to wait, Mr Doocey; there’ll be a list coming out later.

Just getting back to the bill, however, can I just make some commentary around why I’m supporting this bill. The first people who came to me in my capacity as Nelson MP to talk to me about this bill were some vineyard operators actually from across the hill, from the Marlborough region. They approached me because of their concerns around alcohol harm and, fundamentally, I think there’s a real issue when you have a business that has alcohol that’s for sale that they’re promoting that is actually required to provide that alcohol to people for no charge. I actually think that it is a matter of reducing alcohol harm, because if someone can walk into a cellar door and receive—it might only be a very small amount, but for someone who is an alcoholic or perhaps has gone from vineyard to vineyard to vineyard because, in some areas in the top of the South, they’re very close to each other, actually being able to go and receive alcohol at no charge, to me—I just feel very uncomfortable about that.

Yes, there is a benefit to businesses that they are able to receive some revenue, but, actually, it’s a very small amount of revenue and I don’t necessarily think it makes a massive material difference to those businesses. However, just that feeling of someone being able to walk in and ask for a small sample and not have to pay for it causes me discomfort from an alcohol harm perspective. The whole idea that you actually have to take some time to make a transaction, you have to have some money available in order to actually pay for the sample, those kinds of things are actually the small things that can stop a person from potentially engaging in alcohol harm.

We hear about it in our regions. We have a lot of vineyards in the top of the South and some very, very fine ones, and people do go on these tours around the vineyards with the view that they can have a little bit of a freebie, you know, joy ride around the region on the vineyards, and I just don’t think that’s something we should be encouraging.

We know that vineyards want this bill. We know they want this legislation; they’ve asked for it. I think it’s a really, really good bill on behalf of the member, and I know that it will benefit those small businesses and larger businesses who operate vineyards in my electorate, because we do have a few located in the Nelson electorate, some very, very fine ones. So I’m really pleased to have supported this bill throughout the process and to be voting for it tonight alongside some of my colleagues. I congratulate Stuart Smith again on the successful passage of this legislation: well done, and I hope that you’ll be able to celebrate tonight with a glass of wine. Kia ora koutou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this amendment bill, and I thank you for the opportunity. I do thank the member Stuart Smith for bringing it to the House. However, I come from a community—and I’ve said in this House before that I do have issues in terms of the specific nature around alcohol. I want to provide the reasons why I hold that view. It’s a really mixed view that I bring to the House. I’m not against alcohol, as a member; however, in terms of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, it’s really important that I express the views of my community, Māngere, in South Auckland, where, obviously, we have got some challenges in our local community. We did have a local winery—Villa Maria—who were a very successful business until recently.

The issue I have with this bill, which I would like to make a contribution on, is the specific distinction around on-licence and off-licence, which is a structural element of the licensing system. I come from a community where, as New Zealanders, we have the opportunity to make clear decisions around legislation. I want to bring forth the voice of my community, where some of our community are not afforded the choice of accessing what this amendment bill is bringing across. So, in terms of the principle of the amendment bill—and I understand, and I’ve heard some very good arguments for why they’re supporting it. I also thank the Justice Committee members that heard a number of contributions. I do want to thank the member Stuart Smith. But, again, I come back to principles where there are issues specifically for people who may not (a) have the resource; and (b) the education in terms of understanding what a winery offers. I do note that part of the host’s responsibility is to provide a snack food option and also free water. Well, I come from a village and sort of snack food doesn’t do it for us—snack food, in terms of a village, is almost like a feast. But I bring that forward because there are some opposing views, which might be small, to this legislation, but from my community, there is a problem with alcohol.

One of the things that I do plead with the House to do is to make sure that whatever legislation there is around the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—there might be quite a lot of people that support this specific amendment bill. But in terms of definitions and in terms of size of specific products, there are successful wineries around the country—this is their thing, this is their product, this is why they’re on the New Zealand map and being successful. But in a community like South Auckland, like in Māngere, we have some real challenges around alcohol. And some of our people, believe it or not, travel in and out of Queenstown, to the Wairarapa, to Marlborough where there are really successful businesses.

The main reason that I am against this bill is that I asked that the definitions would be very clear, that the host’s responsibility would be also very clear—that, when the bill does pass tonight, there is a real understanding of who will come and access those services being offered in different places around the motu because they’re allowed to, because they have the option of going into a winery, tasting the samples—but there are still important measures that the host has a responsibility to partake in, in terms of offering that service and that product. Those are the views that I wanted to put across, and I won’t be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because it’s call No. 10, I’m going to take this as a split call as well.

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, well, Madam Speaker, I was hoping for a 10-minute dissertation on the finer points of this bill, but thank you. I’m happy with five minutes and I think those listening to Parliament radio and TV possibly will be as well.

Isn’t it interesting? A lot of those members opposite know where their bread is buttered and their consciences will subsequently fall into line because they know that this is very popular within the public and within small business that have really been keen on us fixing—

Hon David Parker: This is what they call small beer—small beer. We’re not going to be corrupted by small beer.

CAMERON BREWER: —this anomaly. Mr Parker can heckle all he wants, but he will be the first chardonnay socialist, turning up on his bike with his leg in a cast, on two crutches, with his $5, pulling in for a $10 pinot noir tasting, somewhere out the back of Bannockburn, telling them that he voted for this bill, and perhaps an inch in return. Perhaps they can reward him.

But this is an industry that—as we’ve read, and Radio New Zealand have reported on—is a $2.3 billion industry as far as the value of wine exports per annum. And I think we saw a big jump—

Dan Bidois: Billion?

CAMERON BREWER: —to $2.3 billion, Dan Bidois. Dan Bidois is our in-house economist. He’s writing this down. He’ll dutifully report it back to caucus next Tuesday. But $2.3 billion. And this is all about the shop window of New Zealand, the cellar doors. As we heard, Dan, and others in Auckland, took part in a wee tour of the Auckland International Airport and their expansion—their $3.9 billion expansion, I know it’s the number Air New Zealand likes: $3.9 billion. The tourism sector really needs a few pushes. It’s going pretty well. It’s going pretty well in Queenstown. They’re operating in Queenstown this summer season—I understand at Queenstown International Airport at 120 percent, but the rest of Australian tourism coming inbound is operating at about 75 percent.

Australians love to drink … our wine—our wine. Let’s get specific on that: our wine. And as we know, many of those exports head across the Tasman. So this enables those cellar doors to open up to all our international tourists—

Carl Bates: That’s right.

CAMERON BREWER: —and our domestic tourists too. And whether it be, Carl Bates, the wineries up the Whanganui River—I know you’ve got fruit wineries there, feijoa wines, mead, everything you want, we’ve got Gisborne chardonnay, we’ve got Marlborough sauvignon blanc, and of course—as David Parker, our in-house chardonnay socialist, will tell you—we’ve got the best pinot noir in Central Otago.

Now, there were a few anomalies that we were tested on, weren’t we, Mr Meager, in the Justice Committee—our learned colleague from Otago University, law graduate there and chair of the Justice Committee—they did test us, the Opposition, on whether an opportunist could set up a bar in Oxford Terrace; let’s just call it, hypothetically, “Webb’s Wine Bar”.

Hon Member: W-H-I-N-E.

CAMERON BREWER: Yeah, with an “H”: “Webb’s Whine Bar”. And you could go there—in Oxford Terrace, 5 degrees in Christchurch—and test the wine from a certain winery in Central Otago or North Canterbury, they produce wine too. Mr Meager told us there were 7 teaspoons to every tasting. And so the Hon Dr Webb put this proposition that we would be lining up 7 teaspoons of wine and trying to make a business out of that, and that was never going to work. So we have made the intent very clear that this is not for the opportunists, of Duncan Webb setting up a wine bar—although he asked a lot of inquisitive questions—or Leo Molloy in the Viaduct.

I want to finish up, Madam Chair, because you’ve shortened up my time—but I’ll try and take another call throughout the evening—to pay tribute to “Stewie-non Smith”, or “Sauvignon Smith” as we affectionately may call him after this. He will be carried aloft, as he should be, for persisting with this wine, for working with small business. Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, deserves all the credit on this. This is a great day for the New Zealand wine industry, a great day for New Zealand. Thank you.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to take a point of order just before the member finished because at the start of his speech, you made the call after he’d sought the call that it was to be a split call. My understanding is that the debate happening this evening is not happening along party lines because—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s right. That’s correct.

Tim van de Molen: —it’s a conscience issue. So, on that basis, there should be no split call at all, because a split call is only there to allow for the proportionality of the parties on a normal call basis when parties are taking call by call, since it’s a conscience issue—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As it’s a third reading, I will check that out, Mr van de Molen. If someone wants to call for call 11, if there’s an opportunity for Mr Brewer to have another five minutes, I’ll let him know. No, no—we’ll take another call. I’ll take a call from Rima Nakhle and I’ll come back to that point after I’ve taken advice.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the understanding. It was a pleasure to take a call back in the second reading a few weeks ago, and it’s even more pleasuresome—if that’s a word; English is my second language—

Hon Member: Pleasurable.

RIMA NAKHLE: —pleasurable to take a call in this third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. I’d like to thank our member the honourable Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura. Thank you very much for shepherding this bill that will bring a lot of joy to many people—those that own and operate those family businesses, those small cellar door wineries, like in Central Otago, Hawke’s Bay, and West Auckland. Thank you, Mr Stuart Smith for, as I said, shepherding this bill across the House, across the wine groves of Parliament House to this, the third reading in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill.

Now, in a nutshell, or rather in a grape cell, this bill allows wineries to charge to sample their wines. Many of us in the House—not all of us, and I respect that, but many of us—have been on those little trips with our friends and with our family when they come in from Australia, from Lebanon, or from the States, and we take them to our beautiful wineries to sample our stellar wines. This bill allows us to charge for a sample, and rightfully so. Why should they be giving out litres and litres and litres of their well-produced wine for free? It allows wineries to charge for a sample. This sample will be no more than 30 millilitres, and there was quite extensive kōrero around this subject of how many millilitres make up a sample size—

Hon Member: How many teaspoons

RIMA NAKHLE: —and how many teaspoons, but I’m going to focus on the millilitres. We came to a decision of 30 millilitres. I like that as well, because that also points to how much we are being careful with alcohol consumption. We don’t want people sculling things down like there’s no tomorrow. But we’re going to keep it at that good Goldilocks medium of 30 millilitres—30 to 35—and charge them for a sample.

It also allows cellar doors to share the same licence as a cafe or a restaurant without burdening them with those extra costs that, at this stage, they do have if they just want to serve some of their wines.

Carl Bates: We know the cost of regulation.

RIMA NAKHLE: Exactly. We’re taking back some of that red tape when they can have more red wine. Parliament’s intention, as Mr Stuart Smith said earlier, is very clear. It’s intended to allow wineries to charge for wine tastings. And we created a definition with intention for what constitutes a winery and a wine cellar door.

The great chair of the Justice Committee—in fact, my favourite chair of the Justice Committee from now and into the future—James Meager, the MP for—wait; I have to say this correctly—Rangitata—is that how you said I need to say it?—pointed to the fact that wine is the—

Hon Matt Doocey: The valleys of Timaru.

RIMA NAKHLE: —sixth-largest of—Ha, ha! Oh my God! Stop it, please. OK. Yep. My apologies, Madam Speaker—sixth-largest exports for New Zealand. I alluded to this—well, not alluded; I actually pointed to this fact in my second reading speech. With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I’d like to, again, just expand a little bit on the pride that I feel, being a wahine of Lebanese background, that the second winery in New Zealand was established by a Lebanese family, the Corban family.

Hon Member: Really?

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes, Corban Wines was established, and they were beaten—they could have been the first, but they were beaten—by only a few months by Pleasant Valley Wines in Henderson. And this is in West Auckland. Corban Wines was established in 1902. We’re talking about a very long time ago, 1902, by—I’d like to say the name—Assid Abraham Corban; or in Lebanese, with the Lebanese accent you’d say, Assid Abraham Arben, which means Eucharist. Assid migrated to New Zealand from Mount Lebanon in the 1890s, and he wanted to provide a good living for his family and make a good and honest start in his new homeland of Aotearoa New Zealand. So he established this winery, Corban Wines, but Assid himself, like many of the gentlemen from his village in the mountains of Lebanon—it’s called Shweir.

He was experienced both in winemaking and in stone masonry, because these types of skills were taught from a young age to a lot of the gentlemen that grew up in Lebanon. They were trained in these skills. So he felt it was an important part of settling himself in New Zealand and assimilating in a positive way, as much as possible, while still retaining his traditions and his links to his homeland, Lebanon. I’d like to tautoko Assid Corban. I’d like to acknowledge him and the Lebanese community that came out. It was harsh for them back in the 1890s. There weren’t the luxuries that many Lebanese people have now—Lebanese bread, Lebanese groceries to make our beautiful, flavoursome Lebanese food. It was hard, but they made do, and they appreciated the fact that they had an opportunity to be in such a beautiful and amazing country like Aotearoa New Zealand. So thank you, and may his memory always live on. The Corban winery was sold some decades ago, but his ancestors have kept the tradition going by opening more wineries. Thank you for indulging me while I just acknowledge that part of the importance of adding to the wine industry here in New Zealand.

I only, unfortunately, have three more minutes, and I’d like to just touch upon the subject of alcohol harm. We had a member in the House, a few moments ago, talk about how we need to be encouraged to remember the harm that alcohol does. And, absolutely, I think it’s important for all of us to remember the harsh harm inflicted upon all segments of New Zealand society because of excessive alcohol consumption. But here I’d also like my colleagues across the House to also remember the harm that drugs do to families, to people, in particular when coupled with alcohol, as well. That’s why I’m so happy with how our Government is cracking down on gangs, getting tough on law and order, on crime, so that we can make sure that drugs and excessive use of drugs with alcohol does not become more normal than it already, unfortunately, is.

This is a wonderful bill. It makes a little bit of difference that goes a long way for many of our businesses across Aotearoa. I know that businesses in the mighty Hawke’s Bay as well, which I pointed to last time I was speaking in the second reading of this bill, also, will be happy with the fact that we’re pulling back on the red tape. But, as I said, pulling back on the red tape, we’re giving people more access in a restricted and a responsible way to red and other colours of wine. We’ve got a commitment to responsible alcohol consumption. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to share some of those thoughts. We commend this bill to the House—I commend this bill to the House.

Before anyone else stands up to make a call, I just want to respond. I’ve checked out the point of order that was made by Tim van de Molen. Yes, it is a third reading, and I have the ability to split the 10th call. It is also the Speaker’s decision about how that runs. That’s the advice that I’ve taken, so now we are going to go from speech No. 11 back to the other half of speech No. 10, which cannot be taken by Mr Brewer now. Because it’s a split call, it can be taken by someone like Paulo Garcia, who hasn’t been on his feet before, seeing he’s calling.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So 2.9 million visitors came to New Zealand by November 2023—1.2 million - plus were Australians. One can imagine that one of the main objectives of tourism into New Zealand is to try New Zealand wine. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill allows for a heightened opportunity for the industry to appeal more strongly to the tourism industry—already a more than $2 billion export industry—all and all, over $3 billion.

Clearly, the tourism space is a space where the industry can grow, and this bill ticks all the boxes. It assists and encourages cellar door owners to run tasting of their products, making quality the focus instead of quantity by charging for 35 millilitre pours. It allows people coming to New Zealand to try multiple types of wine, and that’s very important because, in the summer of last year, I hosted American tourists, and they wanted to try the wine first. They were not big drinkers but they loved their wine, and so tasting was a big part of the activity that they came for, and they did go home with a few of their favourites. And by that time, they would have tasted many. The experience of coming to New Zealand and visiting a vineyard is critical to that wine tourism industry.

In addition to ticking the box for making it easier for business people to run cellar doors, alongside possibly running a restaurant with an on-licence, then the reduction of red tape in allowing for off-licences to be sought and secured by the same business without having to establish a separate entity to hold on to an off-licence separately is a big help to the industry. Already it is evident in many places in New Zealand that the tourism industry needs a lot of support in terms of people manning restaurants and hospitality businesses. It makes it easier to keep a cellar door open with an off-licence, even if the on-licence may not have people at that very day or business day to allow it to operate. So that’s helping the business. Then, also, the bill already provides for minimising harm, and that is by requiring water and snacks to be part of the offering of cellar doors. It is an experience more than anything else, and the snacks alongside the drinking is something that enhances the whole process.

With the current economic times that New Zealand finds itself in, it is extremely important to do all we can in terms of facilitating and pushing that the tourism industry is given all the opportunity for it to grow much further. The opportunity for this bill couldn’t have happened without our member and friend—ha, ha!

Hon Members: Stuart Smith.

PAULO GARCIA: —Stuart Smith, right here beside us! And we are very pleased that this has come to the third reading and will pass tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise today to speak in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. This bill introduced—wait for it—by my learned colleague Stuart Smith, represents a significant step forward in modernising our approach to wine tourism and supporting our local wineries. It addresses key issues that have long hindered the growth and sustainability of our winery cellar doors and, by extension, our wine tourism sector.

The purpose of this bill is twofold: to allow winery cellar doors to charge visitors for samples of their own wine and to add an off-licence category for wineries holding an on-licence. In essence, this bill aims to remove unnecessary red tape from the industry, enabling our wineries to operate more efficiently and effectively.

Let me outline the main provisions of this bill. Firstly, it allows winery cellar doors to charge for wine samples. This change addresses a significant issue in our current regulations, where our premium wine producers are unable to adequately value their product during tastings. By allowing charges for samples, we’re not only supporting the sustainability of these businesses but also promoting a culture of quality over quantity. Secondly, this bill introduces licensing flexibility. It enables wineries that operate both a cellar door and a dining facility to hold both an off-licence and an on-licence without creating separate legal entities. This change will significantly reduce costs and administrative burdens for our winery owners. Thirdly, the bill establishes clear definitions for “winery” and “winery cellar door”, ensuring that the legislation accurately encompasses the intended scope of operations.

This bill carries several key messages that I believe are crucial for this House to understand. Number one, support for local businesses. This legislation directly supports the growth and sustainability of our local wineries, benefiting small businesses and promoting New Zealand’s wine tourism. Number two, promoting responsible consumption. By permitting charges for samples and defining a reasonable sample size, we’re aligning with responsible drinking practices, ensuring visitors appreciate quality over quantity. Number three, simplifying regulations. This bill makes it easier for wineries to navigate licensing requirements, allowing them to focus on delivering quality experiences to visitors. Number four, enhancing tourism. These changes will elevate New Zealand’s status as a premium wine tourism destination, allowing wineries to offer more sophisticated and varied tasting experiences. And number five, cutting red tape. By simplifying regulatory hurdles, we’re empowering New Zealand’s local wineries to thrive, focusing on craft, distinctive cellar door experience, and enhancing our nation’s wine tourism appeal.

I’d like to draw the attention also to the report from the Justice Committee—hard-working, strong committee. Their recommendation that this bill be passed with some refinements underscores the importance and broad support for this legislation. They’ve suggested—

Dan Bidois: Talk us through the refinements.

TOM RUTHERFORD: “Talk us through the refinements.”, Mr Bidois says. Well, I’m going to. They’ve suggested adjusting the maximum sample size to 35 millimetres—ah, millilitres; not millimetres, millilitres; got to get that right—and ensuring the availability of snack food to support responsible consumption. These amendments further reinforce our commitment to promoting responsible drinking practices.

It’s worth emphasising that this bill is not just about supporting businesses; it’s about fostering a responsible wine culture. By allowing wineries to charge for samples, we’re shifting the focus from quantity to quality. This aligns with our goals of safe and responsible alcohol consumption, ensuring that visitors have a meaningful and enjoyable experience that centres on appreciation rather than excessive consumption. Furthermore, this bill represents a significant stride in supporting our local economies and communities. Wine tourism not only showcases New Zealand’s exceptional wines but also brings economic benefits to our rural communities. By supporting wineries through this bill, we’re investing in the growth and sustainability of these communities, ensuring they continue to thrive.

In conclusion, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill represents a carefully balanced approach to supporting our wine industry while maintaining our commitment to public health and safety. It will allow our world-renowned wine industry to showcase its products more effectively, contribute more significantly to our local economies, and cement New Zealand’s position as a top wine tourism destination. This bill embodies our commitment to cutting red tape, supporting local businesses, and enhancing our tourism sector. It’s a win for our wineries, a win for our tourists, and a win for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House and encourage all members to support this bill through this third reading and into law.

I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we are going to follow. I am going to put the question, and as I am going to announce the result, at that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote.