Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Following on from that and indeed addressing a couple of the comments Minister Salesa made in response to both of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are in consideration for the committee on Part 1A I want to first touch on the comment that the Minister said that this bill is measured because it doesn't go as far into the private affairs of families as for example a ban on smoking in houses would. Well I just want to respond to that by reflecting on both a phone conversation and a media interview that the Children's Commissioner did when this bill was introduced. Mr Becroft contacted me to ask me and my caucus to support this bill and we had a long conversation about the interference into the private affairs by the State because of this bill. I made the comment to him that I thought that the next step would be—in my view a significant step too far—the imposition by the State into the family home into the house. I said that that was just a step far too far for me and he said Well Mr Woodhouse if I am asked by the media I will say that that's what the Government should be doing next." Well actually he didn't wait to be asked. In the very first interview he gave about that he made it very clear that it was his view that that's where the State should be going.Now I have a huge admiration for the advocacy that Andrew Becroft does for our tamariki but I have to respectfully and strongly disagree that that is an appropriate next step by the Government into the private affairs of family. I really am uncomfortable with where we're going here. But as I say if we are going to do it at least let's do it right.I note the Minister's comments in defence of and the support for her SOP 452 which actually says "Well if we change the definition of a vehicle to one that is manufactured for use as an occasional or permanent dwelling then the exception is OK." Well I'm sorry we're taking the eye off the ball here. I think there are two issues here. I mean I live in Dunedin and my playground is central Otago and like other places like the Coromandel—Dan Bidois: North Shore.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well not quite the North Shore. I don't think freedom camping is quite the issue on the North Shore because that's where I was going. I see a plethora of vehicles around Lake Dunstan all summer that masquerade as vehicles for use as occasional or permanent dwellings. In order to get around these freedom camping rules what people do is they put those stickers on the back of those vehicles to say "It has ablutions" or something—some kind of loose reference to the vehicle being used as an occasional or permanent dwelling and that is a nonsense for most of the time.The big white Kia campervans—we all know they're campervans and what they are. But people living in vehicles—under this Government the numbers have gone up—are using these things as an occasional or in terrible cases permanent dwelling. Who is to say? Who is the arbiter of whether a vehicle is actually manufactured for that purpose? That is its practical use by freedom campers by our increasing numbers of homeless and the Government effectively admits defeat on that issue by saying "Well they're going to use a vehicle as a home; let's let them smoke in that home." It's ridiculous. It's absolutely dancing on the head of a definitional pin which nobody is able to police.So I say to the Minister and the Government: if the Government is going to take this step at least take this step properly and consistently because they have also said this is a policy a law that will be most effective in the prevention rather than the prosecution—and I'll come to that in a later intervention. But if it is truly going to be most effective in the prevention be consistent and holistic in preventing smoking in vehicles with children under the age of 18. It's the only sensible thing to do. It's what the select committee was told by submitters was the only sensible thing to do and people are scratching their heads at this odd exception. My SOP will clarify that and remove any doubt about what this bill is intended to do."