Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Madam Assistant Speaker thank very much. I want to start by saying that I rise on behalf of not only the National Party but as a member of the Health Committee to oppose this instruction to truncate the report-back time to 2½ months. You know we're not here for three months or four; it's two and a half. I just want to start by saying in response to that last Government member the Hon Shane Jones who took his call if I said half the rubbish that he does in this House I'd expect my mum to call me up and tell me to come home. I mean we are debating a serious matter here. This is the first time this Parliament has had the ability to debate regulation on vaping—the first time. In the words of his own colleague Darroch Ball who interjected when the Hon Michael Woodhouse was debating he said You've got to do it once and do it right." Well in fact that's what we're actually arguing for today in this debate: doing it once and doing it right. New Zealand's Parliament has not debated regulation on vaping before. And in the words of the Minister herself when she took the first call of the first reading of this debate around the smoke-free and the regulation of vaping she said "The bill is complex." So you have the Minister responsible for the bill who says it's complex which is coded for "I don't think we've got this right." yet on the other hand the introduction of a 2½ month instruction to go through a submission process.Add into that mix that the Minister herself admitted that in fact there hadn't been a lot of consultation in the lead-up to this bill. The Government talks about a new style of politics yet they decline the Opposition's request to be involved in the formation of this bill. There's no other consideration of stakeholders in this policy development so how can we go from the Minister accepting this is a complex bill and the Minister stating that in fact there hasn't been a lot of consultation—which I would probably state means there hasn't been enough consultation—and now the report-back time has been truncated to 2½ months. The risk is we don't have that consultation and we don't have the ability for submitters to have their say. I know we are to talk about the 2½ months in this debate and not the content of the bill but I just want to make one quick point because I am going to be brief here. This bill is around the regulation of a harmful substance. We are not making things safe here; we're introducing vaping to reduce the harm. Yes it reduces harm by 95 percent but it is a harmful substance. So how can we be in a position in Parliament when we are looking at the regulation of a harmful substance and we're saying the bill is complex—so we haven't got all the answers yet. We're actually stating we haven't done much consultation yet all of a sudden we're saying "You've only got 2½ months to seek submissions and to hear them."The problem is we are going to be forced into a position to return a bill back to the House after 2½ months that would not have all the tyres kicked. It will not be fit for purpose. We will be forced to go into the committee of the whole House and there'll be a number of Supplementary Order Papers from the Government side and there will be from the Opposition side to correct the problems that this bill will come back to in the second reading. And that is why I think we should be opposing the 2½ month—not three four or six—report-back date. Thank you Madam Speaker."