Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I was fascinated by the Associate Minister of Health's reference to the Rt Hon Helen Clark and the passage of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 and comparing what we're doing here with what was done 30 years ago. I think there are two quite significant differences to what we're doing today compared with that time. The first is obvious—that legislation passed in a flurry of controversy. We were all going to resign our jobs because we weren't going to be able to smoke in our offices; bars would empty out because people weren't able to have a ciggy with their pints. And none of that happened. None of that had happened and we look back now and realise that the sky didn't fall in. The big difference here though is that there's actually broad support for this not only across the House but across society. And I think the other significant difference with the 1990 Act is that that was designed very specifically to require and encourage people to do less of something. And actually what we're doing with adding vaping products into that legislation is encourage people to do more of something as well as less of something else—and that is to vape instead of smoke tobacco. So it's a slightly unusual sort of a situation we find ourselves in but it's the right thing to do and it does require a regulatory regime.I do note however that the amount of harm that is understood to be caused by the products that we are now regulating is so low that the Attorney-General gave a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act fail on the prohibition on the marketing of these products because there wasn't sufficient evidence that they were harmful. And actually I'm quite encouraged by that. We're doing the right thing despite the Attorney-General's opinion. But you know when you've got the likes of Action on Smoking and Health coming and saying Look we're pretty relaxed about this. We want a liberal regime but we need a regime." and when the best evidence we've got is that these products are 95 percent less harmful than the alternatives that people are using now then we want to encourage smokers to use them. What we don't want to do is create a back door for people who are not addicted to nicotine to think it's sexy or fun or cool at a party. And frankly they are. So if we sort of denormalise it at that level while continuing to portray this product as an alternative to the deadly harm that tobacco when smoked creates then we're doing the right thing. Now I should just put on record—and I know we don't dwell at least at length on the committee stage that we've just had but I just want to put on record—that actually we accidentally supported the Associate Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 567. I would have opposed because we wanted the vaping sale rate to be at 50 percent not 60 percent that but I wasn't quick enough to call for a party vote. But the Hon Nicky Wagner's SOP would have been ruled out as inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee.Despite that I do appreciate what the Associate Minister has done right from the get-go. She did say that there was a lot of thought time and care—and I know there was a lot of thought and care. We think it took too long more time than was needed. But I did appreciate as the health spokesperson at that time the manner in which the Associate Minister was prepared to engage once she had finally done her bit to bring the bill into shovel-ready shape for first reading that she did engage me. I was wishing that we could have done that sooner. But I think there has been a reasonably constructive process along the way. I also want to talk about health issues because this is probably my epitaph—certainly in this Parliament who knows what might happen in the next—because I'm no longer in that gig. I want to acknowledge the Health Committee; your good self Madam Speaker; and also the chair of the Health Committee Louisa Wall; together with my parliamentary colleagues who actually worked really constructively on this bill but also more or less on just about everything that we had coming through. And that's the appropriate manner in which to approach issues where we all have the same goal and that is to improve the health of New Zealanders. We may disagree around the edges but we certainly agree on that goal. This will do that. This will make the health of New Zealanders better and it's a very good thing to do. I'm happy to commend it to the House."