Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I didn't realise that hand gestures were helpful to sort of communicate a message in the House. I'll bear that in mind in other contexts.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Not always.CHRIS PENK: Not always—OK thank you. The member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Shane Jones said before that the matter was trifling but I think he would acknowledge that it's never fruitless to try to avoid a law turning to custard. So for that reason the select committee needs as much time as possible or at least not less time than usual to be able to consider the matter that will be before it—namely the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. I make that submission for approximately four reasons. By happy coincidence they all start with the letter c": cross-referencing other obligations certainty complexity and the crowded public square. The first of those is cross-referencing other obligations. Mr Macindoe has already referred to the need to weigh New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report requirements so I won't go into that in any detail but I think it's also worth noting that the other obligations that would need to be weighed against the substance and indeed the detail of the law itself include international obligations. For example the World Health Organization—oh I beg your pardon; I thought someone called out "Who?"—Framework Convention on Tobacco Control contains New Zealand's obligations with which this law will need to be consistent. So it's important that the select committee turns its mind to that and isn't unduly rushed in doing so lest it miss an opportunity to continue New Zealand's alignment with that international instrument. The second point was around certainty more particularly the need to get the law right the first time. This is an area of public life that will be important to those who perhaps don't necessarily interact much with parliamentary processes and debates and I would rather not see a situation where the Parliament as has happened regrettably sometimes in recent years in relation to drug legislation of other types—to sort of go backwards and forth and create some confusion in the community. So for the sake of certainty it's important that the select committee takes all the time that it needs to get this legislative process right the first time. As the saying goes "Act in haste repent at leisure." Well this would be an Act that will be passed and it seems that it's set to be passed in due course and to do that hastily and only to be required to repeal or replace at leisure later would be a shame and certainly one that's open to the House to avoid today. My next point was around complexity and that really touches on the fact that it is a very technical piece of legislation. If we look for example as early as the second line of the explanatory note the select committee will need to turn its mind to the differences and relative merits of "tobacco smoking products herbal smoking products smokeless tobacco products and vaping products". To allow them the time that they need to gain expert advice on the differences between those from a health perspective and I suppose from a justice perspective as well is very important. I don't think that we should tie the hands of the select committee any more than would be the case normally in terms of a reporting period in relation to their very important duty to consider those details. My final point relates to the crowdedness of the public square. Mr Macindoe is ahead of me in referencing the particular demands that he expects—and I think quite reasonably—will be placed upon the Health Committee in the coming months regarding the coronavirus pandemic as we can now call it despite accusations of scaremongering which are themselves scaremongering and spurious. But more generally speaking there will be a crowded public square such that people who have an interest in this legislation will no doubt also be keenly interested in paying attention to other matters of policy making within this legislative process but also ahead of the general election. So I think we'd be naive not to think that that will be important in part of the context of lawmaking and submissions that can be expected in relation to this bill. Again I think for the members of the Health Committee to pressure them unduly to have a shorter than usual process in considering this very important legislation would not do justice to them nor indeed the subject matter of the bill. So for that reason I along with colleagues on this side of the House it seems reject the notion that there should be a shorter period for the Health Committee to consider the bill before reporting back."