Lotu-Iiga SamHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): I just want to take the opportunity to answer a few questions queries suggestions and other matters that have been raised across this Chamber. The first issue I will deal with is one that was addressed by Annette King. She asked what the cigarette packets would look like. This packet I am holding is a clear example. It is very similar to the Australian packages. They have some images on them. They have health warnings. As the member has already stated they will be adapted to New Zealand conditions—there is a Māori health warning. But this is just an example. It is a prototype. It has not been finalised. It will be finalised of course as part of the regulations that will go out to form part of this legislation as we proceed not just through the House but through the public consultation process. I am happy to share this with the member after this session—and the Health Committee of course. Secondly there has been talk about some type of delay in this legislation. Can I just say up front that our Government has been transparent about the fact that we would keep a watching brief on the World Trade Organization (WTO) case that was put against Australia. We would keep a watching brief through our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials. We would look at how that case transpired and we would also look at the evidence around standardised packaging and how it worked in Australia. Some might say you know we want to be world leaders at this—like the Olympics and making these comparisons—but sometimes a cautious approach a considered approach and an approach based on science and evidence is the way to go. In some debates I hear people talking about science and how we should test it. Well it has been tested now. The evidence out of Australia—and that was available only earlier this year—showed that a quarter of the reduction of smoking prevalence in Australia could be attributed to standardised packaging. That is evidence now that we can hold up. There is room for members in this Committee who have had opinions that were not tested around science to then change their opinion and vote for a piece of legislation that will based on evidence and based on science make a difference—and based on the advice I should say from those officials. We now know that we are on strong grounds for putting this legislation through the House. We also know as I have already stated that other countries are taking up standardised packaging legislation and those countries are not subject to WTO action. Those are tangible things that we can point to that demonstrate to us that we are on strong ground and that we should proceed with this piece of legislation. I wanted to just address that point—that it is considered—and to members who say that this bill was in the House in 2013 I say that actually it was introduced in the House in December 2013. It had its first reading in February and the progression of this bill is not inconsistent with other bills that have gone through this House. I want to thank the member Louisa Wall. She has since left the Chamber but I just want to note that she talked about the time in terms of Supplementary Order Papers 198 and 199 in which this legislation should come into force after this bill is passed. She noted the various times. The Health Committee considered these matters. It is important to note that the select committee members looked at these matters and they rejected these assertions. The reason I made the analogy—and I will state publicly and I apologise. It was in jest. Barbara Stewart and I have a strong relationship. We have a positive relationship. [Interruption] She seems surprised. But those were the arguments that were put forward by the tobacco industry in the select committee. They were rejected wholeheartedly by the select committee. I reject them wholeheartedly too. I think that where the regulations will be developed over time we need that level of flexibility within this legislation. We know that the regulations have been developed and we know that they will come into force after this bill has been passed and so we need that flexibility. In terms of the second Supplementary Order Paper—No. 199—in terms of the wash-through can I say to that member that the transitional provisions in the bill are clear. They currently allow for two wash-through periods and that member knows that. The 3-month or the 12-week wash-through period—the total period—is actually longer than the period that was allowed in Australia. It is longer than that period. The member notes—and I will agree with her—that there were some teething issues but we believe based on the Australian experience and the extended period under this bill that there will be sufficient time for wash-through to occur in the New Zealand context. I accept the submission that she has made. However I reject it alongside the select committee in terms of whether this is sufficient time.Can I also just come back to members opposite talking about the overall package in terms of this along with tax increases. I can talk about the overall package—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. No you can't.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —along with the e-cigarettes consultation paper that has been put out there. They talk about working together. I have always had my hand out to work alongside members opposite in terms of these initiatives and I note that Ms Wall and I constantly go to events relating to smoking cessation and constantly support those groups that are determined to bring down the smoking rates for New Zealanders. I agree with her that this is part of a culture change to make smoking less attractive—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK I am—Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —and I want to come back—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Minister will come back—Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —to why this legislation is important. Can I Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You can sit down when I stand up. I am going to remind the Minister that I have been relatively tight on other parties and to be fair I am not going to allow him to reply to irrelevancies from them.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: OK. I want to come back to why this legislation is important. It is about the lives of New Zealanders. It is about the 4500 to 5000 New Zealanders who die prematurely. It is not about the 4500 people who die as some people have said in this Committee; it is that they are premature deaths. They are people—they are New Zealanders—who could have lived longer and enjoyed time with their families and their communities. Of course there is the health cost of smoking which I think is really important when you consider this piece of legislation as bringing about better change for New Zealanders as a whole. Although members opposite have made relevant points I believe I have answered those in due course. I have given an undertaking that this Government is committed to this piece of legislation and is committed to the health of New Zealanders and to bringing down the smoking prevalence of New Zealanders over time.