Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I want to start off by acknowledging my personal experience in regards to the impacts of smoking on individuals. As a registered paramedic and a volunteer with St John who still actively operates on the front line I've attended many a call of patients who are in severe respiratory distress in regards to emphysema and also around chronic bronchitis. And that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the implications of that disease on our population—particularly the elderly population for whom I think in those days smoking was commonplace—is a significant consequence and a very distressing way in which an individual will die because of course that damage to the lung is irreversible.I want to also reflect on the fact that actually my grandfather when I was a young child at the age of eight I watched him die with emphysema as well. So those implications of watching the implications of smoking on people of which you may or may not know and the implications of that have led me personally to have never smoked in my life. And I reflect on that in terms of where we are.The reality though in regards to where we are today and looking forward is different to where we were 20 years ago looking forward. And the implications in terms of those that are smoking today and looking forward to future generations are significantly—day and night—less than what they were in the past. I think a lot of the narrative this evening has been around this is going to save lives of our children and all of that type of stuff and that's absolutely rubbish. The vast majority of children or young people that are smoking nowadays are vaping and they're using vaping products; they're not using traditional tobacco smoked cigarettes. And those products are products that are absolutely and unequivocally linked to the lung disease implications which I've just referred to. So this whole narrative around the fact that our young people and children are going to get caught up in this to the degree in which it was in the past is simply a fallacy. It is not the reality and I think it's quite ingenious for those on the other side to be referring to that.We also heard comments from one of the other members who has a medical background in regards to his experience in hospitals or in primary care in South Auckland. And absolutely I've seen those implications as well in South Auckland in terms of a front-line aspect of that but this is a generation that have smoked for many of them 10 20 30 40 50 years—all their life—in regards to that. That's not what we're looking at going forward from where we are today in terms of dealing with the final percentage of the people in a very small percentage that are smoking.Dr Shane Reti our health spokesperson is a general practitioner by training. He operates and works in Whangārei. Northland is an area which has both wide geographical variation but also high levels of disparity and deprivation. And I think anyone in terms of that experience having worked and operated in that part of New Zealand would understand both the challenges of dealing with health challenges such as smoking but more broadly the implications of that. So to hear the Minister on the other side in the opening elements of the opening speech in this bill undertaking personal attacks on a member who has such high standing in regards to his capability and competence in the health space is an absolute disgrace. But what it actually gives you an insight into—and for those watching just so they can get a bit of a feel of what's going on inside the Labour Party caucus at the moment there is an absolutely let's play the person not the ball" right? They play the person not the ball. And that is the degree of arrogance on that side because this bill is a bill that at its heart is not going to improve and not going to achieve the outcome of that final mile of reduction in smoking for individuals that need that support. We're not talking about our young people in our schools that are currently vaping. This is about those that are dealing with the tobacco products.And we've spoken and Dr Shane Reti has put on the table to the Minister in a bipartisan manner a mechanism and a pathway in which he believes and is supported by the National Party caucus—that we believe will achieve that outcome. We're not in this game to do virtue-seeking policy; there is no point in that. We are in the game in order to improve outcomes.Chlöe Swarbrick: What's your drug policy?SIMON WATTS: You can hear some of the comments from the other side. You see you can hear some of the comments from the other side. And it's interesting because in their contributions—and for those that have been watching—you'll see how long they actually took their contributions this evening and most of them didn't even make 60 seconds. But yet they're quite happy when we stand up on this side of the House to articulate the narrative and rationale around why this bill will not deliver to mock it to make personal attacks across the House in regards to that. But again it simply reinforces a narrative that this is a Government that's on the ropes this is a caucus that are ill disciplined and they are struggling internally at the moment.So back to this bill. The implications which we have particular issues with are in regards to the recommendation around the impact on retailers who are selling tobacco products. The reality is for these smokers who smoke—and anyone who is addicted to nicotine knows if the shop at the end of the street doesn't sell it that's not going to stop them from smoking; they're just going to find the product through any mechanism and any means. An addiction drives a desire to achieve that product over anything else and that also includes going into the black market to achieve and obtain that product. They will stop at nothing in order to obtain that product. And simply the conversation around reduction from 6000 retailers to 600 is absolutely not going to have any consequential impact in regards to reducing the availability and access of cigarettes to the people who are in most need of reducing their consumption. If anything the only implication of that decision is going to impact on those hard-working retailers who are already under significant pressure and stress as a result of this Government's soft on crime approach.The impact also in regards to the black market cannot be underestimated. We already know that significant quantities of illegal tobacco come in over our borders through our ports predominantly in a ratio of which we're probably only picking up one container out of seven containers of illegal cigarettes. That is the reality today in regards to the degree and scale of counterfeit tobacco products coming into this market on the black market. And most of that the gangs will actually sell into the system and as a result those products are flowing through. So simply cutting out these retailers is simply creating another market—an illegal market—that will be ruthless in regards to taking advantage of those individuals that require that product at any cost and they don't and will not conform to the regulations and any of the compliance requirements around that including the quality of the product or what's included within the product as well.So that's what's at stake here. I think the element around reducing the nicotine in the cigarettes is the pathway in which we support in believing that that will actually make the material impact in order to deal with that last mile of smokers. That's evidence-based and supported in terms of that and that is the implication and that is the action that will result in the outcome that we need as a country. So it simply bewilders me why the Minister is not willing to engage. I mean take our political hats off. Good policy should be adopted by any party and sensible policy that achieves outcome should be adopted by any party. And maybe I'm just being naive with two years in this House but the reality is that this Government are failing to listen to a pathway which will actually deal with the outcome that's in front of us without putting in place the significant implications and negative consequences on business owners across this country that will absolutely be—as I think Dr Reti noted previously—the collateral damage in this conversation. And I feel sorry for those entities particularly when it is going to have no significant impact in regards to the reduction of nicotine and tobacco consumption which is the whole purpose of this bill.So National will not be supporting this bill. We have put on the table an alternative policy of when we're in Government in 2023 then that's what we will adopt and in the interim period we will watch how this goes. This Government will use their majority today to ram this through at any cost they'll tick the box the Minister will do the virtue-signalling victory lap but the reality is it's not going to deal with the underlying issues so we do not support this bill. Thank you."