Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call in this committee of the whole House on the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by signalling that I think no one in this House disagrees about the risk you put children at by smoking in a car with children with you—not only the physical impact but I'd also highlight the psychological impact. When you talk to people who had the unfortunate experience of growing up and inhaling the second-hand smoke of either their parents or another adult in the front seats that psychological harm can stay with people for a very long time.So how do we get to a position where everyone in the House agrees that second-hand smoke on young children in a car physically and psychologically is harmful yet we are in a position where we're trying to for some reason carve out a definition between whether the car is moving or is stationary. Because in fact it's actually irrelevant; that harm is still there. So I would like to hear from the Minister a bit more about why now we have a change of heart so to speak. Because it's very well for the Minister to say Well we listened to submitters." Well if we had listened to submitters we would not be in a position now needing the Government to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). If we'd listened to submitters then this carve-out would have been agreed at the select committee stage.So I want to know what has changed since the select committee stage where we were under the understanding that there would be no change to hear and that is why the bill presents itself in the committee of the whole House at this stage. Because I would imagine that in fact the reason why the Minister has been dragged kicking and screaming to bring this SOP to this Chamber is because she's been shown up by the Hon Michael Woodhouse and his SOP. In fact if you were to go out and talk to the average New Zealander and say that the Government's passing a bill to say that you can't smoke in a car with kids unless you're living in it they'd scratch their heads and say "What's going on here?" Not only that but we got to the select committee stage and heard a lot of submissions from some very credible submitters and still the Government had shown no interest in changing it. What we've now got is we're playing catch up and what I find really confusing is that you've got a Government that's shown no interest—and the Government members on that select committee showed no interest when we were hearing from submitters—in changing this part and now because of our health spokesperson quite rightly reflecting on what submitters told us and what the public is telling us and putting forward an SOP well all of a sudden the Minister has decided that we've listened to submitters. Well I don't think we did but we are in this position. I had actually asked for some clarification around SOP 452 because we are in clause 9 replacing subsection (3) of section 20E with new subsection (3) paragraph (b) which says "stationary on a road and in use as a dwelling." With that line there are we not just going to end up with what the bill is actually saying now? So it won't change anything. Yes I can understand why in paragraph (a) it talks about a vehicle that's been "manufactured for use as an occasional or permanent dwelling;" which is that argument about a motorhome. We understand that. But by putting in paragraph (b) does that just not return us back to the status quo? That's why actually for a Minister who's got an army of officials I think she's been shown up today by an Opposition spokesperson who's probably writing his own SOPs and has actually got it right."