Woodhouse MichaelParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Before I go on to further elucidate the case for the amendment Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 536 in the name of Nicky Wagner I want to just set out my relief that we're actually having this debate now—we got there in the end. Minister there was a high level of concern that we may not be able to pass this legislation through in this Parliament and I'm very glad that we are. I understand that there was some nervousness about some of the amendments that could be passed and potentially with the support of Government support parties. I don't believe any of the amendments should they be successful should give cause for concern for the Government.But I am very pleased we're here. It's taken a long time and we now have an industry that is largely responsible but which has I think got to the point where things like the advertising the point of sale displays the marketing of vaping products is at a level that needs to be controlled. We heard in the select committee a number of concerns particularly from young people about the degree to which vaping products are now entry-level. They're not only being used by people as a transition away from smoked tobacco we're actually hearing anecdotes from a number of young people that they are taking it up. I don't believe the sorts of surveys that were being conducted by organisations like Action on Smoking and Health actually tell the full story; so I'm very pleased that we're here.Now we did hear from a number of the vaping retailers about the degree to which their businesses would be negatively affected by the level of vaping products that need to be sold in order to be considered a specialist vaping supplier and I think when the bill was introduced it was at 80 percent—is that right? I think it was—Hon Jenny Salesa: 85.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 85 percent. Now it was quite clear from the submissions that they could not continue to trade in the way that they were with that level of requirement for vaping supplies. Once the select committee had reported back I think all parties also had some very good submissions from reputable vaping specialist suppliers that even the recommended level of 70 percent was going to cause considerable harm to otherwise reputable businesses and I think one of the things we need to do is make sure that we do no harm (a) with the product but (b) with people's legitimate businesses.My colleagues Dr Shane Reti Nicky Wagner Matt Doocey and I were very willing to listen to a sensible amendment that would be able to allow them to at least put their case to the Director-General of Health and I think it's really worth pointing out SOP 536 is not an automatic pass. For specialist vaping retailers to be able to be considered as such with a 50 percent total sale from vaping products they need to convince the Director-General of Health. So the amendment actually does maintain a 70 percent proportion for somebody to be considered a vaping product specialist unless they can satisfy the director-general that they are a responsible retailer. I think that's an excellent compromise. We're not giving them a pass but we are giving the opportunity to demonstrate that and to continue to trade because they have been in my view almost entirely responsible in their self-imposed R18 restrictions that don't currently exist in law and the importance that they place on ensuring that younger people are not lured into their stores by the attraction of vaping and they will continue to do that.But the bill as it's currently shaped will prevent them from trading at all in many cases. So I do commend SOP 536. I know that the New Zealand First Party have been looking very closely at this issue and I would be interested in an indication from them about whether or not they would support it but I'm also very keen to hear from the Minister about why if she doesn't believe that SOP 536 has merit that would be the case.