Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. Let us just get a couple of pieces of evidence on the table. One is that smoking is really bad. I do not think there is anyone in this House or anyone listening who is not aware of that. The second piece of evidence from the only jurisdiction that we can really analyse as to the effectiveness of plain packaging legislation—Australia—comes from its post-implementation review which by the way is a very good thing for countries to do when they make regulations. What it told us is that over 3 years after plain packaging was introduced in Australia there was a 2.2 percent decrease in smoking rates part of a trend that had begun several decades earlier and according to the very reputable econometrician whom Australia employed to do this study anywhere from 0.05 to 0.95 percentage points of that decrease in smoking could have been because of plain packaging. On average they think that about 0.5 percent of Australians stopped smoking over that period because of plain packaging.So those are the facts that are not in dispute. At least 0.05 percent of Australians stopped smoking because of plain packaging laws. Those are the things that are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not smoking cessation is the only value that New Zealand holds. I think that there are a number of other values that are important to New Zealand including property rights and the right of a business to employ its brand. Some of the speakers earlier in this debate have said that we have the proof that this legislation will be effective because none of the tobacco companies want it. Well of course none of them wants it any more than political parties would want to have their brands removed so that they could not compete with each other. Every business wants to have its own brand so that it can compete with other businesses. So it is simply not true to say that tobacco companies are worried that there will be a reduction in smoking. What they are worried about is that there will be a reduction in their ability to compete with other tobacco companies. They are worried that what they are they going to find is that the tobacco companies that succeed under this legislation are the ones that are prepared to compete on price only. So it is perfectly understandable that the tobacco companies would be opposed to having their property rights confiscated.We have in this country a tradition that you are free to do what you like so long as you are not causing harm to others. You might have understood restrictions on banning tobacco advertising if you thought that it was going to be seen by people who had not sought it out and who would be sinisterly influenced by seeing that advertising even though they were not looking for it. You might accept that argument. But what is put forward by plain packaging is that people will not be able to look at these brands even though they have actively chosen to see them by asking to have the cabinet in the shop opened and by taking them home and looking at them in their own private spaces.It is said that hard cases make bad law. It is a hard case. Nobody wants to defend the tobacco industry but the principles behind New Zealand's tradition of property rights freedoms of trade and the freedom to do as you damn well please so long as you are not harming anyone else are also very important. That is why I am opposed to this bill which will have a minimal effect on smoking behaviour as demonstrated in Australia. But it is a major step in eroding our tradition of property rights and freedom to trade. That is something that every legitimate business in New Zealand and every business person listening tonight should be very very concerned about. The ACT Party proudly opposes this bill. Thank you.