Woodhouse Michael; Salesa JennyHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you. Dr Reti and I appreciate that answer but I'm going to labour the point in respect of the amendments at new section 53(2A) and go back to Nicky Wagner's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). The Minister said effectively that these are unlawful because the bill will make them unlawful. We know that; that's the point. So what this basically does right now is ban all oral nicotine products. Nicky Wagner's SOP will distinguish between two classes of oral nicotine product: one that is not tobacco and make that lawful and one that is tobacco and continue to make that unlawful. Snus is an oral tobacco product. It will not be lawful if SOP 562 is passed. What I'm trying to understand and I still haven't got this clear from the answers from the Minister is whether or not she agrees with that description. We can argue whether there's merit in the SOP but what we haven't got to the point of yet is where we have a shared understanding about what this SOP does. So I'll ask the question in the simplest way I can: does the Minister believe that if SOP 562 is passed snus would be lawful.Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): The Government does not agree with any of the Hon Nicky Wagner's SOP.Hon Michael Woodhouse: That's not my question.Hon JENNY SALESA: That is not your question but can I say that with oral nicotine products including gum which is now sold over in pharmacies there is a process of going through the Medicines Act 1981 and the Government's SOP is as it is right now and we do not agree with her SOP about oral nicotine or her SOP about the health workers—because we already cover it in the legislation—or her SOP about reducing the threshold to 15 percent. Again we already cover it in the Government's SOP.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I get that; that wasn't my question. Before we get to whether or not the Government agrees or disagrees I'm trying to work out whether the Government and the Minister particularly actually understand what the amendment will do. So it's clear the Minister is not going to state a view about whether she believes snus would be lawful if SOP 562 went through so I will make it very clear to the committee: if members are inclined to support SOP 562 snus would not be lawful. What the Prime Minister said on the AM Show on Monday or Tuesday morning was incorrect and that has to be made very clear.Now I'm not going to labour the point any more but I would ask the Minister this. There has been a legal opinion released and I'm not even sure who to but it came from the law firm of Russell McVeagh and they're no dummies. And I think though it relates to cigars and the impact of new section 53(2A) on whether cigars would become unlawful. Now some of my colleagues who shall remain nameless are a bit concerned by that so I would be as a reassurance I'm sure I don't need keen for the Minister to check with officials to make sure that they are absolutely convinced that we're not inadvertently banning cigars by the new section 53 of the bill which replaces section 29 of the current Act and adds section 53(2A) to ban oral nicotine products—that cigars would not be part of that ban.Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I do not see how cigars are going to be made illegal with this when it is clear that it's about oral nicotine. New section 53(2A) that the Hon Michael Woodhouse referred to is about oral nicotine. Cigars as far as I am aware are something that is combustible.