Webb Duncan; Verrall AyeshaHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): A very short contribution from me because I do think it's important that the title reflect what this bill actually does. And I think the clearest most succinct way to put that would be to call this bill the Smokefree Halt Initiatives Tobacco Bill" so if you think about that I think those four words very clearly tell us what this bill is. It's halting initiatives. It's not going forward; it's going backwards. "Smokefree Halt Initiatives Tobacco Bill"—four words say it all.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I do want to make some remarks relating to the commencement of this bill because I studied with some interest the coalition agreement and I note that from the outset there was a plan to have this repeal done by March. And as the House has learnt tonight I don't doubt that's because parts of the provisions on the reduction of retail outlets would have started to come into force.I do want to make clear this evening my view that there was another option open to this Government that would have met their policy objectives and been consistent with good lawmaking allowed the people of New Zealand to submit to a select committee process and allowed proper scrutiny of the bill. That relates to the point that the policy objectives of the Minister could have been met while retaining the approved retailer section. That would mean that tobacco would be no more—in fact still less—regulated than products like alcohol that is licensed. And those retailers would have standards to meet in terms of whether the person was a responsible person or not. It would be easier to enforce all of those policies. Elements of the policy could stay and the Minister could choose to have as many retail outlets as she wanted and remove the limits that our previous Government had put in place. All of that could be achieved and you wouldn't need to rush the bill because all you could do would have the approved retailer programme stay in place and not have the same limit.So my comment in relation to the commencement of this bill is that it could have been different. We could have achieved the Minister's policy objectives with a proper process. We could have had time to study it as a select committee. The Minister herself could have been better prepared for the questions—quite reasonable questions about the operation of this bill—that she has been unable to answer. Instead we've had a process with a highly technical bill where there is an underlying Act an amendment to that Act and then an amendment to that amendment. We've had a process where we have had to understand that Act on the fly—and I'm grateful to all the colleagues in the House who have pitched in on that effort tonight. I've found the contributions of my colleagues extremely illuminating in that respect often more illuminating than those comments coming from the Minister.So my disappointment is about the fact that we're doing this under urgency that this is one of a programme of bills done under urgency that such important policy for the lives and health of New Zealanders is being done under urgency and it could have been different. We could have done a process not different to what we went through. You know the ironic thing is that we went through proper process to give retailers the time to have their say. We gave industry the chance to have their say. It all seems incredibly asymmetrical really that we on the left in seeking to achieve progressive health policies have given those forces that have sought to undermine the health of New Zealanders an opportunity to do so. Meanwhile when they get the opportunity to have laws that favour them made there is no opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have proper input to their laws. And so the commencement of this bill could have been delayed considerably the Minister's policy objectives would still be met and we would have a chance to properly go through the legislative process."