Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'd like to have a back and forth with the Minister or certainly refer to something that she has brought into the conversation around Part 2 where she explicitly said that she will consult with Māori around these particular provisions including the changes to age and also to the commencement date. In doing that I'd like to just put on the record my dissatisfaction with the Minister's answers to previous questions around this engagement because we did—the Hon Peeni Henare asked about the sweeping provisions in Part 1 that got rid of obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and numerous members across this side of the House were interrogating what was going to replace that and there were no satisfactory answers. So my question really speaks to the other points that people have been trying to get and we've had no satisfactory answer from the Minister about her scale of ambition for the targets. So if we look for example at a Radio New Zealand story that was on today we are aware from that—under the Official Information Act—that the Minister received advice that the smokefree laws would have made a big dent in the disparity of health outcomes between Māori and non-Māori." and that by 2040 it would "reduce the gap in mortality rates for over 45-year-olds by 23 percent for females and … 10 percent for males." Now when the Minister was asked on radio about the Treaty analysis—which also speaks to her statement that she will consult under Part 2 and we haven't heard any satisfactory explanation on what that consultation would look like—she said "I do not accept what Health officials have said about our Treaty of Waitangi obligations but it's not appropriate to talk further about that while a claim is before the [Waitangi] Tribunal."Now there's two parts to my question to the Minister: one is she's just made a bald statement to say that even though she's given us an assurance in this House that she is going to consult appropriately on Part 2 with Māori that she doesn't think that there's any problem with the Treaty but she hasn't said why and certainly she didn't say why in previous questions. So I'd really like to know from the Minister why she thinks so. I would also point out that there has been a careful debate earlier today in the repeal of Te Aka Whai Ora the Māori Health Authority where there was a question around the appropriateness or not of referring to the Waitangi Tribunal hearings and there was a decision made that it was appropriate that sub judice laws did not apply. And so I would just remind the Minister of that because it's not acceptable—the point is that she needs to be careful given that there's a claim there. We've heard nothing to reassure us that Māori will be consulted. The questions that I have are: when she says that they will be who will be consulted how will those people be selected when will that consultation take place and how can she reassure this House that the consultation will be appropriate to have the interests of Māori heard adequately given that there is now in the repealed bill as it stands no other obligation on her to consult with Māori? So I get that the Minister might want to do this in good faith I get that she may want to do that but there is no legislative safeguard.When I talk about scale of ambition repeatedly the Minister has talked about the success to date. Does that mean that she is satisfied with the progress made? She has said—I think she said it publicly—that a third of those who have quit smoking over the last few years have been Māori. Does that mean that she is satisfied with that progress and does not have a scale of ambition to get all smokers off smoking? Is she satisfied with pushing out the date to meet the smoke-free targets or is she going to commit to the targets that were legislated? Because right now there's a lot of confusion about what those targets actually are and whether there are protections for adequate consultation so that Māori who represent the higher statistics—17 percent still smoking versus significantly lower for the rest of the population—they deserve to know what will happen about that consultation. Where are the legislative safeguards? How can we be sure that Part 2 is going to take into account their interests?"