Swarbrick Chlöe; Costello CaseyCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I appreciate that Mr Chair. So I have asked a number of questions to the Minister particularly about where this piece of legislation comes from. And that is a particularly pertinent point because of course this is occurring under urgency and this is the only opportunity that we have for meaningful scrutiny of this legislation.Now the Minister in response to my ongoing questioning on this point has referred us successively to the coalition agreement. This is a point that is really important for us to have borne out here because what we have is effectively a Government saying that the reason that they are doing something—under urgency no less and therefore bypassing typical parliamentary and public scrutiny—is because it is in the coalition agreement. Why is it in the coalition agreement? Well because it's in the coalition agreement. But why is it in the coalition agreement? Because it's in the coalition agreement. That is as I alluded to before known as logically a tautology. Effectively what the Government's saying is the reason that this is here is Cos we said so." In the Greens and us here on the Opposition benches we simply do not believe that is anywhere near good enough. Simply being in the position of Government does not give you a carte blanche right to do whatever it is that you would like off the back of that election result.So some specific questions that I have again for the Minister given that she has outlined that she's not particularly interested in answering where that came from in the coalition agreement are particularly about consultation. So what we have in this legislation is clause 5 which repeals section 3A(1)(a)(i) which states that the purpose is to reduce disparities in smoking rates and illnesses between the New Zealand population and the Māori population. This is a really important point because we know based on the facts the data and evidence that this Government has told us that they ostensibly care about the daily smoking rates for non-Māori are approximately 6 percent. It is around triple that for Māori at around 17 percent. Therefore are we to take it from the bill as tabled today and that amendment of the purpose clause to remove any consideration or spotlight on those disparities between Māori or non-Māori as a hint to what consultation the Minister and this Government may or may not undertake with affected communities when it comes to the potential hypothetical regulation that may potentially at some point come out of a future Cabinet document which we have no idea about to replace this legislation.That is my first really core point to the Minister: who will the Minister seek to engage with? And in doing so will she seek to uphold the partnership as borne out in Te Tiriti o Waitangi or is this clause 5 removal of section 3A(1)(a)(i) a hint that the Government is deprioritising Māori and therefore tangata whenua and the relationship within Te Tiriti o Waitangi?My next question for the Minister in the chair—and I again would really appreciate some meaningful answers to this because we haven't so far really received much—is whether these concerns that she has outlined which you know somehow are related to the prominence of the black market when it comes to tobacco is an approach that she will take consistently logically and evidentially in Cabinet when it comes to all substances.Because this is the really really important point—and we had members of the Government benches heckling me before on this because we all know if we are to look at the data and evidence which again this Government has promised us that we would do—that if you are to look at an approach that you can take to substances you have a spectrum of regulatory approaches. At one end of the extreme you have complete criminal prohibition. At the other end of the extreme you have a complete legal free market which is largely unregulated. At both ends of those extremes you get the maximisation of harm because whether it is players like criminal organisations or commercial organisations that are those in control of the supply chain with that profit motive you have the maximisation of harm. So to get away from those extremities we need to get into a space of sensible regulation and do what we can to reduce that profit motive.So far I haven't heard the advocacy for a consistent approach to substances whether they be tobacco alcohol cannabis or otherwise. And that is the second question that I have for the Minister: will she take and will New Zealand First advocate for a consistent approach to substances—that is to remove the profit motive both from the commercial market and from criminal prohibition through sensible regulation? Because logically that would take us to the conclusion that New Zealand First will be advocating for repeal and replacement of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I'll just run through a few points. I can assure the member to my left that the bill was drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office so I can't take credit for that. The number of outlets—I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't saying that there is no impact on the number of outlets; I'm saying that we have achieved significant reductions in smoking with the current number of outlets. So I'm not sure where that position came from but I can assure you that I wasn't saying there is no impact.And why there are no limits I would reiterate that what we're talking about here is repealing the denicotinisation—which I've said before we're repealing the denicotinisation we're repealing the number of retailers and we're repealing the prohibition of those born after January 2009 to buy cigarettes.Again we'd go back to the position about reputation by national markets and I can only observe that even from Action on Smoking and Health in December 2023 they reported that New Zealand had one of the lowest smoking populations in the world and we had achieved unprecedented success. Again I would reiterate that we're seeking to build on that success which is why we're going down the path of repealing.I think that answers again the question that was asked by the next member about reputational position. We have sought a range of advice and we will continue to seek advice as I previously stated to continue to drive the smoking rates down and reduce smoking harm. I can only acknowledge that I can accept that this answer isn't being accepted but it is a fact that it is part of our coalition agreement. It is in our 100-day plan and that's where the urgency has come from to drive this piece of legislation. I can't comment—and I don't see it as relevant to comment—about what was or wasn't said in a media outlet interview as it doesn't relate to the parts that we're debating at the moment. And the legislation passed reducing the retail outlets which formed this legislation that we're repealing—I'm sure there was extensive discussion about the thresholds and what would work and not work which is where I assume the 600 retailers was achieved. That is what we're repealing and we'll keep working on that.We said repeatedly before about how we're focused on achieving the outcomes and we will continue to visit the actions that will work and we will consult extensively with smokers and what tools they need in order to quit smoking. That is the objective of this next stage. Chlöe Swarbrick: What about iwi Māori?Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We are focused on exactly that: driving solutions that meet the target audience of those who are most affected and that includes Māori and Pasifika to drive the positive solutions that we are seeing already and build on them. That's why we're appealing the blanket legislation so that we can focus on targeted solutions."