Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I want to thank the Minister for making an attempt to engage in some of those questions but with complete and full respect—because I genuinely would like to meaningfully dig into this—I don't quite feel as though we got a very clear answer.What we had there was an outlining of the reason that this is being introduced to the House—it's because it's in the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party—and this is in philosophy known as a tautology where we are hearing that something is occurring because it's in the plan because it's in the plan because it's in the plan because it's in the plan. So I really want to lift the lid on that and if the Minister can actually meaningfully address that question and explain to us why—why is it in the plan? Not It's in the plan because it's in the plan." Why is it in the plan?Because as I said in my second reading speech the only identifiable organisations that we can see that are supportive of this—aside from now obviously the coalition Government. But you know when we had this going through the House supported by experts as world-leading and incredibly important as far as evidence-based policy goes the only opposition that we heard was from the tobacco industry—granted with the astroturf sometimes of those involved in the dairy sector—but also from the likes of New Zealand First.So where is it that New Zealand First got this idea from if not from—and again this is not me imputing anything; the only other identifiable organisation that was in support of repealing this legislation being the tobacco industry. Where has this come from if not from the tobacco industry? Because that's where logic takes us. So where has this come from? That answer is still not being addressed. You cannot simply refer in a cyclical manner to the Government's coalition agreements.The second question also was not addressed. We heard that the reason that this is being introduced under urgency and being passed through all stages under urgency is because it's in the coalition agreement and the Government's hundred-day plan. Once again we're back in the cyclical logic and I really really put it to the Minister: why is it not the case—Hon Simeon Brown: It's called an election.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that we could have had the opportunity for a select committee process Mr Simeon Brown? Because if we had a select committee process we could have heard from the experts. We could have chewed through the evidence that members of the Government are saying that they care about yet are unwilling to look at in the face.Hon Simeon Brown: It's our resident expert.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Because the evidence tells us Mr Simeon Brown based on the only advice that we've been able to get hold of—which had to be obtained through an Official Information Act request because the Government wasn't particularly forthright about that—is that this will increase or rather result in a reduction in the amount of people who are smoking.So we are ending up with instead of being on the track for a reduced number of people as a result of the plan that this Government is now repealing more people going to be smoking than otherwise would. So perhaps that's the third question for the Minister. Is it the case that as a result of repealing this legislation today under urgency more people are going to smoke than otherwise would? Because that is the logical and evidential consequence that we come to looking at all of the advice that the Minister has had in front of her.I come back to that key point again. There are two key questions for the Minister here. Where did this come from and why has it been put in the coalition agreement? Who is behind it? What is the driving force? And secondly what's the Government scared of as far as a select committee process is concerned—and due procedure and Parliament going for that scrutiny and those experts and community leaders coming forward to tell us what matters to them and whether things will meaningfully work?Because again I take the Minister to the section within the legislation which she is repealing which requires there to be a review of the efficacy of the regulations which is something that I pushed for at the Health Committee and got across the line at the Health Committee when we were putting these regulations through in the first place—was that evidence-based review. So if I may I just really want to labour this point because we haven't got answers to it and this is the only opportunity that we've got to have this scrutiny.So I really really implore the Minister to answer these questions. Firstly where has this come from? Why did New Zealand First pick this up as a hobby horse that got included in the coalition agreement? Secondly why could we not have a select committee stage? Why could we not unpack this issue in greater detail—which actually could have potentially provided all the more information data evidence and community input for whatever regulatory regime is going to replace this? Thirdly are more people going to be smoking as a result of the repeal of this legislation?"