Doocey Matt; Rurawhe AdrianMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party for the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill at its third reading. It's a bill that the National Party will be supporting although it is our role in Opposition to point out areas where we feel there is room for improvement. And it was disappointing because I know the Hon Michael Woodhouse did put Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in that would have made a big difference to this bill would have given it some real teeth and unfortunately we have got a bill that's big on intent but a lot lighter on delivery. I think if the Government had taken those SOPs on board and put them into this bill this bill would have come out better for it. Because the bill has improved through the legislative process and like other callers tonight I do want to acknowledge the 120 submitters that we did have. A large number of them were young people and groups of young people and I must say it feels like young people today take a marked interest in their health and health promotion more than maybe previous generations and they are or seem to be a lot better informed about the impacts of things like smoking and drinking. It was great to have them along in person in the select committee—in the old days when we used to have people and do things in person of course; things have changed a bit since then.Although the submission process did actually highlight one concern I think we do have with submitters: understanding any conflict of interest. Because of course many who sat on the committee will probably remember one submitter who had the audacity to submit that in fact the young person who was breathing in second-hand smoke in a car was not ultimately impacted because over the course of their life they would regenerate. And it wasn't until later on we found out—I'm not going to call that person an academic but that submitter—their work was actually funded by the tobacco industry. So I felt that was very disingenuous. But ultimately a good submission process.But we are very concerned we've ended up with a bill where it still allows adults to smoke in a vehicle—yes it might be used as a dwelling and yes it might be stationary but surely the intent of this bill says that second-hand smoking to young children as a result of adults in that vehicle is not good for them. So why just because the vehicle is stationary or people are living in it does it make it any different? I think we should have held the line there and that's why it's disappointing with the Hon Michael Woodhouse's SOP that it wasn't accepted and I think this would have made the bill a lot better.Secondly the last speaker Gareth Hughes spoke about you know we're not really going to see the police going around and enforcing it—maybe he said willy-nilly" or maybe I might be paraphrasing; it's late at night. But we're not going to because it's going to take 18 months. I mean we're setting up an offence but there's going to be 18 months at the very least for any form of enforcement. And that just doesn't seem right. Yes we understand the approach of an education programme with the Health Promotion Agency to inform people of that but I've got a suspicion that the people who are going to be committing this offence aren't really going to listen too much to education and probably what we do need is some enforcement. So waiting 18 months does seem a very long time and potentially has watered this bill down so to speak. And it's disappointing we're passing a bill tonight that won't have that and that will have an 18-month delay.Also one thing I do want to comment on is the real lost opportunity to understand and to enact the issue of vaping with young people. I've got my good friend and colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner who's spent a lot of time on the vaping issue put a very good bill on vaping regulations but unfortunately it wasn't picked up by this Government and now we're in a select committee process with a vaping regulation bill that—well it'll be interesting. But let me say if you're a betting person I'm not sure you'd say it would be coming out before the end of the 51st Parliament. And we missed a real opportunity to look at vaping in this bill because of course we do say that vaping is less harmful than smoking—some academics would say it's 95 percent less harmful than smoking—but by definition it does carry some harm and this bill won't pick up those adults that are vaping in their vehicles whether that be stationary or moving and affecting the young people. Second-hand smoke is serious and it will have as Dr Shane Reti said some very serious physical impacts but we also know young people who have grown up who have been constrained in a vehicle and forced to breathe second-hand smoke also developed psychological issues as a result of that. And at times that psychological impact can be as harmful as the physical impacts as well. It would be my assessment that vaping could be equally as harmful—quite often we see those big clouds of vaping smoke coming out of car windows and you can only imagine if those windows were rolled up the amount of vaping that's going on in those cars.So overall I think as the country moves towards 2025 where we are aiming to be smoke-free this bill goes some way. It's another tool in the tool box so to speak. It's another small area that we can now tick off that ultimately will support the young people who previously were encountering second-hand smoke as a result of adults smoking in vehicles. But just to finish I think it is very disappointing when you have someone of the calibre of the Hon Michael Woodhouse making some very serious and credible SOPs—I mean that is the legislative process irrespective of what side of the House you're on: at the committee of the whole House you can make some very credible suggestions as to how this bill would be improved. And you can only guess—I don't know whether it was just politicking for politicking's sake or whether people were under strict orders—on why those credible amendments weren't picked up because the Hansard will show they would have made a very real difference to this bill. And I personally believe they would have made a very big difference to some of the young people that we heard through the submissions process who have lived experience of this phenomenon of being in cars and being exposed to second-hand smoke. And so I would like to say I commend this bill but disappointingly it could have been better. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call."