Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. If I may take the opportunity at this third reading to do as the good Dr Shane Reti just did in kind of contextualising this Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill and the broader framework of how it is that we approach substances that can cause harm. Just referencing those contributions and I want to thank the Minister for the back and forth in the committee of the whole House just before and her officials as well especially for coming back to me overnight with a number of responses to some questions on what this would look like in practice. Fundamentally this bill is for the Greens and the reason that we support it just about ensuring that we have a system that is applied simplistically across all tobacco products hopefully to address those concerns as raised by the ACT Party and also by the National Party around why this is happening now. Otherwise it seems pretty straightforward to me as to why this is necessary. But that of course is not to detract from the core point that I was making during the committee of the whole House. That is of course that again if we are to recognise that substances like alcohol or tobacco or cannabis or whatever else can cause harm the question then becomes how do we create a regulatory and tax environment in order to reduce that harm? And what does the evidence say about how we go about doing that without necessarily imposing our ethics or our morals or our ideology beyond the points of those purported intentions becoming effective? That was the point that I was making in the first reading as well around the notion of syntax which is that we sometimes risk in levying things like these excises going beyond the point of efficacy and drifting far too much into a space that is in practice like prohibition that drives the likes of the black market where you have no regulation because there is nobody who is checking ID. There is no quality control and there is in the case of substances like cannabis next to no education for consumers or ability to intervene in problematic usage. So when we were talking about the kind of range of different approaches that we can take in that regulatory and that tax environment such as is outlined in this bill you have on the one side of things a kind of complete prohibition where you have a clamping down and obviously criminal penalties associated to the sale and supply of the substance. That doesn't get rid of the substance in most instances. As I alluded to before it can end up meaning that we have far more harmful substances and versions of them that are cooked up in people's kitchens or in their garages or otherwise. On the other side of the spectrum you have a complete free market which is effectively without regulation. And obviously 20 or 30 - odd years ago we were far closer to that when it comes to tobacco with the likes of the ability to advertise at sports games and otherwise. At both ends of that spectrum at the end of prohibition or criminal prohibition and at the end of a complete free market with that lack of regulation around how those who are seeking to sell the substance can access consumers you have what the Greens would argue and actually what the international evidence and the Global Commission on Drug Policy says which is that you have the maximisation of harm. That is you have entities whether they be organised crime or whether they be those who are large commercial entities who are seeking to make a quick buck by exploiting vulnerable communities to sell as much of this product as possible. Now again to boil it down to what this bill actually does in practice it is about simplifying the excise that is levied on water-pipe tobacco. That is about making sure that this is applied universally across all different types of tobacco that are coming through Customs. And I acknowledge that the Minister's role is solely within that realm of Customs. But none the less I ask all of those in the Chamber who are contributing today particularly my colleagues in the ACT Party who are not particularly keen to come out throughout the cannabis referendum campaign in 2020 and to stake their colours to the mast to say that there is an opportunity for ideological consistency here. There is an opportunity for us to acknowledge that all substances can cause harm and that we can regulate them and that we can tax them in such a way that reduces that harm.To the point around excise on tobacco products again I think it is really important as we get towards Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 that we continue to pay attention to what is effective. At what point is this syntax potentially pushing more of the supply into the unregulated black market and potentially creating more problems that we're going to have to mop up further down the track? And I just see the first little red flag of that with that $10 million allocated to policing the black market for underground tobacco. However the Greens support this bill today again because it is about simplifying that excise system but we'd just like members across the Chamber to reflect on that broader point. Kia ora.