Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to this in the second reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. Clearly the goal of this bill is to protect children from second-hand smoke. What we know we already sort of knew going into the select committee but what was reaffirmed to us through the select committee process was that the benefits here are clearly for young children and clearly for Māori in deprived areas. They seem to get disproportionate benefit. I think one of the submissions particularly—from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service—helped quantify exactly what those benefits to avoiding second-hand smoking for children will be. They said that for under-16-year-olds 15000 children with asthma attacks will be prevented. They said for under-two-year-olds 500 roughly will be spared from being admitted with chest infections. Again for under-two-year-olds 15000 glue ear operations will be prevented. I hadn't really sort of thought on it before as to that relationship. I knew the relationship existed between smoking and glue ear; not quite sure around the physiology. I mean how does that work? So I sort of tried to look at it over the past few days. I'm not much clearer other than it seems to be that the cigarette smoke irritates the Eustachian tube closes it off pulls the eardrum in and you get glue building up behind the tympanic membrane which is sort of the best conclusion I could get to. So that sort of makes sense and that substantiates the data showing that there is a relationship there. If we look at these submitters to the select committee there were 120 submissions: 19 of them were oral submissions 95 percent were in favour of the bill and the other 5 percent were more just saying We think education is a better solution." Submitters had six groups of concerns. Some didn't understand the bill and you always get that in select committees so there was a clarification task to be done. A number of submitters wanted vaping to be included in this bill and thought it was appropriate. If I could read here from the departmental report from officials addressing this it says "The Smoke-free Environments (Vaping) Amendment Bill"—and this is the departmental report from September 2019 September last year—"will be introduced shortly in the next few weeks". Wow September 2019 and officials are telling us it'll be introduced in the next few weeks. Goodness that's a long few weeks. That's a lot of time between drinks before that's happened yet that was the belief that officials were telling us and that was the evidence that we proceeded through the select committee. Hon Maggie Barry: Still no date. Dr SHANE RETI: Still no date. The third of the six concerns that submitters had was the exemption for young people to smoke in a car. Officials again pointed to clause 37 where they said "A person under the age of 18 who is smoking in the motor vehicle either on their own or while people over the age of 18 are in the vehicle is not committing an offence under [this] Bill."—it's this next line from officials—"The purpose of the Bill is the protection of young people from second-hand smoke not direct smoking." When would we go past the opportunity not to offer protection and advice to children from direct smoking? Let me read that again: "The purpose of the Bill is the protection of young people from second-hand smoke not direct smoking." I think this bill is a good example of lost opportunities. We seem to have lost the opportunity around vaping. Here we are we are losing the opportunity to address and help young people directly who are smoking. In officials' own words it's a lost opportunity. The fourth concern that submitters had as my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has discussed was the issue of stationary vehicles being considered a dwelling and being able to smoke as if it was a private dwelling in that vehicle. We've got issues with that. We're going to raise that as a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House. So we think that needs another go around. It just does not make sense. The fifth was reducing the lead-in time an 18-month lead-in time. Again substantively that is for the IT requirements for police to be able to prosecute if they need to those who are caught. Wow what a resource this is going to be for police. As again Michael Woodhouse said how do we align that with the hands-off approach under the Misuse of Drugs Act? We'll exercise discretion but oh no no we're going to prosecute and need 18 months for police resources to figure out an IT system that lets us prosecute those who are smoking in vehicles. That also doesn't make sense. The sixth was submitters thought that enforcement shouldn't be punitive that there needs to be some reflection around how we might change behaviour but that it shouldn't substantially be punitive. So there were these six things that submitters—six themes if you like—talked to in this bill. They were thoughtful and I acknowledge what Louisa Wall the chairperson was saying. I think some of the early start-off to this was the young folks under the help of the Cancer Society in Northland who brought down a petition. It was on a board because I recall getting it at Whangarei Airport. They said "Shane can you take this down and give it to either John Key or Bill English?" so I recall doing that. That would've been maybe 2015 I'm guessing—there or thereabouts. Right from then to now the young folks in Whangārei have sort of stayed in this mode and it still beats for them. Look it beats for all of us too and that's why we're supporting it. But we think there's some parts here that can redress these lost opportunities and we think we should take that ability that we have to fix it and get it right. There's a few things here we can do to make it better. So with that we're happy to support this through to the committee of the whole House."