Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. It's good to hear from all in the Chamber that there is an ongoing concern about the need for greater vaping regulation. I think it is really important to unpack as we all have been doing throughout this debate on the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of particularly Dr Shane Reti but also in the Associate Minister of Health's responses whether some of these SOPs do what they say on the tin. Because that is of course the core thing that we as legislators should really be trying to pull apart to road test and to make sure that we're actually doing our job here.So again I just want to really pull this back to the fact that right now inside new section 20P inserted by clause 13 we have a requirement under subsection (3) for the director-general to take into account the geographic location of retail premises the population of that geographic area and any other criteria that ends up being prescribed in regulations.As I've already spoken about with regard to SOP 312 I do think that there is some validity in having some explicit requirement to consider proximity of other retail premises to each other as the Minister has made really clear but I am quite challenged by some of the things that are laid out in the explanatory note for SOP 315 but then actually looking through the clauses themselves as proposed to see whether they will do what again the kind of rhetoric that we've been hearing and debating today actually outlines.First and foremost there is kind of a bit of a difference between enforcement and monitoring and as the Minister has already outlined business as usual is compliance monitoring. I think what would have beefed this up is actually the requirement for funding for example or for resourcing for that compliance monitoring. If we had that budgetary requirement inside of that SOP then I might be of a different mind and the Greens may be of a different mind because in lieu of that we are kind of confronted with just another new clause which continues to outline what should already be being done and as the Minister has already said is currently being done. I'd also point to the contributions made by other members particularly around some of the more colourful vapes some of the disposable vapes and some of the cheaper vapes. To that effect I guess I'm wondering if I could test the committee's interest in perhaps supporting an SOP that we could all draft on the fly to get rid of disposable vapes because they of course tend to be precisely those which are cheaper which are easier to access which are colourful and therefore more attractive to younger people. On that point around attractiveness to younger people in particular I think it is really important in reference to some contributions made by my learned colleague Erica Stanford to state that it is currently illegal to provide or to sell vaping products to under-18s. That is the baseline law. It is illegal to do that and it has been illegal to do that actually only since we went about introducing new regulation legislation last term. Prior to that again as I said on Tuesday night as we were debating the second reading of this bill it was entirely self-regulated and that is perhaps why we've seen such a problem with the proliferation of these vapes.All of that said I think it really boils down to the reality that all of us can accept the health advice that a substance or the way in which we administer a substance can cause harm. The next step from that has to be how do we as kind of responsible regulators in keeping with the evidence and talking to the experts that are out there take a public health approach to think about the entire ramifications of whatever legislative response we may be putting in place. For example we know that criminal prohibition of substances pushes them underground. We had a very similar experience with knee-jerk responses with the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill which pushed substances that were temporarily licensed underground and as a result we saw immense harm in the form of at least 50 New Zealanders consuming particularly synthetic cannabinoids and dying as a result of consuming those substances which did not go away which did not get rid of the addiction but only pushed them to get that supply underground because the demand did not go away.After we take that kind of public health approach and thinking about the whole sociological environment it's then a matter of how we legislate and regulate effectively to get those outcomes that we've said that we want to get per the public health which obviously builds on the medical reality. To that effect again I think that we are getting the balance largely right in this legislation but I am hearing that there is a greater need to focus on vaping. I'm hearing from the Minister that there is also a focus to that effect but again I just say particularly in response to the ideas that have been put forward by Dr Reti that we really do and the Greens appreciate some of the thinking that's gone into it but we do hold some concerns that these as they've been drafted do not do what they say on the tin. I want to kind of say that I'm hearing across the committee that we're all largely in agreement and if we want to we can draft that SOP on banning disposable vapes.