Robertson Grant; Willis ScottHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. With respect to the Minister she didn't answer the question that I asked so I will repeat it. I want to know whether she got advice around whether or not higher retail density has been associated with increasing smoking rates particularly for adults and young people. Just stating that it's been done is not actually an answer to the question—and just stating that you weren't saying that. I want to know whether the Minister has been informed by advice including by experts on whether or not the thing that is being repealed under clause 9 of this bill actually is evidentially based to mean that it would help to lower smoking rates.Chlöe Swarbrick: I think we know the answer.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well we do Chlöe Swarbrick—we do know the answer. What I want to know is whether the Minister was informed by that advice in putting this in front of us now. The second question which similarly I don't believe was answered sufficiently was whether or not there is a threshold for the density of tobacco retailers that would have a particular impact on smoking rates. You know it could be 50 percent it could be 60 it could be 80 it could be 90. Is there a threshold that is reached where we have evidence that it leads to a decline in smoking rates? I would expect the Minister to have been informed by that advice in taking a decision to entirely remove that subpart from the Act because that is what clause 9 of the bill does.So I'm just repeating those questions because they were not answered. I want to move on then to another part of clause 9 and the repeal of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the overall Act and that is the questions of whether or not there should be minimum entry requirements to enter a market. They can be things like security requirements training for staff those sorts of things. I want to ask the Minister if by removing the entirety of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act what happens to the minimum requirements that have been in place because again and I acknowledge I'm no expert in this area here but the whole point of the parliamentary process is to be able to get evidence from experts. We were denied that without a select committee process. I have to say that my simplistic reading of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act is that it does get rid of the minimum requirements; it certainly gets rid of the new minimum requirements—as far as I can see—for involvement. So that would be my additional question: what advice has the Minister had and is that in fact what she is doing with clause 9 and if she did get advice on other options that could have been considered what was that advice?SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to come back to clause 12 that we looked at before and I think it's deeply ironic that today we have not just dealt one blow for Māori health but we're aiming to do yet another at the same time as we have the rare disorders meeting in Parliament. I was looking at an article that is in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and in there there's a paper entitled The Multidimensional Impacts of Inequities for Tāngata Whaikaha Māori (Indigenous Māori with Lived Experience of Disability) in Aotearoa New Zealand" and it says "People with lived experience of disability have poorer health and socio-economic outcomes than people without it. However within this population certain social groups are more likely to experience poorer outcomes due to the impacts of multiple intersecting forms of oppression including colonisation coloniality and racism." And I have to look at this bill and wonder what parts meet the criteria of racism and I see quite a few actually because this will impact the people who are already the most disadvantaged. This requirement or this desire to remove the limit of nicotine will impact those who are most at risk now.So I would like to know if the coalition Government has a commitment to investigate using regulatory powers to reduce the risk of additives in nicotine levels what other policy options were explored on nicotine limits rather than removing them altogether? This is a really important question: have you considered other options? Or if not perhaps the member over to my right—Damien O'Connor—who earlier proposed an amendment to reinstate the limit perhaps this is a sensible way to go. Because if the Minister and if the Government have not thought about how they are going to reduce risk to our most vulnerable how they are going to make sure that we can safeguard future generations then they should take good advice when it's available to them. They should be willing to accept that some things are done poorly. I'm reminded of a book by George Orwell that said "Ignorance is strength." Well boy you guys are looking pretty strong at the moment. I really hope that you want to move out of a place of ignorance and come into the light and make a good decision and support nicotine restrictions and do good for our most vulnerable. Kia ora."