Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is debate on clauses 25 to 44, “Amendments to other enactments”, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

I can feel the frustration from members of the Government that we are having to have this debate right now, but I’d remind them that they put us and our democracy in this position in the first place. I heard from members of the ACT Party, in particular, that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Casey Costello, doesn’t have to answer when we, as members of the Opposition, are addressing questions directly to her. As a matter of technicality, that may indeed be the case. But I’d say, with regards to our democracy and the very procedures that we come to expect of this place, that I would hope that we can have a meaningful back and forth. So, to that effect, the kind of takeaway I feel that New Zealanders can get from this debate tonight and from the contributions of the Minister and the governing parties is that the Government is saying, “Taihoa, slow down, on saving lives.” That’s the point of this legislation tonight.

So I just wanted to have that—a specific back and forth with the Minister, if that indeed will be indulged by the Minister. And we can have that meaningful back and forth, in lieu of the select committee and usual procedures, to have scrutiny over legislation. Because the Minister, in her responses to my questions in the last part, in Part 1, was stating that we’re not to take it as a hint as to the future consultation on the upcoming whatever Cabinet paper or future of smoke-free legislation looks like—that there was in that Part 1, as just confirmed by this committee, the removal of section 3A(a)(i) of the principal Act, which states the purpose “to reduce disparities in smoking rates and … illnesses” between the broader New Zealand population and Māori. Again, I’d remind those following along at home that this is particularly relevant because the disparities in smoking rates between non-Māori—for non-Māori, it’s around 6 percent, and for Māori, it continues to hover at around 17 percent.

So my question, which I implore the Minister to answer right now, if we’re to have that meaningful back and forth—because, again, for those following along at home, I will otherwise get back up and continue to prosecute this case. But my hope is that the Minister answers. She alluded before to the fact that she hopes that there will be more targeted interventions, particularly for Māori smoking rates. To that effect, so far, has the Minister met with any iwi Māori, hapu, kaupapa Māori health organisations on this legislation in front of us tonight? Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The honourable Chlöe Swarbrick—Chlöe Swarbrick.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I’ll take the honourable, Mr Chair! So what we’re seeing there is probably the quiet part said out loud, or, rather, not said at all, which is that the Government has not engaged with this Treaty partner when it comes to progressing this legislation in front of us tonight. Unfortunately, that is the situation that we’re left with. Not only is there no meaningful opportunity for public participation, as is convention of this place, but also the Minister is not meeting with the most directly impacted community when it comes to the passage of this legislation, under urgency, as the House sits until midnight tonight.

So let’s try a different tack then, because we’ve heard from the Minister in her commentary in the media and also in her contributions in the debate tonight that she intends to, in the hypothetical potential legislation to replace this—when it comes to smoke-free regulation, she will be focusing on vaping. So let’s dig in to precisely what that might look like. Because, again, we’re kind of seeing and hearing from the Government that their rationale for removing this legislation is that they intend to do something different, the details of which we have no information on whatsoever. So let’s get some of that scoping up, should the Minister be willing to engage.

Here I just think it’s important for folks following along at home who may be interested in this to refer back to today’s question time, where it appeared as though there were quite different views on what was occurring in this space from the Minister and from the Prime Minister—those being, obviously, two of the three coalition parties. I refer the Minister to this statement from 23 May 2023, obviously pre-election, from Christopher Luxon, who said then, “I think good on them,”—that is, Australia—“they’re trying to nip an issue in the bud early, this was the promise that actually it was the last bit of toolset we needed to get people to come off cigarettes and instead it’s ballooned and mushroomed into a massive addiction for young people. Let’s do it now rather than let this issue carry on for another 30 years and regret it down the road … It’s pretty wild … out there, you’ve got lots of stores, more stores than pharmacies, stores opposite schools [selling vapes] and the products aren’t supposed to be sold or marketing to people under the age of 18 and yet they’re clearly being consumed by lots of people under the age of 18.”

This is a salient point, because we have there an individual who is now the Prime Minister and the leader of one of the three governing parties saying that he intended to not take off the table, prior to the election, the potential for the complete outright banning of—that is, the criminal prohibition of—vaping, which the Minister is now holding out as a cessation tool but simultaneously saying in the media that she intends to regulate in a stricter manner. So my direct question to the Minister is: is it within the Government’s contemplation that they might entirely criminally prohibit vaping? Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Chlöe Swarbrick.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Again! Unfortunately, in lieu of any meaningful engagement or back and forth with the Minister—and we have to prosecute this case, because we don’t have any opportunity for proper scrutiny through a select committee process, which kind of makes a farce of this entire committee.

But here I’d refer the Minister to another statement from the National Party leader, Christopher Luxon, this time from 2 May 2023. This is a quote out of the New Zealand Herald, which said, and I quote, “Meanwhile, National Party leader Christopher Luxon says he would be open to ‘all things’ including a ban, stating the current settings for vaping products in New Zealand are ‘wrong’.”

This is the perplexing situation that we are in as a committee and a House of Representatives tonight. We are being asked to believe that the Government is going to replace this evidence-built legislation to regulate and reduce smoking in this country at a faster track than the previous status quo, which this Government is seeking to return us to, whilst also having no information about what that future might potentially look like, while the Government is simultaneously saying that they are going to crack down harder on the gangs and on those who operate in the criminal underworld—i.e., those who peddle in substances that are presently criminally prohibited under the likes of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. We have, on the other hand, an individual that is now the leader of our country in the form of the Prime Minister saying that it would not be off the table prior to the election that vapes might be entirely outlawed and criminally prohibited, we have a Minister who is saying that vapes are a critical tool in cessation, and crickets on what’s to come.

So, Mr Chair, I don’t know about you, but I just have to say that all of this just feels farcical. It feels ridiculous. It feels ludicrous.

Hon Mark Patterson: That’s not in the bill, Chlöe. It’s a different bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: And I would implore members of the Government, who right now are heckling about the fact that we are trying to debate this meaningfully under the urgency that they have imposed upon us, bypassing typical democratic processes, to look in the mirror. Because, guys, you’ve put us here. This is the unfortunate situation that we are in, where we are being asked to slow down on saving lives, with no information about what’s to come next and a Government that likes to pretend, at least in the text of its own coalition documents, so farcically and so ridiculously, and not worth the paper that it’s written on, that their decisions are based on data and evidence. I think my point has been made, including by the fact that Government members are completely unwilling to stand up and defend this.

I would love to comment, but at this point we’re debating Part 2 of this legislation repeal and there isn’t any vaping aspects within this. But I will confirm that, yes, we do see vaping as an important cessation tool. We think there’s a great opportunity to build on the success that vaping has achieved in cessation of smoking, and we will continue to engage with Māori as we progress those things that we believe will allow us to achieve our smoke-free targets.

I agree with the Minister that we’re on Part 2. It’s one of the very few things that I suspect I will agree with her on tonight.

Subpart 1 of Part 2 deals with the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. The particular part that I want to focus on is clause 26 of this bill, which amends the commencement dates in that 2022 piece of legislation. In a way, for me, this goes to the nub of the frustration that you’re hearing on this side of the Chamber, because what those provisions did do—or still currently do do until this part passes—is actually bring into force a series of initiatives that were part of Dr Verrall’s legislation that she brought in to allow the three big things we’ve been talking about: denicotinisation, retail outlet sales, and the age changes.

The specific commencement clause—clause 2(1)—brings a number of those sections into force on 1 January 2027. So I guess that’s my question for the Minister, because the Minister has made a significant amount tonight of the fact that some of these clauses weren’t in operation, and, of course, that’s absolutely true. That’s because we took the responsible action of rolling these out over a period of time to minimise disruption, to be able to support the changes—particularly around the age issues—so that they were done in line with the purposes that we had in putting them in place.

So where I want the Minister to respond to us on here is on what time line is now in place, because for all of this debate, I have heard the Minister say to us that this is not the end. Now, it’s completely ludicrous to repeal the legislation here and not have any idea what you’re going to do. I mean, I don’t think you could be more irresponsible than repealing it because you said you were going to repeal it—I don’t think I actually heard much about that in the election campaign. But anyway, one party said they were going to repeal it, and then that’s the reason to do it.

This is the opportunity, here in Part 2, for the Minister to stand up and tell us what’s actually going to happen and when—if I want to relate it to the commencement clause—it’s going to happen, because, again, all we’re doing here in this clause, as a Parliament, is repealing some dates for this particular legislation, and we’re left with nothing. We’re left with a void. We’re left with no progress.

We are, as many members have indicated, left with going backwards in terms of the number of people who will now suffer smoking-related illnesses or will take up smoking. So here’s the opportunity for the Minister to tell us, in repealing section 2(1)—and, I believe, it’s actually most of that section; section 2(1) to (3) of the 2022 Act—what is the Minister going to replace it with and when is the Minister going to do that, because otherwise we’re left with this void that shows the Government doesn’t actually have a plan at all and is simply doing this for political reasons, which I think is particularly dangerous when we’re dealing with tobacco.

I just want to go back to the commencement dates challenge that you’ve talked about. This is where we’re repealing these steps that are being implemented—I think we’ve repeated that as to this is the reason. You’ve talked about not hearing it from across the House, but it was in both the ACT and New Zealand First coalitions with National, so clearly it was important enough to be in both our coalition agreements, and to suggest we’re left with no progress—I think I’ve reiterated a few times here that we have made enormous progress. I have given credit to this side of the House about the progress we’ve made, and that progress is continuing. There’s no suggestion that that progress is levelling off, and we will continue to focus on those achievements that the existing legislation has allowed us to achieve.

I’d like to have a back and forth with the Minister, or certainly refer to something that she has brought into the conversation around Part 2, where she explicitly said that she will consult with Māori around these particular provisions including the changes to age and also to the commencement date. In doing that, I’d like to just put on the record my dissatisfaction with the Minister’s answers to previous questions around this engagement, because we did—the Hon Peeni Henare asked about the sweeping provisions in Part 1 that got rid of obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and numerous members across this side of the House were interrogating what was going to replace that and there were no satisfactory answers. So my question, really, speaks to the other points that people have been trying to get and we’ve had no satisfactory answer from the Minister about her scale of ambition for the targets.

So if we look, for example, at a Radio New Zealand story that was on today, we are aware from that—under the Official Information Act—that the Minister received advice that “the smokefree laws would have made a big dent in the disparity of health outcomes between Māori and non-Māori.” and that by 2040, it would “reduce the gap in mortality rates for over 45-year-olds by 23 percent for females and … 10 percent for males.” Now, when the Minister was asked on radio about the Treaty analysis—which also speaks to her statement that she will consult under Part 2, and we haven’t heard any satisfactory explanation on what that consultation would look like—she said, “I do not accept what Health officials have said about our Treaty of Waitangi obligations, but it’s not appropriate to talk further about that while a claim is before the [Waitangi] Tribunal.”

Now, there’s two parts to my question to the Minister: one is she’s just made a bald statement to say that even though she’s given us an assurance in this House that she is going to consult appropriately on Part 2 with Māori, that she doesn’t think that there’s any problem with the Treaty but she hasn’t said why and, certainly, she didn’t say why in previous questions. So I’d really like to know from the Minister why she thinks so. I would also point out that there has been a careful debate earlier today in the repeal of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, where there was a question around the appropriateness or not of referring to the Waitangi Tribunal hearings and there was a decision made that it was appropriate, that sub judice laws did not apply. And so I would just remind the Minister of that because it’s not acceptable—the point is that she needs to be careful given that there’s a claim there.

We’ve heard nothing to reassure us that Māori will be consulted. The questions that I have are: when she says that they will be, who will be consulted, how will those people be selected, when will that consultation take place, and how can she reassure this House that the consultation will be appropriate to have the interests of Māori heard adequately given that there is now, in the repealed bill, as it stands, no other obligation on her to consult with Māori? So I get that the Minister might want to do this in good faith, I get that she may want to do that, but there is no legislative safeguard.

When I talk about scale of ambition, repeatedly the Minister has talked about the success to date. Does that mean that she is satisfied with the progress made? She has said—I think she said it publicly—that a third of those who have quit smoking over the last few years have been Māori. Does that mean that she is satisfied with that progress and does not have a scale of ambition to get all smokers off smoking? Is she satisfied with pushing out the date to meet the smoke-free targets or is she going to commit to the targets that were legislated? Because right now there’s a lot of confusion about what those targets actually are and whether there are protections for adequate consultation so that Māori, who represent the higher statistics—17 percent still smoking versus significantly lower for the rest of the population—they deserve to know what will happen about that consultation. Where are the legislative safeguards? How can we be sure that Part 2 is going to take into account their interests?

I’d like to ask about clause 35, which amends the regulations that were passed in 2021 and revokes subparts 2A, 2B, and 2C of those regulations. For my colleagues who haven’t yet had the opportunity to google those regulations, it does include the regulations that define the limits of the nicotine concentration in regulated tobacco products.

My question to the Minister is when we regulate the contents of food—and we regulate harmful products all the time, we regulate seatbelts, and we regulate helmets—what is it about nicotine that means she is comfortable passing a bill that doesn’t regulate the contents of tobacco or cigarettes? Why is this the one thing in our society that isn’t regulated, when, actually, it’s the most harmful product we have? Why is the product allowed to contain anything in it—and there’s no limits; well, it’s being revoked. Why is it that we’re revoking here regulations about the contents of this product—a product documented for over 70 years to do a huge amount of harm to people.

It seems to me that we have these conversations, and they go something like this: we ask you why, and you say, “Because I’m doing it.” I would really like to see if you could come up with a logical reason—a reason that starts with, “My view about this product is this, and that is why…”, and has some connection between the beginning and the end that makes sense. We don’t want to spend the entire evening in this circle going round and round, hearing more and more that the reason why something is being done is because it’s being done. This is absolutely pointless.

The contents of a cigarette can be harmful in multiple ways. Cigarettes contain many, many different chemicals, none of which are regulated without the context of these regulations. Cigarettes contain arsenic. Cigarettes contain tar. Anyone who’s spent any time in a pathology lab, as I did during my medical training, knows intimately what tar causes, because we’ve all had that experience where you attend a post-mortem with someone who smokes. They crack open the chest, and you see the results of a product whose constituents are totally unregulated. That’s what’s being done here at clause 35. You see tar filling out the lungs. You see what should be soft, pink, elastic lungs—capable of stretching, breathing, and taking in fresh air—have been scarred. They have bullae in them—that means they have big air bubbles in them so they can’t function. They lose their architecture, so they stop moving and they become stiff. People who have that condition say that they can’t breathe out properly, and so they end up feeling like they’re constantly at the top of their breath, unable to breathe out, constantly feeling like they’re hyperventilating. That is the condition that leads to emphysema, which, of course, is so, so harmful to so many people.

Minister, my question is why is this regulation that makes the contents of cigarettes safer being removed, when the fact is that this is one of the most harmful products that there possibly is. I used to be the Minister for Food Safety. There are more regulations on a sandwich than there are on the safety of a cigarette, and you really have to wonder why. Why are you privileging cigarettes, Minister? Why are these products that are the most harmful, having the least regulation on their constituents? It seems like there’s no logical answers in any of our conversations with the Minister. I’d really like to hear this time why it is that you think these products shouldn’t be regulated.

I just want to go back to the questions regarding consulting with Māori. We’ve dealt with the Part 1 changes relating to the response to Treaty obligations, and that was clarified in that initial part. When I referred to continuing to work with Māori—and I think that’s a collective agreement across the objectives that we’re trying to achieve—we are wanting to ensure that the initiatives that we put in place are targeted to the groups that most need it, and we will continue to do that. The specific format of that will be developed further as we move forward with the recommendations we want to put in place.

The next part was around the discussions around clause 35. Those clauses relate to the repeal of the denicotinisation, and all of that relates to the actions that we’re doing to repeal the denicotinisation.

Yeah, look, just a short contribution around some of these repeals in Part 2. Really, it’s about what the Minister’s done to address the lack of procedure due to urgency. We have heard her go around in smoke rings in terms of “We’re repealing it because we’re repealing it.” But this is about who she has talked to.

Now, prior to the election, I have no doubt that she talked to retailers and their association, and I suspect—and I would invite the Minister to stand up and say it’s not the case that she spoke to the tobacco industry either through lobbyists or directly; and, if she didn’t do that, stand up and say so. But since the election, how has she balanced that one-sided view? Has she spoken in person? Has she received an oral submission from Action on Smoking and Health? Has she received an oral submission from the Cancer Society? Has she received a submission from schools? My colleague Chlöe Swarbrick mentioned iwi and hapū, who are disproportionately affected by this. Has she received evidence about this reform in respect of women’s health?

So these reforms—particularly those ones in Part 2 which are rolling back the fundamental parts of the reforms that the prior Government put in place. So there’s two parts to my question. Can you rule out the fact that you essentially are doing what you were lobbied to do pre-election by the tobacco industry? Rule it out if you didn’t do it. Secondly, since then, what have you done to listen to the other side of the argument in terms of how you implement your election promises?

I’m more than happy to respond to the member regarding my engagement with the retail sector, which I did have none in reference to that; I have not met with any lobbyists, tobacco lobbyists, or any tobacco organisations—and I provide that assurance repeatedly. I have met with Action on Smoking and Health on two occasions, and I have met just this last week with the Cancer Society, and I will continue to do so.

My next question relates to clause 36. Clause 36 amends the regulations passed in 2021 that enabled product testing for tobacco. So we’re no longer talking about denicotinisation here. What we’re talking about is testing on whether or not the product is what it says it is, and it enables us to know how much of harmful constituents are in the cigarettes. I do want to know why it is that this section is being revoked.

It seems to me that there are a lot of products on the shelves that are far less harmful than cigarettes that the Government does choose to regulate. So, of course, mussels would be an example. Now, you might think mussels are harmless, but they’re filter-feeders and they can be full of viruses. So mussels that you eat in New Zealand have a product testing regime. And they get minced up at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in Porirua and cultured for viruses and other pathogens. But why is it that we’re revoking product testing regulations for tobacco—for cigarettes? That seems very strange when cigarettes are far more harmful than mussels. How can this be the case?

We must have product testing regimes for all sorts of things. Some members opposite may have had a career as a crash test dummy in the past—product testing for seatbelts. But it seems like that approach where we keep people safe, keep consumers safe by making sure that the products have in them what they say they have—an approach that the Government is removing just for tobacco. So why is that the case? I think we need to have some answers there, because it seems to me that all sorts of things could go wrong with cigarettes, and they get inhaled right into a very sensitive part of your body. It’s not like a skin cream or something. It just goes right into your internal organs, and then it could contain anything.

In fact, we know that sometimes products do get spiked with things. We saw that happen with vapes in the United States, and people went to the ICU because of this. So the way in which these products are used, it goes straight into an internal organ, it can be incredibly harmful, and yet it seems like the Minister sees fit to remove processes for checking that these products are safe. I think I’ve heard multiple times that Minister say in the House that she has an approach that is empathetic to smokers, and I do want to understand from her why is she putting smokers, then, in harm’s way, and taking away protections that would mean (a) that these products could be tested and safer from the perspective of consumers, but also would have allowed enforcement of the denicotinisation regime that’s in there. So I’m very interested to hear from the Minister on clause 36.

I can just provide assurance that clause 36 testing relates specifically to the testing for the low nicotine rates only.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The aspects that I would like to touch on tonight with the Minister pertains to clause 29, which is about repealing the smoke-free generation. I’ve got two aspects which relate to this clause—which I hope, Madam Chair, you will give me the ability to ask both of them.

So it feels, frankly, rather out of it to stand in the Chamber tonight, in 2024, when we as humans have seemingly come so far in terms of our knowledge and understanding of what harms our people, to be then debating a bill that goes so far in the opposite direction that health professionals are describing it as being anti-health. But here we are, this Government’s 100-day plan, and this is what it’s delivering for Kiwis: greater access to tobacco companies to harm our people, greater access to delivering nicotine addiction to what was intended to be our smokefree generation, and higher nicotine levels to ensure that that addiction sticks. Because this is my first contribution to this bill, I would like it on the record, alongside my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, that I find this bill abhorrent.

I want to pick up with the Minister on clause 29, and it’s specifically about the repeal of the prohibition on sale, delivery, and supply of smoked tobacco products to the smoke-free generation. I can’t help but be amused by the opposition continually reiterating that the speakers on this side of the House are speaking so passionately. I’m amused by that in relation to this this particular clause, because it tells me that the very real, actual implications for the health of our people—particularly our young people—of this bill has not quite sunk in.

When more people smoke, more people die. That’s the reality, it’s the evidence, and it would be helpful if all of us in this House cared passionately about that and tried to prevent the harm rather than enable it. So I would love to hear the Minister share with us the advice she’s received on current modelling of how many more deaths per year to the end of the year 2030 will be caused by smoking if the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act is repealed.

I also want to touch on the fact that the cost is not simply an emotional and physical one of preventable loss of loved ones. It comes at the immense economic cost to the public health system. So, equally, I’d love to hear from the Minister: how much does smoking-related harm cost the health system each year, and what factors, if any, were considered, other than revenue, when she assessed that the smoke-free repeals were an urgent matter to be part of the Government’s 100-day plan?

Madam Chair, the other aspect that I want to touch on—and I hope you’ll allow me to finish this part—is that in any part of ill-thought legislation, which comes through this House so often, it’s the externalities which are overlooked. Now, for those members who may not be aware of externalities, it’s those costs to society that are overlooked in any economic activity. I would like to hear from the Minister her take on how the health of people and the environment overlap in what she’s seeking to do, or what her Government is seeking to do, I should say, in repealing the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 legislation as part of these clauses.

Now, I want to pick up on this because there’s a number of very serious environmental issues that come from the proliferation of cigarettes in the environment, and just one of those is that, actually, cigarettes make up one of the most common forms of litter worldwide, and, obviously, in New Zealand, it’s no different here. When they’re improperly disposed of, they can accumulate in urban areas, in parks, on our beaches—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Would the member like to call, to finish?

LAN PHAM: I would love to call again, Madam Chair. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, and just a reminder—because I’ve heard the other speakers talk about it today in committee stage—that there’s an opportunity for questions rather than filling the time. If you indicate that there’s further questions, members, we can take further questions, rather than actually fill the time with speeches.

LAN PHAM: Great. Should I continue, Madam Chair, or should I pause?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can continue, but what I would like you to do is to actually ask some questions of the Minister, rather than fill the time actually speaking.

LAN PHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. So what I’m really concerned about with these cigarette filters which are in the environment is that it’s those harmful chemical and toxins, it’s the heavy metals, and it’s the carcinogens. Now, why I want to give that context is because the question for the Minister is that there are other requirements in the bill that have reporting requirements to the Director-General of Health. So I want to know what advice the Minister has sought about the environmental impacts of cigarette filters being in the environment, and also if she is considering advice from the Department of Conservation, because wildlife has many impacts from these cigarette filters which end up in the environment—and also from the Ministry for the Environment. Thank you.

I’d like to speak to a tabled amendment on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. This proposed amendment relates to clause 29 on page 7. I seek for the Associate Minister of Health and for the committee to consider deleting clause 29, page 7, lines 1 and 2, and that relates to our smoke-free generation. I struggle to understand the benefit of removing the protections for the smoke-free generation. I asked the Minister questions related to this, in terms of what cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken by the Minister and her officials into opening up, really, exposure to the smoke-free generation. I build and I tautoko the sentiments of my colleague Lan Pham in trying to understand what analysis has been undertaken on potential health system costs for the repeal and in considering the smoke-free generation now being exposed to tobacco related harm.

Further, my last question for the Minister—and I hope we can get some authentic responses—in repealing clause 29 and considering the revenue that will be gained, the revenue from this tobacco excise as a consequence of the repeal, have you given any consideration to the casualties of this legislation and the repeal, that there might be some equity shown to our low socio-economic communities who will take the impact on the front line from the repeal of the smoke-free legislation, rather than just tax cuts for a particular ilk of friends and taxpayers of the Government?

So those are my questions, and I hope that I can engage in that conversation, because these are important matters as a mother and for the future of New Zealand. Kia ora.

I just wanted to touch on the questions that came up before, just in relation to the testing concerns that were raised previously by the member. Existing testing requirements remain, as the concerns were raised.

In terms of the environmental impact that was questioned before, there were no restrictions on filters in the 2022 Act, so there has been no change in that area.

In terms of the smoke-free generation, I think we’ve reiterated previously that we are down to 19,000 young smokers, and that’s continuing to track down. I think we are achieving our smoke-free generation without the virtue of this legislation even being in place.

My first point is actually one where I may just not be reading the papers right, but I cannot, for the life of me, find Part 6A, so I would like the Minister to look at clause 37. It says that it revokes Part 6A, which sets out the requirement for the approval as a smoked tobacco retailer, and if they can point me to where that is—it’s been quite a difficult one to track down.

I’d also like to ask the Minister to consider the unintended consequences of amending one part of a law that relates to two things—smoking and vaping. So I’d love to know what happens if you have created a regime that’s actually more liberal in the smoking area than it is in the vaping, and you get a sudden movement over into smoking, because it’s less regulated, and you get more people going into the smoking space, which would be absolutely terrible.

I take this matter extremely seriously, because I see it as one of the things that may be happening as a consequence of a rush and not looking at unintended consequences, not having the usual processes we have, the comments that we would get in the select committees, the overarching time to consider something like this in the structure of the bill, pulling out part of it, and leaving the other, and coming up with an unintended consequence.

I’m going to put this as gravely as I can, and I don’t think I’m being melodramatic. If we have a surge of people dying and an upsurge in smoking, is the Minister prepared to resign?

Could I just clarify for the member that Part 6A is in the legislation and it covers the requirements for approval as a smoked tobacco retailer, which is—yeah, it’s in the regulations.

Helen White: Part 6 is in the regulations?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

Madam Chair, thank you. Also in the regulations—and for the friends in the Chamber, they are great reading. You can just google “the amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 2021”, and there is ample material in there that is being revoked in this bill, and we have really got to do our diligence on it and go through all of it.

In clause 35, we see Subpart 2C is being revoked. Of course, friends will be well aware that that relates to the provisions around product information. Product information is incredibly important because it is the information that guides when harmful products are out on the market, and then sometimes something was wrong in their manufacture, “Oh, we accidentally made a cigarette that kills you.”, says British American Tobacco, “Oh, whoops.” They might find that they had constituents in there that weren’t meant to be in there. They might have experiences where a product had been made incorrectly, and therefore they would seek to recall that product. Product information is what you use to do a recall.

A lot of the questions that I’ve tried to get answers to tonight—and I notice my colleagues in the Greens do, as well—are related to the principle that you’d think would guide sensible regulation. Sensible regulation should be risk-proportionate. We’ve had questions about what the appropriate balance of regulations between tobacco and vaping is because regulation should be risk-proportionate. So it seems to me that this lack of provision around product information is bizarre, because with cigarettes, you breathe the smoke into your internal organs, and yet if you are selling a pottle of yoghurt, you need to have product recall information in there because it could give you an upset tummy. So where is the risk proportionality when it comes to removing product information provisions in regulations passed in 2021 from this bill, when, of course, we know that those regulations are incredibly important. Minister, this isn’t a matter of tobacco control; this is a matter of consumer protection. So I’m uncertain why it is, no matter what our different ideologies are about tobacco control, that you’ve chosen to remove that. I’d really like to have information on that.

I don’t believe my earlier question about product testing was actually answered, because, of course, nicotine is an element of the safety of the product. High nicotine, of course, can cause nausea and vomiting. There can be a very adverse reaction if the level of nicotine in tobacco is too high.

So in clause 35, whether it relates to my current question, which is about product information, or my earlier question about product testing, it seems like there is an unawareness of the actual implications of revoking these subparts, and it really leaves consumers in New Zealand incredibly exposed to unsafe products. I would like to hear from the Minister on that matter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to address Part 2, clause 29 as well, which is repealing the smoke-free generation. I refer to my colleague Hūhana Lyndon’s request or amendment to get rid of that. But while we’re still talking about it, I also want to congratulate the Government for their campaign slogan to “get back on track”, because it was sort of, you know, a good slogan and it got them elected. I’d like to give them a gift in relation to that. I think your new slogan has got to be—because it’s such a good one—“Back on baccy”. I mean, “You can do this: back on baccy.” You could heckle us with it, because, really, that’s what you’re all about, isn’t it? “Back on baccy”. “Back on baccy—let’s kill a few more.” So, you know, go for it guys!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So now could we have a question for the Minister, please?

SCOTT WILLIS: You have a question. You have a question—my apologies, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, don’t apologise. I’m just trying to keep the committee on track.

SCOTT WILLIS: But the question I have for the Minister is: can she please explain the purpose of clause 23, which repeals section 105, which requires the ministry to conduct a review of smoke-free legislation and policy and prepare a report for the Minister no later than 2029?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Willis, we’re on Part 2 at the moment. Your question—

SCOTT WILLIS: This question is relating to Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you please relate it to Part 2?

SCOTT WILLIS: My question is: why are they scrapping the review and how will doing so allow for effective oversight of our smoke-free targets?

Now, this is really, really important because it is the way we deliver evidence-based policy. We need to know what’s happening. Perhaps our colleagues opposite might want to, in addition to adopting “back on baccy”, adopt the other slogan they could throw at us, that “ignorance is strength”, because this is where they’re going. They really do not want to understand the implications of what they’re trying to do. So I am interested and I would like the Minister to address this. So, just to repeat, I am interested in: why are they scrapping the review of those changes, and how will doing so allow for effective oversight of our smoke-free targets?

This is really, really important because if we don’t understand what we’re doing, we can’t review, we can’t change, we can’t change course, we can’t correct course—we’re running blind. We are ignorant. We’re supporting ignorance. I understand that our colleagues opposite, disappointingly, might prefer ignorance, but we don’t. I’m listening to such a learned expression of questions that we’re just not getting any answer to from the Minister. This is really simple stuff. It should not be complicated. It’s not rocket science; it’s just basic policy. So could we please have an answer?

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call on what is Part 2. I do have some questions for the Minister that I do hope she will provide an answer for the Chamber. I think that it is really important, because a reminder—this is a bill that is going through committee stage under urgency. We haven’t had an opportunity from the members of the community, who, undoubtedly, will have issues that they would like to have addressed. So I do hope the Minister does address them.

It does relate to clause 29, which a couple of colleagues have already touched on. It is the repeal of the sections 22 to 26, which is known as the “Repeal of the Smokefree Generation” clauses. I guess when you look at that, it doesn’t immediately become clear. My question to the Minister is around what specific advice or engagement she has had that relates to young people who would be involved, in terms of who would be affected as part of the potential smokefree generation that the Government seems to want to undo.

The reason I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this is because in contributions earlier in the day, leading up to this point on this bill, there were many reflections made about the select committee process that the parent bill had gone through, and the many, many organisations who submitted as part of that process. Now, naturally, when a piece of legislation is progressing through the House under urgency, with no select committee scrutiny opportunity, that opportunity to the community is gone. So I’m interested to hear what specific advice she has received that relates to those who would be impacted as part of a smoke-free generation, but also, what specific engagement she has had with those individuals, with those young people, as to what their views are around this. I think that’s particularly important, given that this is something that the coalition Government, in the lead-up to the election, didn’t campaign on. So it has come out of the blue for many people, including young people. I think that the Minister being able to provide that opportunity would be quite helpful.

The other point that I want to refer to is on Subpart 2. This relates to amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations 2021, specifically, clause 35. My questions are around subparts 2A and 2B that relate to Part 3. My question to the Minister: I did hear her answer around denicotinisation, and that was a response for what is regulation 61A, when it comes to the limits on constituents, or the products within the tobacco product, but I didn’t quite hear from the Minister whether she thought that there was an acceptable reason as to why, even though you set aside denicotinisation, there is still an opportunity to maintain that provision within the regulations. So, it’s not saying that just because denicotinisation is the aim, or the end goal, but wanting to hear from the Minister whether she is prepared to think a bit broader than that, and accept that there are situations where there might be constituent substances that are obviously up to no good, but whether she would resolve from that original position, in light of the information that has been provided to the Committee.

The other is in relation to Subpart 2B, and it is regulation 61B. There are three components within that regulation that relates to the product’s safety requirements. What’s very clear is that there is a process outlined for someone who has a complaint about a product to effectively register and work through. Now, the steps are actually quite clear. Not only are they quite clear, they are also quite detailed in the sense of what they would relate to.

So my question to Minister is whether she believes that it is appropriate to simply wipe that regulation in its entirety, and, if so, what does she say to the provision of some sort of process to ensure that there is product safety for those that want to raise some concerns? This regulation provides an opportunity for anyone who has an issue about the product safety requirements to effectively engage in a process. By removing that, I’m still not clear, and that’s why I’d like the Minister to respond, as to whether there is a separate process, or whether she is comfortable that the process that’s outlined here is just going to remain in place. Madam Chair?

Tangi Utikere—oh, the honourable Minister. Perhaps we’ll give the Minister a chance, and I’ll come back.

I just want to touch, first, on the fears about increased smoking as a result of vaping being tightened, and smoking. We’re not changing any other components of the smoking regulations that currently exist—we’re only making amendments to things that are not yet in place. So as we’ve seen a significant turn-round from smoking, I can’t see that there would be any logic to raise alarm about smoking increasing. I’d reiterate again the reference to clause 35 that relates specifically to the testing for the nicotine levels as part of the denicotinisation. All other existing testing programmes are remaining in place.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are still an outstanding couple of questions that relate to the level of engagement that the Minister has had with young people. So, I am hoping that she will pick up on that. That has given rise to a further question in my own mind around the nature of advice that the Minister has received, not just specifically around the repeal of the smoke-free generation, but in terms of removing those regulations as well, that relate to members of our Pasifika community.

As a part of the process of the Health Committee that led to this principal piece of legislation, we heard, as members of that committee, a lot of commentary, a lot of personal experience, from members of that particular community of interest. Again, without a select committee process, we don’t have that. So, I am interested in not just the thoughts of young people, but what specific advice has the Minister received in terms of engagement with our Pasifika community, given that Pacific members of this House will want to know that the views they might have in relation to these proposals have been considered. So I look forward, perhaps, to the Minister taking the opportunity to provide not just the response to young people, but to members of our Pasifika community as well.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this—my first chance. I’ve been very keen; I even moved chairs because I’ve taken on board—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ve been very patient.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I have heard that a lot throughout my life, I must admit. But I’ve taken on board the feedback from the presiding officers that I should not sit in my allocated seat because I’m not tall enough to be seen—and I get that, so I moved.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good advice—I’m short too.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah—here we are.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just ask your question now.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I will.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you. I am here to ask a question around clause 36, and I don’t believe it’s been touched on. It’s under Subpart 2 of Part 2, “Amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations 2021” and it revolves around Subpart 4 of Part 3 of those regulations. The reason I want to ask a question about this is because it struck me that as someone who smoked myself and someone who has worked in three different petrol stations in my career—that might not seem relevant, but I’ll explain why. The point being that I have handled a lot of cigarette packets, and in doing so, I know that there are cigarette brands that clearly label on the sides the level of nicotine on the packets. So the point is that nicotine levels are on display already.

So forget the debate about whether nicotine should be regulated or reduced, because that’s not actually in this part. This is about the standard of testing, and if we have products—and I’m not going to say brand names, but we do have brands that sell a regular cigarette and a light cigarette. We have brands that have three different types of cigarettes. It might be blue, it might be red, or it might be green, each with different types of strength and each with different levels of nicotine.

In Subpart 4 of Part 3 of these regulations, it clearly outlines a way in which the testing for nicotine can be regulated so that people can have confidence in the information that’s provided. This bill proposes that this testing mechanism—which, again, doesn’t go into restriction; it’s just about testing how that would work—and the bill as proposed by the Minister wants to get rid of it.

Now, there’s one particular part here which I think is important. It states that the test for nicotine levels “must be independent from the manufacturer or importer of the smoke tobacco product”. I would say that across the board, in terms of regulations and particularly in terms of testing, so that the information available to the consumer is accurate and has integrity, it’s pretty important that it is not done by the manufacturer or the importer of that product. The regulation as it is currently written requires it to be independent. The bill repeals that. So if the House accepts that there are cigarette products already that outline the level of nicotine and that we have a regulation that is currently on the books that requires those producers to independently assess the testing method for that, the bill’s going to get rid of it.

So if the Minister is sincere—as she has said in numerous media interviews and in this House—that she wants to see the use of cigarettes to continue to reduce, surely a big part of that would be to have integrity in the testing methods that outline the level of nicotine. It’s a pretty simple requirement, I would think, and that’s actually only one small part. Subpart 4 of Part 3 of these regulations has one, two, three, four areas talking about products for sale or input: they must be tested, what the testing method is, how the review of the details of the test methodology, testing methods, and compliance—all of that, to me, makes absolute sense and, again, I don’t believe this has been raised. It’s certainly my first contribution and opportunity to talk about it, and I have many questions.

I heard, Madam Chair, you give advice to one of my colleagues over here that you would like an exchange. My concern about that, though, is that whilst this is my first chance to contribute to this debate, I have witnessed, both on TV and here in the Chamber—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If the member wants to seek another call, I’ll give you an opportunity to ask.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Keiran McAnulty, you can now ask those questions, but make it questions and not—

I would like, Madam Chair, the Minister to commit to an exchange, because on a number of occasions we’ve been encouraged by presiding officers to do that. But, equally, on a number of occasions I’ve seen members attempt it and the Minister not play ball. So I’m just touching on your advice to the colleague earlier, when you said that you’d like them not to fill the time, but if the Minister isn’t going to engage in an exchange, what option have we got?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is also—like my colleague—my first contribution on this part of the bill. I’m interested in finding out more about what is meant by clauses 39 and 40 and Schedule 1 and explaining my analysis of these clauses. I’d like to really come back to a statement that the Minister has made a number of times that it’s fine to do this repeal of the old legislation: nothing changes because nothing was in place. That’s my set up to the question—this idea that nothing was in place. Therefore, I’m asking why Schedule 1 is needed. Now, let me talk you through that.

Clause 39 says that Schedule 1 of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations and Regulated Products Regulations 2021 is amended by two things. It revokes clause 7. Clause 7 relates to smoked tobacco products received on 21 September 2023, or subsequently. Then it says that Schedule 1 is also to have a new part inserted to that, and that new part is Schedule 1 of this bill. There’s a related amendment, in clause 40, to Schedule 8.

We go to Schedule 1 of this bill. It has some definitions about commencement, but then it’s also about the refund of the fee paid by an applicant to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer. What that says is that “This clause applies in respect of a fee paid before the commencement date”—the commencement date “means the date on which section 42 of the amendment Act comes into force.”, and the amendment Act is this bill that’s in front of us—“by an applicant to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer under regulation 82—regulation 82 is about fees and it sets out that there can be fees—“and Schedule 8”—Schedule 8 is the list of the fees: what they are in relation to the standard regulation format—“of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations”.

Then it says—and this is the interesting part; this is what my question is about and why this is needed, given the Minister’s previous compacts that nothing has happened yet—“The Director-General may refund the fee paid (inclusive of goods and services tax) in whole or in part, if the Director-General considers that it is fair and reasonable to do so in the circumstances.” That fee, which we find in Schedule 8 of the regulations, is $1,475.

I want to know if there has been any analysis or advice on how many of those fees have been paid, how many might have to be paid back, and, most importantly, how this all fits with the Minister’s point that nothing is really in play yet. There may be some simple explanations for that, but I would very much like to hear them.

Then, of course, it’s relevant as well to pause on clause 40, which is that Schedule 8 is amended. As I mentioned before, Schedule 8 of these regulations are the fees, where we find that $1,475 figure. It is “In Schedule 8, revoke the items relating to an applicant to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer, an applicant for approval of a smoked tobacco product, and an applicant for temporary approval of a smoked tobacco product that cannot meet product requirements”. That is one of the applications that Schedule 1 of the bill refers to, but then there are some other bits in there, and I presume that they relate to matters that are not already in traction.

As I said, I’m interested if the Minister could please answer those questions regarding how the fees work, and I see she’s going to get to her feet, so I appreciate that. Thank you.

Just to revisit the queries about clause 36, again, that testing related, as we’ve said before, specifically to the denicotinisation testing levels that was part of the evaluating. It doesn’t change any other testing that currently exists.

In relation to the queries about the refund of fees, this was to address the situation—pushing through this repeal, in terms of what we’re trying to achieve—that they had to acknowledge the fact that fees had been paid by retailers who had applied to be approved retailers under the legislation. They had paid their fees. I’m not sure of the exact numbers—in the proximity of about 400. There was no mechanism by which that money could be repaid. Therefore, this amendment related to the ability to be able to refund those fees that had been paid in the event this legislation goes through.

I’m going to call the Hon Kieran McAnulty because I committed to give you a chance to ask your extra questions once the Minister had—

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My next question is directly related to that response from the Minister, which, frankly, was totally inadequate because it is not appropriate—or at least adequate—for a Minister to stand up, ignore the question, and say that these regulations are for this reason, when the question was why not keep them to enable integrity in the system. I acknowledged in my question why they were there, but this entire subpart does not mention—I’m going to struggle here; you just roll off—denicotinisation is it? Nailed it. Right—denicotinisation—it doesn’t mention that. That’s in another part. I acknowledged that in my question. So I’m sorry, but that may have been a response but it definitely wasn’t an answer.

My next question to the Minister is—and I hope I get an answer not only to my first question but to this one—can she envisage, after reading all the advice that she’s referred to in the House, that someone might wish to wean themself off nicotine by going through the grades of cigarettes.

Now, we see that with vape products. I’m going through that journey myself at the moment. I started here, I’m here, and eventually, one day, I’m sure I’ll get there. But I’ve reduced my nicotine. You can do it through cigarettes, which is why I said what I did in my first contribution. Certain brands of cigarettes have different levels of nicotine—presumably to allow people, if they so choose, to reduce the nicotine in them.

Can the Minister envisage that that is something that they would do; if she can, why wouldn’t she keep this? Her answer was that this was supposed to be about denicotinisation. That doesn’t stand when this entire subpart doesn’t mention that once. This could stay in there and not undermine the intent of this bill. This could stay in here and give people that wish to reduce their nicotine intake—which the Minister has said is her objective—confidence that the information on the side of the packet is actually accurate.

Now, in my first contribution, I referred specifically to regulation 63B(b). Now I want to refer to regulation 63D(2). We’re talking about how “a manufacturer of smoked tobacco products must test a representative range of samples and account for any variance.” So my first question is: what’s wrong with that? Why would we not want manufacturers to take every best possible effort to ensure that the information they have on the packet is accurate?

Now, I anticipate the Minister may say, well, that information is now irrelevant and has been for some time because for a long time cigarette packages couldn’t be displayed in retail outlets. I accept that. As I said, I’ve spent many years working in petrol stations. I know how it works. But this information is available online. People that take giving up smoking seriously actually look for this information. I don’t accept the initial response, but I’ve got two questions there in addition to my first question. Hopefully, the Minister could see that this is a genuine query, and, hopefully, the committee gets a genuine response.

Camilla Belich, and I want this to be really—we’ve been on a couple of original tracks in the last couple of speeches; over the course of the night, some other speeches have got really repetitive, so I’m looking for new questions, specific questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair—point taken. What I did want to mainly focus on in my contribution, which I don’t believe has been covered to date, is Schedule 2, which inserts a new form 5 into the—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right. I was interested in that too, actually, yeah.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, well, there’s a lot we can say about form 5. This is a really complex bill. This is a complex piece of legislation. It is not a simple repeal bill. It is a repeal bill of an amendment bill that has also been previously amended subsequent to its initial passing from the 1990 bill. So it’s hard to make sense of this bill, actually, and the bit that is most difficult is the part that we’re on at the moment, which is—and I can see you smiling, because I know that you’re all trying to be making sense of this bill, and I am as well. I was looking at doing amendments last night, and it is complex. I think it’s a shame, actually, that this wasn’t subject to select committee, because I doubt very much, outside of the people in this Chamber, where people are very interested in this, specifically Part 2, whether anyone actually understands exactly what this bill does.

I won’t be able to cover all of Part 2, but I did want to just go over, before I get on to form 5, some of the different enactments that this amends. So it doesn’t only amend the principal Act; it also amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act. It also amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations and the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Regulations 2023.

The one that I wanted to focus on was clause 41(2), which inserts new form 5. Now, when I first saw this, I thought they—and when I say “they”, I mean the Government, or the Associate Minister of Health—must be intending to replace an existing form 5 with a new form 5. However, when I looked up the regulations, I saw that the forms that are in the existing regulations actually only go up to form 4. So form 5—and I’d be interested if the Minister has any more information on this—is actually a brand new form that inserts, very surprisingly, additional regulatory requirements on tobacco retailers. I assume, from reading the small amount of information that is in the bill in relation to form 5—and requires the businesses to actually provide a number of pieces of information in relation to the tobacco products that they sell annually. So it’s an annual return. The previous forms I think are of a similar nature, but this is not a replacement; it’s actually, as I see it, a new form—but happy to be corrected by the Minister. I see she’s getting some advice there, and I’d be interested to know that.

So it’s quite a difficult form to understand. The main thing that I wasn’t aware of—and, actually, if we go back to the primary clause in 41(2), we can see that there is a replacement, also, in forms 3 and 4, to replace “UPC” with “EAN/UPC.” Now, I didn’t know what that was. I’m different to my colleague Mr McAnulty: I’ve never been a smoker. I’ve never smoked a cigarette; I don’t know anything about them. I had to describe, when a cigarette came up in conversation, to my children, what it was—you know, a cylindrical tube that you might’ve seen with a tiny fire on it that people smoke, that have smoke around them. You know, that is the reality of the new generation. It could be that everyone had no idea what a cigarette was, and the simple idea of them is just bizarre to the next generation. I think that was my colleague Ayesha Verrall’s intention, to really have a new generation that felt that way about cigarette smoking, because there’s really nothing good about it.

So I’m interested. I looked up UPC and EAN/UPC, I have to admit, it was while I was in the Chamber; I haven’t had a lot of time to look at it. I believe it’s barcodes. But I asked the Minister: what is the difference between a UPC and an EAN/ UPC? Why has it been amended in forms 3 and 4, and, then, why have we inserted a new form 5? And why does the Minister require additional information annually from businesses that sell tobacco products, in form 5, or have I misunderstood that? And is form 5 some other thing that isn’t an additional requirement that businesses need? So I’m interested in the Minister’s response.

I just want to confirm that all of the regulations that were quoted regarding the testing of nicotine levels—all of those regulations relate to the product approval process around the denicotinisation or low nicotine limits, just to clarify that that’s why it can’t be left in, because it relates specifically to the regulations for that.

Clarifying the last member’s question about Schedule 2, the new form actually has nothing to do with the tobacco products. It was a correction of a misconsequence of the original legislation, and it was about vaping reporting. It was just amending the form requirements, and that’s why that’s been inserted in there.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m going to call Steve Abel, but I’m going to be very vigilant. We have had some good questions in the last couple of calls, but I’m going to be very vigilant about where we’re going because we’ve had quite a bit of time on this part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I specifically want to ask the Minister, under Subpart 2, “Amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations”, about clause 35. There’s already been some speakers point out the problem of taking away requirements on the testing, but I specifically want to talk about removal of Subpart 2C, which “sets out information that the manufacturer or importer must provide with an application for approval for sale, import, or manufacture of a smoked tobacco product.”

The question relates to—surely, I want to have clarity from the Minister—what is the reason for removing a clause that gives clarity on the importation or manufacture, and to what extent will that affect the monitoring and our understanding of what importers and manufacturers are doing in this country in terms of tobacco?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Abel, I understand from the Minister that she’s answered that particular question. There’s quite a number of interchanges in the Chamber tonight, where people are moving in and out of the Chamber, so I would suggest, perhaps, you might want to look to a previous answer.

STEVE ABEL: I have another question—[Interruption] I have another question. There’s another question, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, Mr Abel has still got the call at the moment.

Hon Member: Sorry, mate.

STEVE ABEL: No, it’s fine. So it’s related to a specific point that was asked already of the Minister but has not yet been answered, which is as to the impact and the regulation of the impact of the waste tobacco product—my colleague Lan Pham asked about this—which primarily manifests in terms of the filters, which are plastic and, in their hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, end up in the environment. Most of them end up getting washed down drains when people stub out their cigarettes on the ground, and a lot of them end up in our marine environment and end up being consumed by marine life and fish, and so forth. This is actually a major environmental problem—a major source of plastic pollution in the environment. I’d like to ask the Minister, in terms of that question, what her response is.

As I’ve previously stated, there was no filters restriction on the current legislation. That’s not relevant to this amendment that we’re seeking. There’s nothing in there currently, and we’re not undoing anything that’s in there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to propose a new clause 25 via a tabled amendment. As I do this, I just remind this committee and the Minister that we’re speaking here about a product that kills half the people who use it. Anybody listening to this debate at home would have heard me speak about the realities of funerals, because when people die from a product, there needs to be a funeral. So the amendment that I’m proposing is around compensation for victims.

When I look at the wording, “compensation” is a bit of a difficult word to use, because there is nothing that can compensate for a loss of life or for the health implications or for the loss of time that family members have when somebody’s life is cut short, or they are sick or ill or unwell or just not present because they’re smoking.

So compensation’s not an ideal word, but it’s the word that I landed on, and then the word “victims”. The victims of smoking, they are victims of many things. They are victims of tobacco companies. They are victims of the misinformation of those companies. They are victims of advertising, of marketing. They are victims of insidious marketing through films—that has happened decades ago, for some of the people who still currently smoke, where there were pictures of people smoking on films—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could I just inform the member that that amendment was part of Part 1, and so if the member has any questions on Part 2—

INGRID LEARY: Madam Chair, if I may, the proposed amendment inserts clause 24 and a new part 5, Subpart 8, and we have not, as I understand it, come to that part. So I have not had the opportunity to speak to this, or for the Minister to consider this suggestion.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, it is Part 1.

INGRID LEARY: Point of order, Madam Chair. May I just ask for an explanation on that, because my understanding is that this goes into a new Part 5, Subpart 8, which is not in Part 1, so I’m not quite clear on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’re talking about “Amendments to principal Act.”

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair. I think the issue is that this is a new section that’s been introduced by the member in her amendment. The primary Act finishes at clause 24. This is inserting a new clause 25. The existing clause 25 is in Part 2, and, therefore, the member didn’t speak about the amendment in the previous part and intended to speak at the appropriate time in Part 2. I appreciate that it’s difficult for members obviously not as expert as some of the Clerks in where their correct place is, but I just—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I’ve just taken some advice. To the member, regardless of how the amendment was worded, if it relates to the principal Act, it relates to Part 1, and that’s the advice that I’ve received, so yeah.

Speaking to that point of order, just to clarify, I accept that if that’s your ruling that the member can’t speak on it. However, the member, perhaps, was waiting for the appropriate time, because clause 25 is in Part 2 of the Act, and so it may be—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So it is my ruling that it does relate to the principal Act.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s

The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Now, members, we have to take a vote on Schedule 1 where there’s no debate. The question is Schedule 1 stand part.

Now we are up to Schedule 2, no debate. The question is Schedule 2 stand part.