McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): 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 (Labour): 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—Hon KIERAN McANULTY: 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?"