Brooking Rachel; Costello Casey; Kuriger Barbara; McAnulty KieranHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): 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 $1475. 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 $1475 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.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): 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.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): 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—Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): 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."