Verrall Ayesha; McAnulty KieranHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Chair thank you. I'd like to take an opportunity in this portion of the debate to speak to my colleague Rachel Boyack's amendment to the title. I think it's a very astute one. Her amendment is: after clause 1 where it says Products" to insert "Increasing Health Expenditure" to the title of this bill because that is exactly what this bill will do.We know very well from the detailed research that was done when the 2022 Act was brought in that the underlying bill the bill that's being repealed would have saved $5.25 billion in health expenditure over the period studied. I had the privilege of being the Minister of Health and I am aware that many of the members in this House would have campaigned on the pressures that our health system face and they are considerable—$5.25 billion would go an awful long way in our health system. Also it's not only important for saving our health system money to be able to take care of people but it is very important to the workers in our health system because they want to see that the resources are being used to their absolute maximum possibility.If I just put into context some of the way in which funds are spent in the health system: spending on general practice is approximately $2 billion a year. So $5.25 billion goes an awful way—of course general practice is partly privately funded as well—to delivering more care for people. When we increased operations that were done in public hospitals those sorts of commitments were in the hundreds of millions. So taking $5.25 billion out of the health system making that unavailable to fund our workers in our hospitals our workers in the community the resources and consumables that we need—Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. Look the title and commencement piece is a very narrow debate around the title specifically and a potential new alternative. Speakers' ruling 130/2 is clear that any amendment must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents. The last two minutes have been nothing but a criticism of the contents of the bill as put forward by this member in her contribution so far.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: To the point of order Madam Chair. Of course the financial implications—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just one moment. Yeah so one of the things that we've done throughout these urgency sessions is said that because there's no select committee we've allowed a bit more debate and a bit more scope. But I also would like the member to just bring it back more closely to the title without expanding too much on that topic. Thank you.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the generosity of the ruling. So the amendment that my colleague Rachel Boyack is proposing is that the title is amended to say "Increasing Health Expenditure". I think it's important because legislation should do what it says on the tin. The bill that is being repealed was the subject of a long period of study. We were advised that it would save $5 billion of health expenditure; it is now being repealed. It seems to me that the people at home have the right to understand in plain English what is being done. One of the major consequences on a health system that is cash-strapped is that this bill will increase health expenditure. So why shouldn't it say that? That is the impact. The Minister has told us it's not going to have any impact on the number of smokers but we know—and in fact the finance Minister was in the media confirming—that it's going to have massive financial impacts so important that they'll be able to save her reckless tax cuts.So I think there is a lot to commend this amendment made by my friend Rachel Boyack because indeed this bill will increase health expenditure.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Kieran McAnulty—just to prove that I can see you over there.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair I appreciate that a lot. I intend to speak to an amendment in my name including in clause 1 after "Products" inserting "(Removing Restrictions)" because that is actually what it's doing among other things. As we all know those of us who have been here a while when there is an amendment bill it's quite common to have in brackets the intent of the bill included. It is very clear—it's an indisputable fact; it's not even a political point—that this bill removes restrictions that are currently in place. I propose this not making any commentary on that; I just simply feel that it is entirely appropriate that the title reflects the contents.Now what do I mean by "removing restrictions"? One example of course is that the Act as it stands that this bill is amending restricts the level of nicotine in tobacco products. Now if the bill's title did include "removing restrictions" that would be appropriate. What about the limit on the age of people able to purchase cigarettes in the Act that this bill is proposing to amend? The Act has restrictions. It says that people of a certain age cannot purchase cigarettes moving forward; this bill here removes the restriction that is in the Act. There are many examples where this bill removes a restriction that is currently in place in the Act and simply including "(Removing Restrictions)" after "Products" is an appropriate proposal for the title.It's very clear that there has been a detailed debate on this bill. Not many detailed responses in the committee of the whole House stage but nevertheless the Minister has made it clear that it is her intention to continue to see the reduction in tobacco use. We dispute that obviously because what the bill is doing is removing restrictions that would have achieved that. Nevertheless the Minister also hasn't disputed the fact that those restrictions are being removed. So I think that this amendment would be an appropriate change to the title."