Fenton Darien: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20080] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I have been dying to take a call on this Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill but I have been happy to defer to the members of the Health Committee who have done all the work on it. I congratulate the Minister in the chair the Hon Tariana Turia on her commitment to the bill. Wonderful work is going on here and Part 1 is the main part of the bill. 
The previous speaker Nicky Wagner talked about the purpose of the bill which is to prohibit retail displays of tobacco products the aim being to gradually reduce tobacco uptake particularly among young people and to help smokers to quit. 
I will bring some context to this bill as a former smoker if I may. I will stick to Part 1 as much as I can but I think it is really important to note when looking at this bill how far we have come as a nation on the issue of smoking. As I said I am a former smoker so I take a particular interest in Part 1. I recall way back when Labour embarked on changes to smoking environments particularly in the workplace. I never dreamt that we would get to the point where we would agree as in Part 1 to ban displays of tobacco advertising. I remember the angst that went with that issue but it did help me give up. That was the time when I started to give up smoking and I think all of these measures—with this one adding to them—have helped smokers like me make the decision that smoking is not for them. Of course I had a bit of agitation from my family—my husband and son. 
As others have I acknowledge my colleague Steve Chadwick for her work on this matter. 
Todd McClay 
: Who? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The member opposite said “Who?”. Well I think that is very ignorant actually. He should study history because there was huge angst about it. In fact National voted against Steve Chadwick’s member’s bill the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill as I recall which was about banning smoking in restaurants and workplaces. I remember that and I remember that National voted against it. I remember the angst. I was involved in it because I was representing Sky City union members at the time and they made submission on it. They said that smoking was bad for them and it hurt— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Whose bill was it? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It was Steve Chadwick’s bill I say in answer to that member. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Rubbish. Stop telling porkies. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It was Steve Chadwick’s bill during the 9 years of the last Labour Government. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A member made an interjection. I do not want to repeat it but it clearly implied that the member was telling a lie. It was unparliamentary and it will bring disorder. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is absolutely right. The member on my right will stand and withdraw. To imply that is incorrect and it is not permissible. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw. 
Todd McClay 
: I withdraw as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is trifling with the Chair. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Returning to Part 1 if I may I think there is a very interesting history lesson in Part 1 particularly in respect of— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Get your facts straight. Who was it? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am happy to do that; it was Steve Chadwick. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That member continues to interject on the same line that he has already withdrawn. He continues on that line of saying that I am not telling the truth. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is entitled to make reasonable interjections provided he is doing so from his own seat. If he moves to facilitate interjection he is out of order. This is a debating chamber and I would add that it is not a public house. It is the debating chamber. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I turn to Part 1 again— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Whose bill was it? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —if the member will let me. I hope he will take a call as a person who has recently given up smoking. In clause 5 the interpretation clause is a very interesting lesson in history. It amends section 2(1) of the Smoke-free Environments Act by repealing a number of definitions including the definitions of “children’s product” and “pouch pack”. That brought quite a lot of memories back to me—the days of roll-your-own. I remember a doctor saying that roll-your-owns and smoking tobacco in a pipe were actually better for people than smoking cigarettes. So it is good to see that the definition of “pouch pack” is disappearing—and “tobacconist’s shop” too. It is a long time since I can recall a tobacconist’s shop. I was interested when I visited France a few years ago to see that they still had tabac shops. They would argue that it is much more important to have a specialist shop but I do not know of any such thing as a tobacconist’s shop any more. 
Then “tobacco packages in a visible stack” is being repealed. “Tobacco package” was used to mean “a box carton pack packet pouch tin wrapping or other package that— (a) contains a tobacco product or products;”. “Tobacco packages in a visible stack” means “2 or more tobacco packages”. 
Clause 5 the interpretation clause in Part 1 demonstrates that things have changed a lot. Although we have changed our smoking habits and although this bill really contributes and builds on the work that has been done in the past it also shows that we have come an awful long way in respect of products and the various ways that tobacco has been sold in the past. So it is good to see the pouch pack the tobacconist’s shop and tobacco packages—