Lees-Galloway Iain: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20071] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to rise and speak in support of Part 1 of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. It is a very important and comprehensive part of the bill with a lot of detail in it and I expect there will be a lot of contributions from my colleagues on this part. 
Although there is a lot in this part I will go directly to Supplementary Order Paper 256 in my name because I would like the Committee to give this Supplementary Order Paper serious consideration. It is certainly within the scope of the legislation. There were a number of amendments that I wanted to put forward but like Rahui Katene’s amendment which we debated just beforehand— 
Hon Member 
: We didn’t get a chance to debate it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —which we will not unfortunately get a chance to debate in the Committee—those changes were outside the scope of this legislation. I suppose that that reflects the need to have a quick follow-up to this legislation with more changes to our smoking regulations in New Zealand. 
The Supplementary Order Paper in my name does two things. The first might initially seem quite inconsequential and to be honest we sort of stumbled across it when looking through the improvements we would like to make to the bill. It is to insert a new clause 7B which would amend section 28 in the Smoke-free Environments Act. This amendment seeks to achieve quite a simple thing. Section 28 refers to free distribution and rewards being prohibited. Subsection (1) states: “No manufacturer distributor importer or retailer of tobacco products may—(a) distribute any tobacco product;”. Basically in a lot of words it says that those people cannot give away tobacco products as a means of promoting their product or promoting their business. But a group is missing from that list and that is wholesalers so the first part of my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to include wholesalers in that list of people and organisations that are prevented from freely distributing or handing out tobacco products as rewards. What we are specifically trying to achieve with that is ensure that there are no loopholes by which wholesalers could give a form of discount to retailers that we do not wish them to give. Obviously if wholesalers were free to give away free product to retailers that would essentially be a form of discount to those retailers. So that is essentially what we are trying to achieve. The bill talks at length about sponsorship and the trade deals available that we are trying to curtail and we felt that that is a potential loophole that really needs to be tidied up. I would appreciate hearing what members have to say about that amendment and I would certainly appreciate support from members for that small change. 
The second part of my Supplementary Order Paper refers to the signage that has to be on display wherever tobacco products are for sale—that is the signage that says “SMOKING KILLS” and informs customers that smoking products are not available for sale to people under the age of 18. My amendment would add a definition of what those signs should look like. Members may wonder why we would want to do that but this was something that we discussed in the Health Committee. Some people have seen those warning signs that say “SMOKING KILLS” in use—I have an example here—and that inform people that tobacco is available only to people over 18; the signs carry out what I suppose could be described as a clandestine form of marketing and advertising. This photo is not the best visual aid I accept and it probably cannot be seen from the other side of the Chamber but here we have the “SMOKING KILLS” sign. Next to it for reasons that are absolutely beyond me we have a picture of a packet of cigarettes. The packet of cigarettes has “R18” on it and I am sure the retailer would say that it is trying to tell people that cigarettes are available only to people over the age of 18. If the thrust of this bill is to get tobacco out of sight and out of mind and to get any visual reference to cigarettes and tobacco out of sight I do not see why we have to have that cartoon picture of a packet of cigarettes on those signs which are actually designed to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. The amendment is a simple amendment that states that the bit that says “SMOKING KILLS” is to be the only bit allowed. The amendment outlines how that sign should appear essentially as this sign appears here but without the little cartoon picture of a packet of cigarettes. 
I also point out as an aside—I took this photo myself—that this particular sign was down at about the level where a 7-year-old would see it. Again it is beyond me why a 7-year-old would need to read that sign. It should be up somewhere where an 18-year-old could see it. A cynic might suggest that that was another form of clandestine advertising to our young people. So that is what the Supplementary Order Paper is trying to achieve. I would certainly like to hear back from members what they think about that and again I would certainly seek the support of members for that Supplementary Order Paper. 
The rest of Part 1 really is as I said the thrust of what this bill is all about. I can say absolutely that the Labour Party fully supports and endorses all the other aspects of Part 1 particularly of course the clauses referring to the display of tobacco products in supermarkets dairies petrol stations and tobacconists. Wherever anybody may go the one thing they have to look at when they go into a dairy is tobacco. Regardless of whatever they have gone into the shop to buy—whether it was a loaf of bread some coffee or some milk—the one thing they have to look at is that power wall of cigarettes behind the counter. Part 1 will see the end of that and that is something we should all celebrate and we should all get behind. 
There is nothing more important that we should be doing right now to reduce the harm caused by tobacco than to get those products out of sight not only to stop young people taking up the smoking habit in the first place but also to support those people who have made that difficult decision to quit. Why should people who have decided to quit smoking tobacco go into a store to get some milk and then be forced to look at the addictive product they are trying to kick? They are trying to get rid of the habit but there is tobacco right in front of them tempting them every single time no matter what they went into the shop to buy. 
I absolutely wholeheartedly support that provision of the bill and I have no doubt that my other colleagues will take calls on the other clauses of Part 1. I will certainly look forward to coming back to discuss the other clauses in Part 1 as well.