Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair; I appreciate it. I'm wishing to speak to the title of the bill and accuracy is an important component of the title. For context like many people in this Chamber I have a personal context here in that both my parents were smokers and raised in the 1970s and the 1980s people smoked in all environments. People smoked in my house in every room in the house and it was a very smoky world. Escaping cigarette smoke was something that people didn't even really consider. I remember being driven to school at five years old in the white Austin Nomad and standing on the bench seat in the back because there were no seatbelts and my mother smoking as she drove the car. That was perfectly normal. That was the reality.What has happened in the ensuing decades is that the culture has changed through an understanding of the harm caused by smoking and then an intervention at the regulatory legislative level to restrict access to tobacco products. The most obvious instance of that was when we forbid there to be smoking in bars and clubs and pubs and so forth. And that has thereby restricted through concerted regulatory and legislative effort the smokiness of our environments. Now the benefits of that are far-reaching. My own father suffered arteriosclerosis. Both of my parents died of cancer and the effect of him—Tim Costley: Point of order. Sir you gave us a very I thought astute and clear direction on the focus of this debate. We're not hearing anything on the title or commencement and I'd just ask for your guidance.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well that is a matter for the Chair. I also could have added the fact that there hasn't been a select committee is also a factor in how much space is given from the Chair as well but that is a matter for the Chair.STEVE ABEL: Thank you Mr Chair. The advantage of us reducing the smokiness of our environments has been a marked decrease in the health burden of the country not just the personal health burden of those of us who have lost relatives to the effects of smoking but on the actual monetary cost of taking care of people because of the effects of smoking. My father had angioplasties he had bypasses he spent 10 years suffering from cancer before the end of his life and the cost to the public health service was extensive.So my proposal because I think it is an accurate reflection of what this amendment bill actually does in all authentic honesty: it does not make a smoke-free environment; it makes in a practical sense a smokier environment for our society and a less regulated products environment. This is a reduction in the regulatory framework that protects the wider community from the impacts of tobacco and nicotine and this will mean smokier environments. It takes us away from the trajectory that we have had basic agreement on across this House over some years now of the advantages in reducing the smokiness of our environments and we're going away from smoke-free environments to smokier environments. It's a back-to-the-past piece of legislation and that is what I seriously propose to the Minister that this should be correctly called if there is going to be honesty as to what this amendment bill does. The impact on our society on our people on the health of people will be utterly detrimental. It does not serve the interests of our society and our country and certainly not people's health. That is what I propose.