Kedgley Sue: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7959] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Before I introduce an amendment I have to Part 1 I would like to comment on an interesting fact. During the select committee process United Future supported the report and the bill all the way through. Indeed the United Future member on the Health Committee Judy Turner was quoted in the paper explaining why she did not go for ventilation systems. She said that the problem with ventilation systems was that one would need a ventilation system the strength of a tornado in order to be effective. So she supported the bill all the way through with no minority report opposing it then suddenly along came Peter Dunne who started speaking and sounding like a representative of the tobacco industry. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry; I did not hear that comment. People were talking. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I will take you through it. Earlier this afternoon the member alleged that there is some link between the tobacco industry and United Future or me on this matter. I took a point of order and pointed out that that allegation had been made previously by Action on Smoking and Health and had gone as far as the Privileges Committee. I made the point that there has been no link is no link and will be no link. The Speaker ruled at the time that my comments were in order and that the member should withdraw. She should do the same now and frankly she should be warned about making similar comments in the future. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. The point of order is quite clear. The member is quite correct. It is out of order to suggest that a member is influenced by an outside organisation. I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: You have misrepresented what I said. I have written down here what I said. The member has misrepresented what I said. Can I please read out what I said? I would like you to tell me whether saying that somebody sounds like a member of the tobacco industry is defamatory. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am astonished. If I cannot say that certain members of this— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I have not finished what I am saying. 
Richard Worth 
: It seems quite clear that the member is challenging your ruling. That is clearly out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was not too sure whether the member was saying that. Members cannot make any comment on the ruling after the ruling has been given but I was not too sure what the member was doing so I did not call it. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I was saying that some of the arguments made in this Committee tonight sound like the clichés the discredited arguments of the tobacco industry. That is the point that I am making—that many of the arguments that we have here sound like the discredited arguments of the tobacco industry which I have already pointed out. We have a report here that shows that for four decades the tobacco industry has been trying to influence this House and oppose every piece of legislation to control smoking. I argue that the same discredited arguments are being used here. The point about cannabis has been made. Mr Dunne has been making defamatory comments about us. He is the party that is tough on cannabis and soft on smoking. 
I would like to introduce an amendment that relates to toy tobacco products. I am sure many members have seen that these particular toy tobacco products are on sale in $2 shops all over New Zealand. They have a specific purpose. They are aimed at children under 3 years of age and basically their purpose is to try to teach young children that smoking is cool and fun. We want to introduce into the list of definitions a definition of “toy tobacco product” which would state that such a product is an object that looks like a tobacco product or a smokers pipe can be used to simulate smoking but cannot be smoked is not confectionary and has a primary purpose other than to help people to stop smoking. When we speak of the tobacco industry we must be aware that cigarette toys are being sold to children as young as 3 and that basically the tobacco industry has been targeting young people with its campaigns for many decades. Philip Morris has actually said in its advertising material that today’s young person is tomorrow’s potential regular customer and that the vast majority of smokers begin to smoke in their teens—and that is true. So if we are serious about trying to stop young people from smoking and becoming addicted then we must seek to make it illegal to sell such products to people under the age of 18.