Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. In Part 1 new section 3A(1)(b) in clause 5 talks about the purpose of this particular piece of legislation. Having been a member of the Health Committee that heard the submissions I am very keen for the passage of this legislation but I want to talk about the actual purpose. There are four main articles in the purpose which actually describe a bit of a journey that this nation has taken in terms of its smoke-free legislation. New section 3A(1)(b) talks about discouraging people from taking up smoking in the first place. The second part of it if you are a smoker is actually giving you the tools and the ability to give up smoking. If you are one of those lucky people who have reformed and given up smoking the third part of this actually looks at supporting you to stay smoke-free. Then the fourth part of this is really about ensuring that those people who are non-smokers are actually not exposed to second-hand smoke. So the purpose of this legislation as I say has got a long gestation and there is quite a whakapapa of legislation that has brought us to this point. We as a nation have really been on a journey to becoming increasingly smoke-free as we ought to be. Part 1 also brings into the discussion the vernacular of the industry. We actually start talking about quit programmes as opposed to stopping smoking or giving up smoking because the word quit" is actually associated with the smoke-free industry. There are quit coaches who help you to give up smoking and there is Quitline which is the telephone service that helps you to give up smoking so I am really pleased that in this legislation we have decided to use the jargon of the industry and put "quit" in the legislation. It is not normal to use terminology like that but I am really pleased that we have done that in this case. Having a sister who is a quit coach I felt it was really important to be able to signify that we knew exactly what we were talking about in terms of the industry supporting people to give up smoking. New section 21(a) in clause 6—this is where we start to look at the difference between plain packaging and standardised packaging. It was really important to make this point because "plain packaging" actually is a misnomer. "Plain packaging" does not adequately describe what we are talking about here. "Plain packaging" seems to describe you know clear white packaging but "standardised packaging" has actually got some requirements within the legislation. So standardised packaging looks at several considerations. It looks at the graphics that will be on the packaging. It looks at the colour of the packaging and what the warning messages will be and the warning messages have to be messages that will be likely to get consumers to reduce their uptake of smoking and they have got to ensure that any false perceptions about the harmful effects of tobacco products are diminished. Standardised packaging also refers to where the producer's logo goes on the particular packet. New section 32(1) in clause 11 says quite clearly what the packaging must include so the messaging has to be about outlining the harmful effects of smoking and the benefits of quitting smoking. It also has to list all the harmful constituent chemicals and ingredients in the smoke and the respective quantities of those ingredients within the smoke and it talks about the graphics as well. New section 32(1)(b) actually talks about leaf tobacco—tobacco that you get in pouches I guess. That information has to be available but because you do not have the cardboard packaging it has to be included on a leaflet within the tobacco itself. The amendments to section 36 in clause 13 actually increase the penalties in respect of any offence—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Poto Williams.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was just wondering—normally the Chair does rotate the speakers across the different parties. We have had four speakers from Labour one after the other. Is there a change to protocol procedures?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well actually we do not alternate around especially with parties that have a lot fewer members than other parties. It is a matter of generally sharing proportionately. I do listen carefully to members' speeches to see whether or not they are speaking relevantly when I decide whether or not to give them another call; Poto Williams was as other members generally have been. The member is on my list to get a call—I have noted that he is going for it—but I think he has also been around long enough to know that it is disorderly to question the Chair as to who gets a call.POTO WILLIAMS: As I was saying clause 13 amends section 36 in respect of offences and the increase in penalties. If you are a manufacturer importer or distributer you can receive a fine not exceeding $600000. A large retailer for example can receive a fine not exceeding $200000 and in any other case which would be a small retailer there will be a fine not exceeding $50000. Clause 9 of the bill amends section 30A which is a small but very interesting part of the legislation. It restricts the sale of loose or single cigarettes. That is particularly problematic for young people and people who are starting smoking—for example children. There is a relevant clause clause 13 which amends section 36(7A) which looks at the penalties should you be a retailer who is selling single cigarettes. That fine is $2000. There are some transitional provisions that allow for not only distributers but retailers to have a period of time to work through stock that is non-standardised to the new stock that is standardised stock. For distributors that is a 6-week period and for retailers that is 12 weeks. I just want to make a couple more comments—firstly about the submitters. There were quite a few submissions from retailers grocers and the like. Some of these submissions were on form submissions. They talked about the standardisation of the packaging causing some confusion within the retail environment. They said that this would increase confusion they might sell the wrong product and it would increase delays in actually serving customers. There were high numbers of submitters from around the country who were very supportive of the legislation and who talked quite emotionally about how smoking had impacted on them and their families. There were some submitters who actually wanted us to go further and consider banning smoking in cars. The last point I want to make is I guess—having sat on the select committee under the chairmanship of Dr Paul Hutchison—that it was a good committee. This bill was one of the first pieces of legislation that I was involved with as a new member to the House but we were inevitably delayed bringing the bill back to the House for further debate because it is my belief the Government was waiting to see what the World Trade Organization decision was going to be in respect of the Australian Government around its legislation. We had an opportunity to talk to the Australian officials about their legislation and how effective it had been. At the time there was only anecdotal evidence that was available—but it was actually quite compelling—that even in the early days the standardised packaging that they had introduced was making an impact on smoking rates in that country. I am very pleased that this legislation has come back to the House and that we are debating this through the Committee stage now. I commend it to the House."