Kuriger Barbara; Leary Ingrid; Costello CaseyClauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to our final debate clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clause 1 to 3: Title" "Commencement" and "Principal Act".INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'd really like to ask the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello just about the title Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022; just the rationale for saying "Regulated Products" because everything that I've heard in the House tonight would suggest that there is a great deal of un-regulation. We've heard contributions from members about the difference between alcohol products and nicotine products; we've heard about the lack of regulation relating to consumer safety concerns; and basically the tone of the debate has actually been a sense of a deregulation of the market—or certainly of what was going to happen under the principal Act.So I'm really curious as to the words "Regulated Products". I'm wondering if the Minister shares my concern that that is I would say a misleading word in the context of this bill because the effect of the bill is not really to regulate; the effect of the bill is to broaden the scope of the way the sector is able to work—certainly what was going to come into effect when the principal Act came into effect. So that's my first question.My second question is around the words "Smokefree Environments" because the suggestion is that this bill somehow contributes to making environments smoke-free or more smoke-free and again all the evidence would suggest that the opposite is true; that we've for example seen tabled amendments that would say perhaps there could be carve-outs to some of the provisions for national parks. We've heard about environmental concerns in the environment of what happens with tobacco stubbed-out cigarettes; we've heard about the fact that there may not be a new generation of smoke-free New Zealanders. So the question is: is the word "Smokefree" correct and also "Smokefree Environments"?So that for me makes actually the whole title of this bill really problematic because it seems to me that it does the opposite of what has been said that it's supposed to be doing in the House. That combined with the purpose also gives a bit of a misleading impression of what is going to be achieved by this bill because anybody who just picked this up or read it or perhaps wasn't a lawyer might think "Great this is something that is going to help us to get to our smoke-free targets more quickly." But all of the evidence that we have heard—and the evidence has come from this side of the House because I have not heard any evidence from the Minister tonight; I have only heard circular arguments as have my colleagues which is why we are continuing this interrogation to say "What is her scale of ambition?"Why does the title seem to belie what the impact—the true impact—of this legislation is? It does raise the question of whether this bill and the Minister's statements around it about wanting to reduce smoking at a fast pace are actually sincere because the only evidence that we've heard for her to say that she's intending to reach smoke-free targets is the fact that the track record has already been good. We haven't heard anything about advancing or accelerating or getting to a whole new generation of smoke-free New Zealanders.So those two questions for the Minister: why are the words "Regulated Products" even in the title; and why are the words "Smokefree Environments"? Bearing in mind that nothing that she has said has reassured us that this is going to make anything free of smoke and/or protect our environment from smoke and from the residue of what happens when people smoke which is cigarette butts going into the environment—things that certainly don't make for a smoke-free environment. So those are my two questions to the Minister please.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Just to reassure the member: it's the title of the existing Act and the bill will not change the title of the existing Act."