Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7976] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to support the sentiments of the previous speaker and also commend to the Committee the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Peter Dunne. I think it is a tragedy that on an issue that should be a conscience vote Labour has forced its members to vote in a particular way without regard to the importance of the issues that arise in legislation of this type. 
Having commended the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Peter Dunne I am nevertheless drawn to the attractiveness of another Supplementary Order Paper which is Supplementary Order Paper 106. That is the one I would like to speak about now. It is a Supplementary Order Paper of outstanding merit—I do not think anyone would deny that—and it is similarly concerned with the issue of cigars but not I hesitate to say with cigar bars. It centres on section 32A in clause 8A and relates to displays of cigars. 
It is an interesting aspect of this legislation that it is concerned with primarily a smoke-free environment but it goes further than that—I think in a most insidious way—to block displays of tobacco products. As others including Nandor Tanczos have said this is not about the outlawing of cigarettes; it is about the smoking of cigarettes in bars clubs and places of that nature. So I would just like to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 106 in that context because it is about making changes to the section relating to compliant product display. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: And who is the outstanding member who moved Supplementary Order Paper 106? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I take pride in the fact that I have been given the opportunity on behalf of the Committee to move Supplementary Order Paper 106! 
The explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper states: “As presently drafted two paragraphs limit the number of tobacco packages to be displayed to 100 and the number of tobacco cartons to be displayed to 40. The commercial result of that restriction will be that retailers will not display cigars and the displays will be limited to cigarettes and cigarillos.“The bill proposes that retailers will not need to meet the display limitation in respect of cigars which in any event are only carried by non-tobacconists in limited numbers.” 
Can I just say these things about this particular Supplementary Order Paper. The bill imposes a restriction on the number of tobacco product packages that may be displayed at each point of sale. The bill also provides—and this is fair enough—that tobacco products should not be displayed adjacent to children’s products. The bill also prevents tobacco products from being placed on shop counters. So very clearly the thrust of the bill’s restrictions on product display is to reduce the impact of tobacco product displays on children. But the result is a grossly anti-competitive situation as the permissible number of packages on display will be far less than the number of different packages that are available on the market. Retailers will be forced to deny display opportunities to many slower-selling brands and that is quite contrary I would suggest to the principles of the Commerce Act. Only the major brands will be on display thereby depriving minor brands of the opportunity to compete. 
That is particularly punitive for cigars and that is why Supplementary Order Paper 106 is being valiantly and I hope triumphantly promoted. The cigar market in New Zealand is less than 0.2 percent of the total tobacco market. The product has no real appeal to children and is smoked only by a few adults. Yet these legal products cigars will simply disappear from display shelves because even the small amount of display space they require will be allocated to faster-selling brands of cigarette. So what I am seeking I say to the member of Parliament for Rotorua is that this Supplementary Order Paper be treated with favourable consideration by a whipped Government and I hope the member will oblige me in that regard.