neibla/debates · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 8.04k
ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleagues Jonathan Young and Clayton Mitchell over the other side, I'm looking forward to this bill coming to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. When it does come to our committee, the thing I'll be looking at in particular is what I want to talk about tonight, which is this definition, or lack of definition, of "unconscionable conduct".
As we've heard tonight, this bill would amend the Fair Trading Act to prohibit unconscionable conduct in trade. The problem, of course, with the bill is it doesn't define what unconscionable conduct is; and, in fact, the Minister admitted as much in his contribution earlier tonight. Instead of defining it, he instead suggested that we look to Australia. So we have this extraordinary situation where not only will traders in New Zealand have to comply, of course, with all New Zealand laws, but they'll now have to, if this bill passes, look to Australia to see how the legislation there, or how unconscionable conduct there, is defined by the courts in Australia, before they can decide how they'll operate in New Zealand, which I find a pretty extraordinary situation. It's also a very, very poor way of making legislation.
We will be voting against this bill tonight. I do look forward to it coming to the select committee, though, because there are some, I think, really important points that MPs on both sides of the House have actually raised about the Fair Trading Act, so we would like to get, I guess, a thorough thrashing out of some of those issues. But as the bill as currently drafted, where there is no definition of what unconscionable conduct is, despite prohibiting it, I can't support the bill and nor can my colleagues.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you much, Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to be standing here speaking in support of this Fair Trading Amendment Bill. I mean, it seems pretty straightforward to me, really. You know, the other side of the House, they call themselves the party of markets. The question I pose to the House is: how is it right to have a market that is acting where deception and bully-boy tactics and intimidation is OK? It's wrong. That's not a fair market. It's not a fair market. That's not fair trading. How is it OK where somebody can be intimidated into signing a contract that they didn't understand the terms of? You know, there are provisions currently in law and what this Government is saying within this particular bill is that we want to strengthen those.
We've heard tonight that there is a claim that we don't know what sort of activity this bill would capture. So let me provide some examples, if I may. Photographers, for example, being threatened, verbally abused, and blacklisted after asking for payments that were due. That sort of behaviour is unconscionable and it should be.
Hon Andrew Little: The Nats like it.
KIERAN McANULTY: Well, evidently, they do, Mr Little. Evidently they are comfortable with that sort of behaviour, because they've got an opportunity to support this bill and they're not. I'm surprised by that, because really there's no ideological position to take on this. You're either for fairness or not. And that side of the House just evidently aren't. I mean, they've got an opportunity to prove otherwise, but they're voting against this bill. They're trying to position themselves on the fence and say, "Look, we'll have a rigorous discussion and we've made some points and we'll look at improving it." Vote for the bill. They're not going to.
Here's another example: supermarkets penalising suppliers for promotion runs with other retailers by demanding compensation for perceived losses caused by other retailers' promotions, and deducting it from the payments to suppliers. How should that be tolerated? It shouldn't, and this bill, the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, is going to address that. That's why I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting it tonight.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've got to stand up straight after McAnulty's spoken. Now, I want to address a couple of issues in this—
Kieran McAnulty: I don't even know what that means, McKelvie.
IAN McKELVIE: I didn't mean that at all, Kieran—ha, ha! There are a couple of issues in this bill. First of all, I'm not on the select committee that's going to have to deal with it, so the piece I say on it tonight will be the last say I have on it, I guess. But I just want to refer to an issue that Jamie Strange raised, which I think is quite important, but I don't think this bill, unfortunately, deals with it.
If you think about the door-to-door salesman in my day, when I was young. They sold eggs, bacon, sausages, newspapers, and that was about it. We now have, as society evolves, a very different type of door-to-door salesman. And if you think about unconscionable—if I've pronounced that correctly—acts in the course of sales, I don't think this bill has got a show of capturing those people that we've designed it to capture. I assume that a lot of that has got to do with clause 9 also, which talks about entering premises against the will of the property owner or the person or the resident of that house.
I don't think this bill will deal with those issues. And the reason I think that, and we've referred to Australia a lot already tonight, is that in 10 years and in an economy 10 times the size of ours, there have been two successful prosecutions under the Australian piece of law. So if you think that they've had two successful prosecutions in 10 years in Australia, it's highly unlikely we're going to get one in 10 years, given that we're going to adopt the same criteria they use.
So I think the intent of this legislation—I think the intent of most legislation that comes to this House is good, but I don't think this bill is going to do what it sets out to do, and I don't think it's going to achieve it. Actually, if you read clause 9 quite carefully, I suspect it does cover politicians knocking on doors and we'll probably get a few notices shoved in front of us to send us on our way.
I also think that I can't read it in any way where it doesn't cover the Girl Guide biscuits scenario, for example. So I think it's going to capture things we don't want it to capture and it's going to let the people that we really want to get through the loophole. That's my small contribution to the bill and we clearly aren't supporting it at first reading, and I hope the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee can make something of it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Look, I just wanted to touch on one point really, and it is this scaremongering around the concept of unconscionability and the suggestion that it's in some way loose. This concept has a long tradition in the law, in equity, and it's also found, I must say, in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. The provision in that Act says that financiers can't act in a way that's unconscionable or in contravention of the standards of reasonable commercial practice. So over that time, both in case law alone but also through kind of legislative interpretation, the concept is very well understood and very clearly applied.
There's only a few elements to it. One is very obvious: that there's some advantage taking going on. Another element of it is the vulnerability of the person being taken advantage of and the kind of nexus between that is a knowledge or a wilful blindness of that weakness. And if you put those things together, we can see that we've got some real wrongdoing. Added into that, there's almost always an inequality of exchange that goes hand-in-hand with it, that the bargain simply isn't a fair one, and when you put all that together and stand back, we get the fact that this transaction overall, as a whole, is simply inequitable; that a person in good conscience could not enter into it and take advantage of it.
So along with clauses 7 and 8 in the amendment bill, it was very clear that this will be a really useful tool. It's one that should have been there a long time ago. It doesn't just apply to entering into contracts; it also applies to the performance and enforcement of those contracts. It's a really useful addition to the tool kit that is found in the Fair Trading Act: protecting consumers from the abuses, the caveat emptor, the imbalance of power that often exists. A fantastic bill—I commend it to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That Fair Trading Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.





OMBUDSMEN (PROTECTION OF NAME) AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.





Clauses 1 to 6 and Schedule
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): This is a very simple bill achieving to do a very simple thing: to prevent very simple people from abusing a very important office—that is the Office of the Ombudsman. We have a provision in the current legislation that allows the Chief Ombudsman to grant others the use of the term "ombudsman". Previous Ombudsmen have done that on at least two occasions to private organisations. So, for example, we have what used to be known as the Banking Ombudsman—I think it is now the Banking and Insurance Ombudsman—and there is at least one other, whose name and purpose eludes me for the moment. But there are others who have been queuing up to use the name.
The current Chief Ombudsman is concerned that the whole heritage of the role of the Office of the Ombudsman, which carries the important role of ensuring that the State and its agencies not only comply with the law but conduct themselves ethically and properly and in a way that best serves the interests of the citizens who those organisations are serving. It would be very easy for the gravitas of that office to be diluted were it not to be properly protected.
The motivation for this bill comes from a decision of the Court of Appeal in the last couple of years. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal appears to be that because previous Chief Ombudsmen have granted the use of the name of "ombudsman" to private organisations, then other organisations seeking to use the name should not be denied the market advantage that goes with it. It almost, sort of, requires the Chief Ombudsman to compulsorily or mandatorily give the name, grant the use of the name, that the legislation seeks to actually allow to be protected.
So this takes the power of the decision away from the Chief Ombudsman and puts it in the hands of the Minister, but is very, very clear that it is not expected that this name would be used for anything other than organisations or relevant agencies in the State sector. Therefore, we won't have this proliferation of various ombudsmen or offices of ombudsmen. The real Office of the Ombudsman will continue to have the importance and gravitas that it now has. On that basis, I think it will make a very important contribution to the pantheon of law change that this Parliament will have achieved.





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): If there was ever a bill that was a solution looking for a problem, it's got to be this bill. What a complete and utter waste of Parliament's time. That's why the Minister stood—he could only speak for 2½ minutes. What does the bill do?
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Sit down then.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Don't worry, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. Of course he wants me to sit down—of course he does. Every time I get up, he's in trouble; he's running for the hills. He's blowing raspberries now—classic response from the Minister.
This is a complete, total, utter waste of time. This is a waste of this Parliament's time. This bill affects absolutely no one. All the good legislation's been through Parliament. All our legislation's come through. This Government that was meant to be transformational, with a Minister that was going to be transformational to our justice sector, brings an ombudsman's bill.
Who does this actually affect? Do you want to know why it's here? The reason why it's here is because there is no proliferation of the use of the name, but there was an organisation that it passed the hurdles, passed the tests, should have been able to use the name quite legally. The Ombudsman and the Minister for some reason thought it wasn't appropriate. It went to court. They won it in court. So what do they do? They bring the legislation into the House to change it.
Bring some serious legislation to the House, Minister, that we can get up and speak to. The reason why this Government's in trouble is if you look at the Order Paper there's nothing on the Order Paper. There's one more bill. We won't be taking calls on this—waste of time. Watch the Government now start to filibuster it. Let's see. Let's see the Minister now continue to take calls on this fantastic ombudsman's bill. It's a complete and utter waste of time. It's a sham from a sham Government. Thank you, Madam Chair.





A party vote was called for on the question, That Clauses 1 to 6 and the Schedule be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Clauses 1 to 6 and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill without amendment.
Report adopted.





SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENTS (PROHIBITING SMOKING IN MOTOR VEHICLES CARRYING CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
I'd like to thank the Health Committee for their work and consideration of this bill. I'm also extremely grateful to the people who submitted on this bill, especially whānau, tamariki, and rangatahi. Their voices were essential for the consideration of this bill, as it is primarily designed to protect our children and tamariki from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
Too many of our whānau, tamariki, and rangatahi are exposed to second-hand smoke in vehicles they travel in. Other jurisdictions like Australia, most Canadian provinces, and the United Kingdom have already put in place legislation to prohibit smoking in vehicles with children, and now it's our turn to do the right thing for our children. We have a duty under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to enact legislation like this.
This bill will amend the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 to make it an offence to smoke in a motor vehicle carrying anyone under 18 years old. Compliance and enforcement efforts will first and foremost be focused on public education and changing social norms. While this bill does introduce a new offence and infringement fee, I'd like to emphasise that police will use their discretion over whether to issue a fee, give a warning, or provide information about stop-smoking cessation services available in our communities.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleagues Jonathan Young and Clayton Mitchell over the other side, I'm looking forward to this bill coming to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. When it does come to our committee, the thing I'll be looking at in particular is what I want to talk about tonight, which is this definition, or lack of definition, of "unconscionable conduct".

As we've heard tonight, this bill would amend the Fair Trading Act to prohibit unconscionable conduct in trade. The problem, of course, with the bill is it doesn't define what unconscionable conduct is; and, in fact, the Minister admitted as much in his contribution earlier tonight. Instead of defining it, he instead suggested that we look to Australia. So we have this extraordinary situation where not only will traders in New Zealand have to comply, of course, with all New Zealand laws, but they'll now have to, if this bill passes, look to Australia to see how the legislation there, or how unconscionable conduct there, is defined by the courts in Australia, before they can decide how they'll operate in New Zealand, which I find a pretty extraordinary situation. It's also a very, very poor way of making legislation.

We will be voting against this bill tonight. I do look forward to it coming to the select committee, though, because there are some, I think, really important points that MPs on both sides of the House have actually raised about the Fair Trading Act, so we would like to get, I guess, a thorough thrashing out of some of those issues. But as the bill as currently drafted, where there is no definition of what unconscionable conduct is, despite prohibiting it, I can't support the bill and nor can my colleagues.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you much, Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to be standing here speaking in support of this Fair Trading Amendment Bill. I mean, it seems pretty straightforward to me, really. You know, the other side of the House, they call themselves the party of markets. The question I pose to the House is: how is it right to have a market that is acting where deception and bully-boy tactics and intimidation is OK? It's wrong. That's not a fair market. It's not a fair market. That's not fair trading. How is it OK where somebody can be intimidated into signing a contract that they didn't understand the terms of? You know, there are provisions currently in law and what this Government is saying within this particular bill is that we want to strengthen those.

We've heard tonight that there is a claim that we don't know what sort of activity this bill would capture. So let me provide some examples, if I may. Photographers, for example, being threatened, verbally abused, and blacklisted after asking for payments that were due. That sort of behaviour is unconscionable and it should be.

Hon Andrew Little: The Nats like it.

KIERAN McANULTY: Well, evidently, they do, Mr Little. Evidently they are comfortable with that sort of behaviour, because they've got an opportunity to support this bill and they're not. I'm surprised by that, because really there's no ideological position to take on this. You're either for fairness or not. And that side of the House just evidently aren't. I mean, they've got an opportunity to prove otherwise, but they're voting against this bill. They're trying to position themselves on the fence and say, "Look, we'll have a rigorous discussion and we've made some points and we'll look at improving it." Vote for the bill. They're not going to.

Here's another example: supermarkets penalising suppliers for promotion runs with other retailers by demanding compensation for perceived losses caused by other retailers' promotions, and deducting it from the payments to suppliers. How should that be tolerated? It shouldn't, and this bill, the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, is going to address that. That's why I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting it tonight.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've got to stand up straight after McAnulty's spoken. Now, I want to address a couple of issues in this—

Kieran McAnulty: I don't even know what that means, McKelvie.

IAN McKELVIE: I didn't mean that at all, Kieran—ha, ha! There are a couple of issues in this bill. First of all, I'm not on the select committee that's going to have to deal with it, so the piece I say on it tonight will be the last say I have on it, I guess. But I just want to refer to an issue that Jamie Strange raised, which I think is quite important, but I don't think this bill, unfortunately, deals with it.

If you think about the door-to-door salesman in my day, when I was young. They sold eggs, bacon, sausages, newspapers, and that was about it. We now have, as society evolves, a very different type of door-to-door salesman. And if you think about unconscionable—if I've pronounced that correctly—acts in the course of sales, I don't think this bill has got a show of capturing those people that we've designed it to capture. I assume that a lot of that has got to do with clause 9 also, which talks about entering premises against the will of the property owner or the person or the resident of that house.

I don't think this bill will deal with those issues. And the reason I think that, and we've referred to Australia a lot already tonight, is that in 10 years and in an economy 10 times the size of ours, there have been two successful prosecutions under the Australian piece of law. So if you think that they've had two successful prosecutions in 10 years in Australia, it's highly unlikely we're going to get one in 10 years, given that we're going to adopt the same criteria they use.

So I think the intent of this legislation—I think the intent of most legislation that comes to this House is good, but I don't think this bill is going to do what it sets out to do, and I don't think it's going to achieve it. Actually, if you read clause 9 quite carefully, I suspect it does cover politicians knocking on doors and we'll probably get a few notices shoved in front of us to send us on our way.

I also think that I can't read it in any way where it doesn't cover the Girl Guide biscuits scenario, for example. So I think it's going to capture things we don't want it to capture and it's going to let the people that we really want to get through the loophole. That's my small contribution to the bill and we clearly aren't supporting it at first reading, and I hope the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee can make something of it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Look, I just wanted to touch on one point really, and it is this scaremongering around the concept of unconscionability and the suggestion that it's in some way loose. This concept has a long tradition in the law, in equity, and it's also found, I must say, in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. The provision in that Act says that financiers can't act in a way that's unconscionable or in contravention of the standards of reasonable commercial practice. So over that time, both in case law alone but also through kind of legislative interpretation, the concept is very well understood and very clearly applied.

There's only a few elements to it. One is very obvious: that there's some advantage taking going on. Another element of it is the vulnerability of the person being taken advantage of and the kind of nexus between that is a knowledge or a wilful blindness of that weakness. And if you put those things together, we can see that we've got some real wrongdoing. Added into that, there's almost always an inequality of exchange that goes hand-in-hand with it, that the bargain simply isn't a fair one, and when you put all that together and stand back, we get the fact that this transaction overall, as a whole, is simply inequitable; that a person in good conscience could not enter into it and take advantage of it.

So along with clauses 7 and 8 in the amendment bill, it was very clear that this will be a really useful tool. It's one that should have been there a long time ago. It doesn't just apply to entering into contracts; it also applies to the performance and enforcement of those contracts. It's a really useful addition to the tool kit that is found in the Fair Trading Act: protecting consumers from the abuses, the caveat emptor, the imbalance of power that often exists. A fantastic bill—I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Fair Trading Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

OMBUDSMEN (PROTECTION OF NAME) AMENDMENT BILL

In Committee

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Clauses 1 to 6 and Schedule

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): This is a very simple bill achieving to do a very simple thing: to prevent very simple people from abusing a very important office—that is the Office of the Ombudsman. We have a provision in the current legislation that allows the Chief Ombudsman to grant others the use of the term "ombudsman". Previous Ombudsmen have done that on at least two occasions to private organisations. So, for example, we have what used to be known as the Banking Ombudsman—I think it is now the Banking and Insurance Ombudsman—and there is at least one other, whose name and purpose eludes me for the moment. But there are others who have been queuing up to use the name.

The current Chief Ombudsman is concerned that the whole heritage of the role of the Office of the Ombudsman, which carries the important role of ensuring that the State and its agencies not only comply with the law but conduct themselves ethically and properly and in a way that best serves the interests of the citizens who those organisations are serving. It would be very easy for the gravitas of that office to be diluted were it not to be properly protected.

The motivation for this bill comes from a decision of the Court of Appeal in the last couple of years. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal appears to be that because previous Chief Ombudsmen have granted the use of the name of "ombudsman" to private organisations, then other organisations seeking to use the name should not be denied the market advantage that goes with it. It almost, sort of, requires the Chief Ombudsman to compulsorily or mandatorily give the name, grant the use of the name, that the legislation seeks to actually allow to be protected.

So this takes the power of the decision away from the Chief Ombudsman and puts it in the hands of the Minister, but is very, very clear that it is not expected that this name would be used for anything other than organisations or relevant agencies in the State sector. Therefore, we won't have this proliferation of various ombudsmen or offices of ombudsmen. The real Office of the Ombudsman will continue to have the importance and gravitas that it now has. On that basis, I think it will make a very important contribution to the pantheon of law change that this Parliament will have achieved.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): If there was ever a bill that was a solution looking for a problem, it's got to be this bill. What a complete and utter waste of Parliament's time. That's why the Minister stood—he could only speak for 2½ minutes. What does the bill do?

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Sit down then.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Don't worry, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. Of course he wants me to sit down—of course he does. Every time I get up, he's in trouble; he's running for the hills. He's blowing raspberries now—classic response from the Minister.

This is a complete, total, utter waste of time. This is a waste of this Parliament's time. This bill affects absolutely no one. All the good legislation's been through Parliament. All our legislation's come through. This Government that was meant to be transformational, with a Minister that was going to be transformational to our justice sector, brings an ombudsman's bill.

Who does this actually affect? Do you want to know why it's here? The reason why it's here is because there is no proliferation of the use of the name, but there was an organisation that it passed the hurdles, passed the tests, should have been able to use the name quite legally. The Ombudsman and the Minister for some reason thought it wasn't appropriate. It went to court. They won it in court. So what do they do? They bring the legislation into the House to change it.

Bring some serious legislation to the House, Minister, that we can get up and speak to. The reason why this Government's in trouble is if you look at the Order Paper there's nothing on the Order Paper. There's one more bill. We won't be taking calls on this—waste of time. Watch the Government now start to filibuster it. Let's see. Let's see the Minister now continue to take calls on this fantastic ombudsman's bill. It's a complete and utter waste of time. It's a sham from a sham Government. Thank you, Madam Chair.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Clauses 1 to 6 and the Schedule be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clauses 1 to 6 and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENTS (PROHIBITING SMOKING IN MOTOR VEHICLES CARRYING CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I'd like to thank the Health Committee for their work and consideration of this bill. I'm also extremely grateful to the people who submitted on this bill, especially whānau, tamariki, and rangatahi. Their voices were essential for the consideration of this bill, as it is primarily designed to protect our children and tamariki from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

Too many of our whānau, tamariki, and rangatahi are exposed to second-hand smoke in vehicles they travel in. Other jurisdictions like Australia, most Canadian provinces, and the United Kingdom have already put in place legislation to prohibit smoking in vehicles with children, and now it's our turn to do the right thing for our children. We have a duty under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to enact legislation like this.

This bill will amend the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 to make it an offence to smoke in a motor vehicle carrying anyone under 18 years old. Compliance and enforcement efforts will first and foremost be focused on public education and changing social norms. While this bill does introduce a new offence and infringement fee, I'd like to emphasise that police will use their discretion over whether to issue a fee, give a warning, or provide information about stop-smoking cessation services available in our communities.