Select Committee on E-Cigarettes

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:02): I move:

That the final report of the committee be noted.

It was becoming apparent that the unregulated SA environment and lack of clarity around the use of e-cigarettes and associated products was causing issues, as there were no guidelines for users, non-users, policymakers and those in the hospitality industry, as well as many questions surrounding the unknown effects on health. In response to this, I moved a motion on 17 June last year that a select committee into e-cigarettes be established.

The committee, consisting of the members for Hartley, Bright, Kaurna, Fisher and Elder (myself), undertook the charge to investigate any potential legislative and regulatory controls that should be applied to the advertising, sale and use of e-cigarettes. The committee was proficiently supported by Mr Shannon Riggs, parliamentary officer, and Dr Helen Popple, research officer. I would like to thank them and my fellow committee members for their diligence and hard work in deliberations.

I will state from the outset that each one of the recommendations was unanimously supported by the bipartisan parliamentary committee, and so it was puzzling that the member for Hartley in his media release, commenting on the e-cigarette report, stated that he was concerned that some of the recommendations will diminish the harm minimisation benefits e-cigarettes bring. Contrary to what he says in his release, the research is not clear that e-cigarettes are far less dangerous than smoking.

While we already see that in Australia some jurisdictions have moved to regulate e-cigarettes—such as Queensland, that treats e-cigarettes similar to tobacco products, and the ACT, where restrictions applied will prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors under 18 years of age, restrict use in smoke-free areas and restrict advertising, promotion display and display of e-cigarette products and peripherals—here in South Australia, the announcement of the committee's terms of reference gave a platform for 142 submissions and 11 witnesses who voiced their views, from which the recommendations were drawn. The terms of reference focused the committee to examine such issues as:

(a) the potential for personal vaporisers to reduce tobacco smoking prevalence and harms;

(b) the potential risks of these products to individual and population health from vapour emissions, poisoning and the reduced impact of tobacco control measures;

(c) make recommendations on approaches to the regulation of personal vaporisers under the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997, including addressing the following areas—

(i) availability and supply;

(ii) sales to minors;

(iii) advertising and promotion;

(iv) use in smoke-free areas;

(v) product safety and quality control; and

(d) any other relevant matters.

Electronic cigarettes are battery-operated devices that vaporise liquid into a fine aerosol which is inhaled into the lungs. The devices are designed to simulate the look and feel of smoking. It is believed that e-cigarettes were first introduced to the Chinese market in 2004. Since the inception of e-cigarettes, markets across the United States, United Kingdom, Europe and, more recently, Asia, have expanded rapidly, moving through different generations of the devices.

Electronic cigarettes are also interchangeably known as e-cigarettes, personalised vapers, vaporisers, hookah pens, electronic nicotine delivery systems or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems, amongst other names. E-cigarettes may be used with or without nicotine and with a range of more than 7,000 choices of flavoured liquids. E-cigarettes are becoming increasingly popular, but there has been considerable debate over who the main users of e-cigarettes are: young people perhaps experimenting, or middle-aged smokers trying to quit or reduce tobacco use?

In 2014 the global electronic cigarette industry was estimated to be worth $US2 billion, projected to increase to $US10 billion by 2017. Perhaps motivated by this growth, we now see tobacco companies infiltrating the industry. At least five of the largest e-cigarette companies now have electronic cigarette subsidiaries to their business. Understandably, during its deliberations, the committee had, front and centre to its thinking, tobacco smoking, because it remains a leading cause of premature death in Australia.

Tobacco cigarettes are the only legal consumer product that, when used entirely as intended, will kill half of its users. I wish to impress how seriously the committee viewed the public health issue of smoking and notes the successful efforts of campaigns to educate and decrease the incidence of smoking. I re-emphasise that smoking tobacco kills 50 per cent of long-term users, and remains one of the leading causes of preventable death, according to the Cancer Council and other health experts. It is estimated that one person dies about every 28 minutes in Australia due to illness caused by tobacco use.

The committee's recommendations reflect the serious nature of all these facts. Considerable efforts have been made over the past several decades to minimise the harms associated with smoking, but cessation remains the only way to remove the risks of ill health and death associated with this behaviour. The addictive properties of nicotine in tobacco mean that many smokers find it extremely difficult to quit smoking, despite the knowledge that it may ultimately lead to their death. Tobacco smoking in South Australia is currently at the lowest rate we have ever seen. In 2014, only 12.8 per cent of the population identified as daily smokers, and for the first time, less than 10 per cent of young people aged 15 to 19 identified as daily smokers.

These results are heartening, and we need to further champion this cause. E-cigarettes are being increasingly promoted in Australia and overseas as apparent healthier alternatives to conventional tobacco cigarettes; however, conclusive evidence on the health risks or benefit of these systems is not likely to be available for years, or even decades. As such, the World Health Organisation recommends that e-cigarettes should be regulated to protect public health and ensure that the public has reliable information about risks and benefits.

E-cigarettes could play a role in supporting smokers to quit, but it is vital that this does not harm health or impede existing tobacco control effects. However, no e-cigarette product has been proven to be safe through the therapeutic goods testing process, or any other process, and there is a significant lack of scientific agreement as to their safety for users and bystanders. It is important that we understand the health risks associated with e-cigarettes to individuals and the community, as well as the potential for their use in reducing smoking prevalence.

Currently, due to lack of law governing these products, people may, for example, vape on the bus or in a workplace, whereas laws have been in place for decades preventing people from smoking in these very same areas. Laws also see plain packaging and declaration of harm to the user and those around them but we see no strategy matched by the e-cigarette industry.

With this in mind, the committee invited submissions during a six-week period over July and August last year. The committee was advertised locally and nationally on 11 July last year as well as through social media. The committee took evidence from 11 witnesses representing research, business, consumers and public health sectors. With this evidence and the scientific literature, the committee has found a range of attitudes in the community.

However, consistent across these otherwise diverse views was the belief in the importance of public and individual health. Although submitters and witnesses disagree on how best to achieve the maximum public health benefit, this concern was paramount in almost all submissions. The committee has produced what it believes to be the best potential public health outcome, aware that e-cigarettes are still a new and evolving product to the market and that much is still unknown about the short and, in particular, long-term health outcomes associated with exposure to e-cigarettes, components and associated aerosols.

The committee acknowledges that there is support for e-cigarettes internationally, particularly among public health organisations and groups in the United States and the United Kingdom. However, in light of the evidence brought before the committee, there was unanimous support for 20 recommendations covering all perceivable issues associated with e-cigarette use, exposure, sale and promotion. These recommendations aim to:

protect children and non-smokers from first-hand and second-hand e-cigarette vapour;

limit use of e-cigarettes to adults for the purpose of tobacco smoking cessation;

limit the point of sale of e-cigarette products;

minimise appeal of e-cigarette devices and flavours to non-smokers and children;

limit relapse into tobacco use by e-cigarette users and promote cessation of e-cigarette devices;

minimise accidents and/or harm by promoting misuse associated with e-cigarette devices and peripherals (keeping in mind that nicotine is an S7 poison); and

encourage research into the health effects of e-cigarettes and their components, particularly in potentially vulnerable populations.

The committee recommendations support existing tobacco controls while being open to the potential benefits that e-cigarettes could contribute to reducing the tobacco smoking rate. The committee encourages and challenges product developers to pursue Therapeutic Goods Administration approvals to demonstrate product safety and efficacy. This precautionary approach is based on the continual emerging scientific evidence and lack of scientific consensus as to the safety of e-cigarettes.

The recommendations in this report do not constitute a ban on e-cigarettes or their components and peripherals. These recommendations, while recognising the possible role that e-cigarettes may play as a smoking-cessation device for some adult smokers, as based on mostly anecdotal evidence, address the issues associated with the product in the interests of public health.

The committee supports, unanimously, recommendations that comprehensively seek to protect public health while providing choice to those adults who wish to exercise their choice, and ensure certainty for business and the hospitality sectors. The proposed recommendations cover sale, use, promotion, product safety and quality control, enforcement, research and taxation of e-cigarettes and peripheral products.

Recommendations 1 to 5 address the sale of e-cigarettes, preventing sales to minors and appeal to minors and prohibiting indirect sales. Recommendation 6 prohibits the use of e-cigarettes in existing smoke-free areas. Recommendations 7 to 10 prevent the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes, mainly in line with tobacco products, and limit the wording that may be associated with these cigarettes. Recommendations 11 to 13 prescribe product safety and quality controls to minimise the risk of poisonings, accidental harm and misuse associated with e-cigarettes and their peripheral products.

Recommendations 14 to 16 address the enforcement of regulations pertaining to e-cigarettes, peripheral products and nicotine. Recommendations 17 to 19 consider the research required to develop a vigorous and robust evidence base upon which to develop policy. Recommendation 20 encourages the government to consider taxation of e-cigarettes and peripheral products.

In line with the World Health Organisation recommendation for governments to regulate e-cigarettes, these recommendations generate a solid, practical foundation of regulation in the interest of public health. Working synergistically with the existing Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997, these recommendations build on and also create policy that can respond to e-cigarettes as research emerges, thus allowing the market to develop in a responsible and relatively safe manner for adult consumers.

So, to summarise, the committee's consideration focused on the balance of the unknowns to the health of the product while protecting public health and also being mindful of the strong anecdotal evidence of those trying to quit smoking. Pertinent to the issue is also nicotine use and supply and point of sale.

Once again, I thank all committee members and support officers, and I await with interest as the minister deliberates on the 20 recommendations. I understand that work is already in progress to vigorously analyse these recommendations that were unanimously supported by the committee. I recommend the report to the house.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:15): Sir, it was Mark Twain who once said:

Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times.

And, so, here we are. I rise to speak in support of the report. The member for Elder has said much about the membership and the views of those who were appointed to the committee. I want to especially thank Mr Shannon Riggs, the parliamentary officer who was assigned as secretary, as well as the research officer, Dr Helen Popple, who was appointed by the committee on 2 July 2015. They were always there to aid us if we needed any research. They were very thorough in their roles, so I thank them very much.

We heard from the member for Elder that these e-cigarettes were introduced to the market across the world in 2004. Where are we, from a state government point of view, in 2016? I am glad you asked, because—

Members interjecting:

Mr Knoll: I asked.

Mr TARZIA: The state government has been extremely slow to react to this new technology. Queensland introduced laws from 1 January. What the Queensland parliament did was to actually amend the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 (the tobacco act) to actually capture electronic cigarettes as smoking products. Why has it done this? Well, obviously, to ensure that there is adequate safety in the market, to ensure that there is adequate regulation and to somewhat have control in the market to make sure that these devices, which are commonly known as electronic cigarettes, cannot be used in existing non-smoking indoor and outdoor places, so that the devices cannot be sold to children under 18 years of age, and so that they cannot be advertised, promoted or displayed at retail outlets.

You go on to New South Wales, which has actually made it against the law, I am informed, for anyone to possess liquid nicotine for the use in electronic cigarettes. New South Wales has also addressed issues of selling electronic cigarettes to minors as well; and I note that the parliament introduced a bill to ban e-cigarette sales to minors and has done much research on that. Western Australia has also addressed this issue.

To be honest, did we need more delay here in South Australia? If the government is serious about addressing this issue—and I know that this issue is important to many on the committee, the members for Elder and Bright and the member for Kaurna, who has a bit of experience in this area in his former life—then let us see some legislation put forward. As we have been told, from 2004 these devices have been in the market and if the government is serious about regulating the market, then let us have a look at it.

I welcome the bulk of the committee's recommendations, and I have made mention of certain ones. I just want to touch on some comments that David Cameron made. You would all know David Cameron. He makes the point—

An honourable member: Not as well as I'd like.

Mr TARZIA: Not as well as you might like, you say. He says:

So I think we should be making clear that this is a very legitimate path for many people to improve their health and the health of the nation.

This is from an article that was published in The Telegraph. He says:

Certainly as somebody who has been through this battle a number of times, eventually relatively successfully, lots of people find different ways of doing it and certainly for some people e-cigarettes are successful.

So, here we have quite a distinguished gentleman coming out and saying that e-cigarettes are useful for the cessation of smoking tobacco. Obviously, there is evidence, as the member for Elder pointed out, on both sides of the ledger, for and against e-cigarettes being used as a tobacco cessation mechanism. They are in the market. We know that they are in the market, we know that shops exist. As the member for Elder pointed out, we heard evidence from over 140 submissions.

These devices are out in the market. Some of them may be causing the public harm. What the state government needs to be doing is putting a bill and regulation before this house now, not waiting for an incident to happen down the track. When you look at all the resources that this committee used, they were great resources and we got a lot of feedback. With respect, though, what would be better is some legislation. Let us see the government putting some legislation forward in this regard.

There are a number of comprehensive government reviews, respected public health bodies, that say that e-cigarettes can stop people from smoking. I notice that a 2015 report for the UK cabinet office by The Behavioural Insights Team concluded that:

E-cigarettes are now the most successful product at helping people to quit smoking, and the evidence shows that almost all users of e-cigarettes are former smokers.

I am not a smoker, but it is all well and good for someone across the other side of the chamber to say that people should just stop smoking; but if you have spoken to any of these smokers—and I can see one raising his hand across the other side of the chamber—it is not that easy. Unfortunately, it is not that easy, from what I am told, because it is quite addictive.

Why would we not do everything we can to provide a legislative framework where people can get off tobacco, which is killing them (smoking tobacco is doing you damage, it is killing people), and why would we not do everything in our power to put forward a legislative framework where people can safely, in a regulated environment, stop smoking tobacco? We would like to see some legislation from the state government in this manner. Just like New South Wales has, just like Queensland has and just like Western Australia has; they have had their committees, they have deliberated, and they put some legislation forward. So, let's see some legislation by this government.

Twenty recommendations have been put forward, as the member for Elder alluded to. Obviously, it is extremely important that we do what we can to protect children, and that we also protect non-smokers from second-hand e-cigarette vapour and tobacco smoke. We want to limit the use of e-cigarettes to adults for the purposes of tobacco smoking cessation. We should be limiting point of sale for e-cigarette products within reason. We should certainly be minimising the appeal of e-cigarette devices and flavours as well. I think we also want to stop a relapse into tobacco use by e-cigarette users.

There is some evidence—but I would not say it is 100 per cent clear—that people can begin with e-cigarettes and go on to use tobacco. We certainly need to make sure that we limit any relapse into tobacco use by e-cigarette users. Obviously, the accidents and/or harm promoting issues exist, and we need to make sure that we minimise them.

What will do that is a good legislated regulated framework that still allows people to have a choice. Just like you cannot stop people from eating fast food, you cannot stop people from smoking, you cannot stop people from smoking e-cigarettes. However, the government should be putting in a regulated legislated framework, within reason, to allow people the right of choice.

We should also be encouraging research into the health effects of e-cigarettes and cigarettes and their components, particularly I believe in vulnerable populations. We know, we saw evidence, that e-cigarettes are cheaper than cigarettes, so it goes without saying that if a product is cheaper the more vulnerable in our society might be more likely to use that product. I thank all the committee members. I thank those who made a submission to the committee and those who have also written in support of our comments since then, and I look quite actively to the government to see some legislation put forward. Let's see some action, not just words, in this area.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:25): It is my pleasure to support the report of the e-cigarettes select committee of the parliament. Firstly, I congratulate the member for Elder for bringing to the parliament this idea. I will give some defence of parliamentary committees as a vehicle for exploring a policy issue and looking into it. We have heard some attacks of that in the last 10 minutes as to whether the government should have just gone off and done something without consulting the parliament.

Mr Tarzia: You do it all the time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICTON: I would have thought that people on all sides would want to consult the parliament, and that is what the member for Elder has done by bringing this motion and establishing this committee.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICTON: It means that we have gone out and—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. It is very early to start bringing members to order but I will have to do so if you completely disregard standing order 131. I have made sure people do not speak over you when you speak. It is up to the house to recognise the importance of these standing orders so that the business of the house can proceed in an orderly manner. I ask members to observe the standing orders and ask the member for Kaurna to continue with his remarks.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. As I said, I support that this was a good vehicle for the parliament to look into this issue, for us to receive the evidence from across the community, deliberate, and we came up with a unanimous report—unanimous recommendations from both sides of the house that will now go to the government. I hope that the government will take on board—and I think it is the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse who will be looking into this—all of the unanimous bipartisan recommendations that this committee has made.

We know in South Australia we have very good success in tackling smoking. We have one of the lowest smoking rates in the world in this state and in this country, and that has come about through a combination of measures over the last 50 years. No one single measure has done it, it has been a combination of all of them, but it is a continual fight and we want to get that smoking rate down as far as possible.

This new technology in terms of e-cigarettes potentially could help; it potentially could stop people smoking but there are risks attached to it. We have to consider whether it will make smoking seem acceptable again and whether people will start smoking cigarettes because this seems acceptable behaviour once again. We also need to consider the health effects of the e-cigarettes themselves. I think one of our key recommendations is that a whole lot more research needs to be done on the long-term health effects of using an e-cigarette. The e-liquids need to be looked at as to their long-term effects as well because there are a lot of unanswered questions at this point in time.

There have been some references to some research already, and there is very divided opinion in the research community and across different countries as to what the evidence truly shows. In terms of what the committee has done, I think it was a very good process. We had a number of meetings including site visits where we went out and visited some of the vaping stores that have popped up across South Australia. We have held a number of hearings when we have heard from a lot of the experts in terms of the anti-smoking and cancer community, but also in terms of the pro-vaping business community, and we have heard from a number of people who use these products.

We also had a huge number of submissions that were made to the committee, and credit goes to Helen Popple and Shannon Riggs for their work in going through all of those submissions and putting together our research for the committee, which was a mountain of work.

In terms of the approach that we have come to at the end of the day, we have not taken the approach that was put to us by some people that we should completely ban these products unless they have been approved by the TGA, and that is certainly what a number of the health bodies were putting to us. Likewise, we have not supported the view that was put to us by a number of the pro-vaping business bodies that we should allow free regulation of these products in South Australia, and we should, in fact, be encouraging people to use them.

We have tried to arrive at what I think is a sensible middle ground, in that we will regulate these products and have sensible regulation about them and be precautionary and also practical in their use. In terms of whether you should ban them, I personally do not think that would be feasible to do that given how easy it is to obtain these products from interstate or from overseas through the internet, and from receiving them in the post. I also think that there is enough risk out there and enough concerns that we should not be allowing a free, regulatory proposal that was put forward to us by some.

We have tried to reach a sensible balance, and I think whenever you do that you do not please everybody, and sometimes you do not even please anybody: you get everybody concerned about it; but I think we have come to the best conclusion possible. We also have concluded that a lot more work and research needs to happen, as well as a lot more enforcement of what the current laws are in South Australia.

There are some important recommendations that I would like to highlight. We have recommended that there should be a licensing provision for people to have a vaping or e-cigarette store in South Australia. That currently exists for tobacco products, but at the moment does not extend to vaping stores. We have also recommended, importantly, that you cannot be a cigarette store and a vaping store.

A lot of the vaping stores that we visited are very proud of the fact that they are trying to stop people from smoking, and I think there would be concern if you were going to a vaping store and there were a whole lot of cigarettes there as well. So, we have said that there should be a clear difference between the two.

As I said, we do want to see a whole lot more research into the long-term and the short-term effects, and also into the safety of some of the e-liquids that are mainly designed for use as consumption as part of food. When you are inhaling them, potentially there are different effects that happen there as well. Furthermore, a whole lot of the different subgroups of people—such as children, people with respiratory illnesses, chronic illnesses—needs to be researched as well.

We would like to see more enforcement of the laws as they currently stand. Personally, I would like to see more enforcement from SA Health of the laws that they have available to them. Particularly, we are talking about nicotine products there which are illegal to be sold in Australia, and most of the reputable vaping stores in South Australia will not sell those products but will refer people to sites in the US, or elsewhere around the world, where people can order them and import them. I think that is also of concern, and we have encouraged the commonwealth to look at what steps they can take to stop the importation of those products through the internet.

We also want to see some regulation over e-liquids and vaping devices. We do not want to see devices that would be particularly attractive to children, as we saw in one example. In fact, we want to see vaping banned for under 18-year olds. We also want to make sure that when people are using an e-liquid, they understand what ingredients are in there, which is not necessarily the case at the moment. There should also be warnings on the liquids and things like childproof tamper containers as well.

We want to see regulation in terms of advertising vaping; it should be in line with what happens around a tobacconist at the moment—i.e. you can promote the fact that you have a shop, but you cannot necessarily promote that you have cigarettes and the benefits of them, or lack thereof. We also want to regulate in terms of where you can smoke, and this has been a big concern and a big debate so far.

Around the world, progressively, these regulations are starting to be made so that it is consistent between smoking and vaping. Anybody who has seen vaping in action will know that it produces quite a lot of vapour, which can be concerning for people.

We also heard evidence from people like the Australian Hotels Association SA branch, and they would like to see it regulated because, at the moment, their members are being put in difficult situations where they are having to make a call. It would certainly be easier and preferable for them if there was a government regulation that they could enforce rather than having to determine their own.

I support all of the recommendations. I think that, certainly, during the deliberations of our committee, all of the members supported all of the recommendations. Unfortunately, the member for Hartley has now come out and put a media release out disputing some of those recommendations, but I did not quite see his dissenting report in the report. He could have brought that up during the process of the committee.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit down.

Mr TARZIA: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mr TARZIA: He is making a personal reflection on me, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I couldn't hear because of the shouting in the chamber, so if you—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well—

Mr TARZIA: After he imputed—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can't hear.

Mr TARZIA: —an improper motive, Deputy Speaker, I—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. Are you asking for an apology or are you just drawing my attention to the fact that he has made a remark?

Mr TARZIA: A withdrawal, please, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What did he say?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: I raised a concern with—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down, please, while I make a deliberation. As we all know, if you are reflecting on a member, that is not parliamentary. So, if you feel that that is the case, bearing in mind the obvious discomfort you have caused the member for Hartley, you may wish to apologise and withdraw.

Mr PICTON: I do not have anything to apologise for. Deputy Speaker, my statement was simply that all members supported the report, and then the member for Hartley put out a media release where he did not support the report. I do not think that that is unparliamentary in any way.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just repeat that. You are saying the member put out a press release?

Mr PICTON: He put out a press release where he did not support the report that he had previously supported.

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Tarzia: It is just not true.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, it is not true?

Mr Tarzia: It is not true. I have the release here.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member is not imputing improper actions, which he is not—he is trying to make a statement of fact—and you have a problem with that, you are able to make a personal explanation at some later stage. The mere fact that you have put out a press release is not insulting, I would have thought. However, if you feel you have been improperly represented, you can make a personal explanation later. All I have heard him say is that you have put out a press release saying X or Y, which is either true or not true. He has not called you anything horrible, so the personal explanation might be something you wish to pursue later.

Mr Tarzia: He said that I have not supported the report, which I have.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that is something—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that is not offensive in and of itself, so a personal explanation might be something you would like to consider afterwards, okay? I have had advice. This is not me on my own. The advice from the table is along the same lines. Member for Kaurna, I know you will continue while considering that you are being listened to very carefully now.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Can I quote directly from the member for Hartley's release?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That probably isn't necessary or helpful.

Mr PICTON: He said that he supports the bulk of the recommendations, but—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, that probably is not helpful.

Mr PICTON: Well, Deputy Speaker, I think it is fair enough that I should be able to say that he did not support the recommendations where he says that they will 'diminish the harm minimisation benefits e-cigarettes bring'. 'As a consequence,' he says, there are recommendations in the report where 'switching to e-cigarettes and any new regulations should not hinder that movement'.

Ms Redmond: Time's up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay.