Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee for consideration and report back by 8 April 2011.

Firstly, I acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee in its inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori. This bill addresses a number of the recommendations in its report, but the bill is not the Government’s formal response to the Māori Affairs Committee report. The Government will respond to the report in its entirety in early February next year. What the inquiry did, which has been invaluable, was to put the issue of tobacco addiction on all of our radars. We have heard the personal testimonies of families that have had harm caused by tobacco and that premature deaths have deprived our whānau of their elders. As I listened to the debate earlier this year when the tobacco taxation legislation was debated, and then listened very recently to the debate on the tobacco industry inquiry, I found it to be a bitter-sweet moment in our political history. It was heartening to hear about the level of shared commitment across the House; it was also distressing to hear how many of us have been personally affected by tobacco.

We are all starting to understand just how massive an impact tobacco has on New Zealand society, overall. The direct health costs to the Government of tobacco-related harm in New Zealand have been put at as high a figure as $1.9 billion per year. The costs to New Zealand society are significantly greater than that. There is no putting off the fact that action must occur, and it must occur now.

The objectives of the bill are simple: to make tobacco less visible and attractive, and to make tobacco less accessible. I am confident that over time these measures will be effective in reducing smoking-related harm.

I acknowledge the transformation in tobacco control that has evolved over the last two decades since the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 was passed. This history is one that all MPs should be proud of—for the advances brought in that established a smoke-free New Zealand—instead of indulging in cheap, political point-scoring. I am extremely mindful of the enthusiasm, passion, and dedicated efforts of a very impressive group of advocates, who have—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. I have been listening very carefully to his speech. I am getting the impression that he may be giving a speech on behalf of another Minister, but he did not preface it in that way. I wonder whether he wants to correct that now, to indicate that he is delivering a speech for another Minister, because, of course, any Minister could have moved the motion. I think he moved it on behalf of another Minister and is delivering a speech for Ms Turia, rather than one that is heartfelt on his part.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The bill is in the name of Ms Turia.

As I was just mentioning to the House, I am extremely mindful of the enthusiasm, passion, and dedicated efforts of a very impressive group of advocates, who have invested much of their time into paving the way for a cleaner, healthier, smoke-free world.

There will inevitably be some compliance costs associated with this bill. Tobacco retailers will have to modify their shopfittings in order to comply with its provisions. The bill has been drafted so that all retailers must remove retail displays within 6 months after the bill comes into force, except for those classes of retailers who are allowed exemptions for up to 2 years through regulations. The bill does not allow any longer exemptions than that, such as for specialist tobacconists or duty-free stores. The bill also provides for new regulation-making powers for incidental matters covering product notices, price lists, health warnings, and other signs. It prohibits the display of trading names where these include words or phrases that effectively advertise tobacco products. An example could be “Darren’s Discount Cigarettes”. The bill provides an infringement notice scheme to enforce the prohibition on the sale of tobacco products to people under 18 years old. The infringement notice penalty is capped at a maximum of $400—that is, 20 percent of the $2,000 maximum penalty for the offence. Alternatively, prosecution through the courts will still be possible for more serious or repeat offences.

I am confident that this bill will help to reduce the harms caused by tobacco. It has to. There is too much at stake. If we were at war and losing 5,000 people a year, we would consider that to be a matter of national urgency. This is exactly the approach that we must take now. The Government would like to see the bill enacted by 31 May next year. I hope that other parties will join us in this approach. I commend this bill to the House.

It gives me an immense amount of pleasure to rise to speak to the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. The Labour Party wholeheartedly supports and endorses this bill. I start by congratulating the Hon Tariana Turia on her success in bringing this legislation to the House, and her success in convincing her Government allies to agree to these measures. This bill is the next logical and natural step along the path towards greater tobacco control and leading New Zealand to the position of being free from the clutches of tobacco. The bill builds on a number of years of excellent work by successive Governments, which have sought for some time to tackle the horrific damage done by tobacco in New Zealand—in particular, damage to Māori. I acknowledge and congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on its recent work, and particularly Hone Harawira on establishing the inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and on being able to run such an effective inquiry.

The major thrust of the bill, and the piece that people will probably pay most attention to, is the removal of tobacco displays. Advocates have been asking for that for a number of years, and, to be honest, I think Parliament has been a little slow to react to that request. I am very pleased that finally we are debating the first reading of this bill, and that those tobacco displays will eventually be removed. The point of removing tobacco displays is to reduce the number of young people who start smoking in the first place. We know that as the tobacco industry kills off 5,000 people a year, it needs to recruit new users; otherwise its business model is completely stuffed. The truth is that adults who are making informed decisions would not sensibly take up tobacco smoking. The truth is that it is young people, usually around the age of 13 or 14, who start to smoke. By the time they are old enough to realise that it is not a good idea, their health will be suffering and their lives will be shortened. They are, by then, addicted to nicotine and find it near-impossible to quit. So getting tobacco out of sight and out of mind, and reducing the incentives for young people to take up smoking are significant steps forward.

This is a measure that the Labour Party has been prepared to do for some time. A petition was brought to the Health Committee in the last term of Parliament. The committee took that petition very seriously, and the recommendation was made by the majority of the committee—although it was not supported by the National Party members on the committee—to get rid of tobacco displays. Unfortunately, the National Government rejected that recommendation and said there was no evidence in support of banning displays. It is pleasing, although it has taken 2 years, that the Māori Party and Tariana Turia have managed to get National to come round on this one, and I would be very interested to hear contributions from National members about what has actually convinced them to do so. We know no more now than we knew 2 years ago; we had plenty of evidence 2 years ago that told us that getting rid of tobacco displays was a good thing, but Tony Ryall got up and said—and Jo Goodhew is shaking her head, but she knows this is true, because it is in Hansard—that there was no evidence in support of removing tobacco displays. What has changed 2 years on? That is my question. That is what I want to know from National.

When I asked Mrs Turia that question yesterday in the House, she came back with a quick, sharp response that 2 years was a lot shorter than 9 years. The truth, again, is that in the 9 years when Labour was in Government, we got smoking out of workplaces, we got smoking out of bars, we increased the excise tax, and we introduced more support for smokers who were trying to quit smoking. This bill is an excellent bill, but it is merely the next step along a path, and the revisionist history that argues nothing happened for 9 years needs to be unpicked and pulled apart. The only thing that would have stopped anything during those 9 years was if National had been in charge, because it voted against every single one of those measures. In fact, National members went around scaremongering and rarking people up, saying measures to control smoking were an infringement on their personal rights. That is what National members did, so the question that National has to answer tonight is, what has changed? Why are the National members suddenly very much in support of this measure?

But, you know, I do not think that National really is very much in support of this measure. We can tell that because it got its most junior Minister to stand up and bring this bill into the House—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Second-most junior Minister.

I am sorry; it was the second-most junior Minister. It could have brought the new Minister in. But that was a real insult to Mrs Turia.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no, it was the most junior one; Hekia was promoted above him.

OK, that is fair enough. The fact of the matter is that National does not believe in this stuff. This legislation is, thank goodness, a little tip to the Māori Party, because the ACT Party is in trouble and National knows that the only hope of it being in Government in the next term is with Māori Party support. So thank goodness the ACT Party is falling over and the Māori Party is having more say in this Government. That is what has brought this legislation to the House.

The bill does not just get rid of tobacco displays, though; it does some other good things as well. It prohibits the display on the exterior of retail premises of retailers’ trading names if those names include words like “tobacconist” or “tobacco”. That is a very good step forward, as well. It also tries to tackle the last bastion of tobacco sponsorship in New Zealand, which was one of the first things to be banned. But there are still some things out there, and those are exclusive trading deals whereby tobacco companies enter into exclusive arrangements, usually with those running events. That then give them exclusive supply rights for their products at those events, but it also means that some of the more surreptitious forms of advertising find their way in there.

The bill also tries to deal with the deep discounting of tobacco products that can occur, as well. However, I note that a provision in the bill says there will be nothing to stop the normal discounting that would normally happen in a trade relationship. Well, I think a lot of submitters will have a problem with that, and I expect there to be quite a lot of discussion about that at the select committee, because tobacco is not a normal product. Until we get our heads around that concept, we really will not make the advances that we need to make. Built into this bill is the concept that tobacco is a normal product that should have normal trading discounts applied to it. But that is wrong, in my opinion, and I expect that there will be a lot of noise from submitters on that particular aspect of the bill.

I cannot emphasise enough how pleased we in Labour are to see this bill come to the House, and how pleased I am personally to see this bill come to the House. I have had a member’s bill in the ballot for close to 2 years. It was recently drawn, and it would have done part of what this bill will do. In fact, everything that was in my bill will be achieved by this bill, and it is quite gratifying when the Government adopts a policy of one’s own. I am very pleased the Government has gone ahead and done this, and I am pleased that this bill, as a Government bill, manages to tackle some of the other issues, as well. The advice I had, when I was preparing my member’s bill, was to keep it fairly succinct if it was to have any chance of getting past this Government, which seems to block any Opposition member’s bill at any opportunity. So I am really very, very pleased to see this bill come before the House. I look forward to National members’ contributions, and for their explanations about what has changed in National, for those members to finally come around to introducing this legislation. But do you know what? It is great that they have caught up with the rest of us, and this is an excellent step forward in tobacco control in New Zealand.

The Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill should be celebrated, because it is being brought in by a National Government, with its coalition partner the Māori Party, and it is another step forward towards a smoke-free New Zealand. The bill certainly focuses on the banning, comprehensively, of tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship.

We have just been asked what has changed in the last 2 years, and I would refer the member Iain Lees-Galloway to the consolidation of the evidence base in papers from Finland, Iceland, North America, and the United Kingdom. Those papers have certainly consolidated the evidence base over the last 2 years.

But no one inside or outside this Parliament should be under any illusion that the tobacco industry, like the alcohol industry, will not use every subtle trick in the book to seduce our young, let alone the general population, into addiction. The hidden persuaders behind the tobacco and alcohol industries are highly paid and ruthless, and spend a lot of money. They would like us to be trained like Pavlov’s dogs.

Libertarian philosophy would say “Do no harm.”, or “Have as much freedom as possible, provided harm is not done.” But undoubtedly on a personal basis there is huge morbidity and mortality from smoking cigarettes, and second-hand smoking has affected thousands of young children, never giving them the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Likewise, cohorts of young Māori women are condemned to having suboptimal health for themselves and their families. There is no doubt that this bill is a further major step in health promotion and disease prevention. It is absolutely wonderful, and I am very proud that the National Government, in coalition with its Māori Party partner, is bringing this legislation in. I commend it to the House.

It is a great delight for me to join in what I assume will be unanimous support for the referral of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill to the Health Committee. One can often learn a lot about a person’s view of the world and the way they see their role in it by the contribution they make in the House, and I want to refer to the member who has just resumed his seat. I have enjoyed working with Dr Paul Hutchison on the Health Committee. He and I have very little in common in terms of policy, but mostly we have an interesting time on the select committee. I have certainly enjoyed the last couple of years and will enjoy the next 12 months in that position.

But what I found really interesting about the speech that Dr Paul Hutchison just made was that he said this legislation was a cause for celebration because it had been introduced by the National Government, in coalition with the Māori Party. Frankly, I do not think it matters a toss, actually, who introduces legislation. The point in relation to this Parliament should be what legislation is introduced to it, what the policy behind it is, and what its aim is. In the end, who supports it is a strictly political issue. I am gobsmacked that a person with a medical background should think so little of the health consequences of the legislation that we are discussing that instead he says “Look at me. It’s all about me and my party.” I say to Dr Hutchison that it is not all about him and the National Party, or about the Māori Party. We should be celebrating this bill because finally the Government has come to its senses on the issue of improving people’s health and the contribution that this Parliament can make to that.

I commend the Hon Tariana Turia. She has a lot of steel in her and a lot of passion. I have seen it demonstrated on a number of occasions, sometimes on issues on which I was on the same side as her, and sometimes on issues on which we disagree. But on this issue Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira have been incredibly staunch and passionate. They have driven a change in thinking, particularly amongst people who needed to see that sort of role model and leadership being demonstrated, so that they would change their views on using tobacco. I say to the Hon Tariana Turia that the introduction of this legislation is a huge credit to her and her persistence. Frankly, I do not know how she managed to persuade the members of the Government, who have consistently voted against similar moves despite tonight crowing—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Oh, no, they haven’t.

Not every single member. Two members of the National Party—only two out of the whole lot in 9 long years of a Labour-led Government—supported the moves towards creating more smoke-free environments. But Tariana Turia seems to have achieved that, and I commend her work in doing so.

I also commend the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. It has had a fair bit on over the last little while, and it has done amazing work on the tobacco industry. I recently met one of the submitters on a visit to Timaru, where I have been working with some of the alcohol watch groups, who also work alongside the tobacco restriction groups and the health promotion teams in Timaru. One of the submitters from there was the woman who came along to the committee with her children and with a coffin, which represented what had happened to a member of their family. She told us that they had watched him die early and in pain as a result of smoking. That was not a stunt from that family. It was a heartfelt and heart-wrenching submission, which I think drew the eyes of the country towards an issue that we should be taking a much firmer stand on.

I also commend my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway. Iain is the member of Parliament for Palmerston North, and that is probably enough said about that. He has made a fine contribution not only on the Health Committee but also, as he briefly acknowledged in his own contribution on this bill, in terms of the preparation and successful lodging of a member’s bill that does much of what is in this bill. For a first-term Opposition member of Parliament to have a member’s bill adopted by the Government, then celebrated by the chair of the Health Committee, is certainly an achievement, and I commend Iain Lees-Galloway on that success. I think it is a very good initiative.

I joined with other members of the House in our expression of surprise at the Minister who introduced the bill. I have nothing against the Hon Nathan Guy at all, so this comment is not meant to be an insult to him in any way, but he is not a health Minister. He was sitting just two seats away from the Minister of Health, who did not make a contribution at all, let alone introduce the bill. I was puzzled by that. I should have thought that when an Associate Minister of Health is unable to take a call to introduce her own bill, either another Associate Minister of Health or the Minister of Health himself would take the call and introduce the bill. I imagined that the Minister of Health might have been proud of the bill, but he did not say a word. Nathan Guy introduced the bill, and I had to ask my colleagues what Nathan Guy was the Minister of, because I could not understand his relationship to the health portfolio. It has been explained to me that he is a Minister outside Cabinet. He is the Minister of Internal Affairs, and as such he is responsible for the Fire Service Commission, and there the relationship between that Minister and smoke ends. There is no other relationship at all between that Minister and this legislation.

Frankly, I think it is offensive to Parliament, and particularly offensive to the Hon Tariana Turia, to have this bill treated in that way. It is bad enough that it is being put through at 10 o’clock on a Friday night—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s 10.30.

It is 10.30 p.m.; time flies when we are having such a good time—when most of us may well have preferred to be at home with our families rather than doing non-urgent legislation under urgency, so that we can knock off early, in time for the press gallery party, on an ordinary sitting day next week. That does not make much sense to me.

Over the last few years we have seen a large number of steps to progress what is outlined as being the vision for New Zealand by the Māori Affairs Committee report, which is a smoke-free New Zealand. We have seen our workplaces become smoke-free. We have seen our bars and restaurants become smoke-free. We have seen successive increases in the excise tax. We know that an increase in the price of cigarettes lowers the number of people who buy packets of cigarettes. We have seen more investment being made in support for people to quit smoking. The most recent initiative, other than the most recent tax increase, was the particularly gory photos that can be seen on cigarette packets. All of those moves have been evidence-based initiatives supported by the majority of members, but, tragically, by very few National members. Those are all good, progressive steps towards improving the health outcomes of New Zealanders. We know that every year between 4,500 and 5,000 New Zealanders die not just prematurely, years before they would have died had they not been smokers, but also in pain in the case of a large number of them. That is not something we would wish on anyone.

In the earlier debate on the excise duty, I recall saying that if tobacco was introduced now as a product for sale in our shops, given what we have learnt about it over the last few decades we would not allow it to be introduced. We would not allow it to be introduced as a product for sale. But trying to unscramble that egg is quite a difficult task. If somebody came to this Parliament and said that they had a breakfast cereal, and if a little bowlful of it was eaten in moderation every day, half of the people who ate it would die early and in pain as a direct result of using it as intended—just by eating it—we would not allow that cereal to be sold. That is what cigarettes do. That is what tobacco does. This move to reduce the display of tobacco advertising—

It is rare to see legislation in this House that puts the public interest ahead of vested interests, but the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill does that. It puts the interests of New Zealanders ahead of the vested interests of the tobacco industry, so I think it is something of a red-letter day to see this rare sort of legislation in the House. I too congratulate the Hon Tariana Turia, the Māori Party, and the inquiry into tobacco undertaken by the Māori Affairs Committee that they have triggered. I also congratulate Iain Lees-Galloway on his member’s bill. I suspect the fact that Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill was selected from the ballot and was ready to be debated in this House has probably sped up the introduction of this legislation into this House.

I was on the Health Committee 5 years ago, when we considered a petition that recommended that the Government require tobacco and cigarette displays in retail outlets to be out of sight. Iain Lees-Galloway is absolutely correct that National opposed that legislation. I have the report here. National said that in the opinion of its members, there was a need for more international evidence. That is something we hear a lot about these days. We hear about the need for more international evidence of the link between alcohol and accidents, for example. Anyway, the National members said there needed to be more international evidence at that time that banning tobacco displays would bring about a significant decrease in smoking, in order to present a compelling and convincing case to the public. That is what the National members argued in the select committee. They argued that there was not enough international evidence, despite the fact that a number of countries had already introduced legislation to get tobacco and cigarette displays out of sight. Those countries included Iceland, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, but National felt at that stage that there was not enough evidence. It is great that 5 years later we finally see this legislation in the House.

When we were considering this issue in the select committee, it was pointed out that 10,000 retail outlets have tobacco displays around New Zealand. People can go into virtually every supermarket in the land—well, I think every supermarket—every dairy, and every petrol station, and see a huge display behind the checkout counter. In fact, I was at a Shell station the other day, and I walked up to the counter and saw a huge display of cigarettes just behind the counter, and all around the rest of the shop was confectionery, chocolate, and so forth. I recalled that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Infratil have taken over Shell. I thought maybe they could indicate their commitment to New Zealand by taking a lead and getting rid of cigarette displays before the legislation takes effect. At the same time, they could get rid of the huge amount of confectionery that is there alongside the cigarettes in every single Shell petrol station in the land.

Anyway, the Health Committee was presented with lots of international evidence that tobacco displays, called power walls, create the impression that cigarettes are just another harmless grocery product—just another consumer product. The displays legitimise tobacco products and give a false impression of the safety of cigarettes. They are also, of course, a constant temptation, particularly to anyone who has given up smoking. People go into the supermarket and see cigarettes, which are a constant temptation. Above all, the displays are a huge temptation for young New Zealanders. Every time children go into a supermarket, they see cigarettes. The displays have a very significant influence in tempting young people to take up smoking. I thank God that in this House we will put the public interest ahead of the vested interest, and we will get rid of those so-called power walls—the tobacco displays.

One of the interesting things that we learnt in that committee was that the suppliers of cigarettes may—I think almost always—pay retailers to display their products. They would not tell us how much they paid, although we asked them about that in the select committee. It was a bit like Coca-Cola, which pays retailers and schools to have its vending machines all over New Zealand. So it is with the tobacco companies, which pay retailers to have tobacco displays. Those commercial arrangements are the subject of confidentiality clauses, known as “financial incentive arrangements”. It is no wonder that some small dairies are worried that they will lose income, because one of the main sources of income that they will lose is the money that they are paid to display cigarettes in a tempting way right behind the checkout counter.

It is interesting to talk about the lobbying of the tobacco industry. The latest issue is that the Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) points out that the Australian ABC has recently obtained internal emails, invoices, and contracts that reveal that the tobacco companies in Australia had hired a public relations firm, which told them to launch a campaign, hidden under a third party like a retailers association, to oppose plain packaging. ASH pointed out that a New Zealand retailers group, the Association of Community Retailers, was also linked with the tobacco industry. So the relentless campaigning by the tobacco industry still continues to this day, and the industry still puts up third-party front organisations like the Association of Community Retailers to try to run campaigns opposed to plain packaging.

But there are other interesting things; it is not just that. We now have big tobacco companies trying to use the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Members will recall that this week we have been negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Auckland. The tobacco companies are trying to use our trade negotiations to block anti-smoking laws in New Zealand. We had Philip Morris, one of the largest multinational tobacco companies, actually making a submission that it wants to use our trade agreements to try to stop Governments from introducing anti-smoking measures such as the ones that we are introducing tonight. Philip Morris is, extraordinarily, taking action against Uruguay’s proposed anti-smoking laws under the investor dispute mechanism in one of the free-trade agreements, an agreement between Uruguay and Switzerland. Uruguay is proposing new measures to require graphic warnings on cigarette packaging, and Philip Morris argues that requiring such packages would expropriate its investments. It is using a mechanism under that free-trade agreement to require a World Bank panel to decide whether Uruguay should pay Philip Morris for that so-called expropriation. Philip Morris is targeting our negotiations, to require that it would be able to sue Governments such as that of New Zealand that attempt to introduce similar anti-smoking laws.

So we have the astonishing situation where we are debating very enlightened and progressive legislation in this Parliament tonight to try to reduce the amount of promotion of tobacco, particularly to young children. Here we have the same tobacco companies still lobbying for tobacco, and using our so-called free-trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to argue that the introduction of the sorts of measures that we are talking about today, particularly the plain packaging of cigarettes, would be tantamount to an expropriation of their property rights. Their submission is that we should be required to submit this issue to a disputes tribunal.

It is a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. The ACT Party will be casting a split vote on this issue. I and one of my colleagues will be voting for the bill and I will outline some of the reasons for that. Some of my colleagues will be voting against it, and I will also take the opportunity to explain their reasoning. However, I would like to acknowledge some of the people who have contributed to this bill this evening. Mention has already been of Tariana Turia and the role she has played as an Associate Minister of Health.

I have a long-term interest in this issue. I think it is an absolute tragedy that some 5,000 New Zealanders die each year from cancer, from diseases associated with smoking. Largely, those are diseases that can be prevented. I think it is further a tragedy that tobacco causes addiction. People, by and large, take up smoking at a young age when they are not mature, when their brains have not fully matured, and they get to a stage where they simply cannot give up. I am sure we all know people who smoke and who have repeatedly tried to give up smoking but the addiction sure is so strong that a number of them are unable to.

I believe that we should be taking any measure we can take as a Parliament to reduce the incidence of people taking up smoking at an early stage. However, it has been an issue of dispute within the ACT Party for a number of years. The ACT Party is a party that promotes freedom, freedom of choice, but it is also a party that speaks up for ordinary New Zealanders. I have always sincerely believed that it is ACT Party policies that will do most to promote the welfare, the education, and the greater prosperity for all New Zealanders. That is one of the reasons I first joined the ACT Party when I learnt of its philosophies and policies in 1995.

But I recall an ACT conference in the early 2000s in Christchurch when the Labour Government was looking to pass its amendments to the smoke-free environments legislation. I challenged a number of our sitting MPs at the time. Without exception, one by one, they all got up to defend their opposition to what the Labour Government was proposing at the time. So the ACT Party has not been united on this issue. Some of us support the legislation that is outlined this evening and others oppose it.

I am not trying to make political capital; it is sad that some in this House are this evening. I think these issues are health issues. I commend Tariana Turia. I particularly acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway. I believe that having had his member’s bill pulled from the ballot must have contributed in some small way, if not in some significant way, to having this bill before the House today. I am sure Tariana Turia did a huge amount in her role as an Associate Minister of Health. I thought it was very generous for Iain Lees-Galloway to stand in the House this evening and give considerable acknowledgment to the role that Tariana Turia had played and the role that Hone Harawira had played in, first of all, instigating an inquiry in the Māori Affairs Committee and pushing it through. He mentioned his own role only towards the end of his speech. Once again, I thought it was very generous of him to acknowledge the support of others. So I thought it was very fitting of Ruth Dyson to draw to the attention of the House the role that Iain Lees-Galloway has played in this issue.

The question was asked “What has changed?”. Paul Hutchison, the chair of the Health Committee, said that the evidence had become more compelling and that there had been reports from Finland, Iceland, the UK, and North America where measures such as those being proposed tonight have had an influence on the quantity of tobacco sold and on the number of people taking up smoking at a young age. I have to say that the members of my own party who do not support this bill have some doubt about the evidence. I do not doubt that their concerns and uncertainties are truly felt. I do not doubt their sincerity in having that view. There must clearly be some conflict, but what I have seen from the Action on Smoking and Health lobby group, which spoke to me, shows me that the justification for these steps is there.

I take some pride in supporting this bill along with one of my colleagues. We will split our vote, but, notwithstanding that, I have no doubt that this legislation will pass. I think it will be very, very good for the people of New Zealand. Thank you.

Kia ora anō tātou katoa. I start by thanking all colleagues for their acknowledgment of the Hon Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira for their part in presenting the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill to the House. Unfortunately, they are not here, so I will take all of their accolades! That aside, members know that they have done a lot of work. But let me tell members that although they are getting all the accolades, some of us were doing the real hard work in behind the—ha, ha, I am just joking! They have been working hard at things. It will be no secret to the House that tobacco control and things around tobacco have been a key priority for the Māori Party. Thankfully, on the back of the efforts of both Tariana and Hone, we think that we have made some major traction. Of course, other parties have contributed, as has been acknowledged in the House tonight.

The party’s tobacco campaign to rid our shores of tobacco harm has resulted in some real landmark milestones, which include, as some have already mentioned, Tariana’s initiative to increase tobacco tax, Hone’s initiating of an inquiry by the Māori Affairs Committee of Parliament into Māori-related tobacco death, and the introduction of this legislation to ban retail displays and keep tobacco out of sight and out of mind. We are making, I think, significant progress, and the momentum, we hope, will be continued. The past 12 months have been the most rapid, in my view as a non-smoker, in terms of history-making around tobacco control. So I stand as someone who feels pretty good about the progress we have made as a party and as a Parliament over this space and time over the last 2 years with the National Government.

I acknowledge the work that Tariana has done and, indeed, the whole Parliament, which passed her legislation to increase tobacco excise with an overwhelming cross-party majority of 118 votes to four. The House will recall some 6 or 8 months ago that the excise tax increases were really significant. First off, we equalised the tax on loose tobacco to match tailor-made cigarettes. That was about ensuring that no matter what type of tobacco was smoked, the smoker would face the same incentive to quit. Then we raised the tax on all tobacco products by 10 percent, and for the price of roll-your-own tobacco that had the effect of an immediate increase of more than 25 percent. But that was not all; the legislation passed that night included another 10-percent rise in January 2011 and then another 10 percent in 2012.

I will speak on the work that Hone Harawira has been doing. He had the original idea for the Māori Affairs Committee to hold an inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori. It was an initiative that he took up with a lot of vigour. It was pleasing to see the way that the Māori Affairs Committee—maybe a little bit reluctantly at the start, but certainly once it gathered momentum—could see from the evidence that this was an honourable take to take up. It did so, and that resulted in the debate on Wednesday of this week about that topic. Just over a year ago the select committee announced it would carry out that inquiry into the tobacco industry and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori. In March 2010 our co-leader and Associate Minister of Health Tariana initiated public consultation on a proposal to ban tobacco displays in retail outlets. I am sure that most of the House is aware of many of the statistics, although maybe not able to quote them off the top of the head right now. We found in the information from that consultation process and some information given to us that tobacco is the largest single cause of preventable death in New Zealand and that an estimated 5,000 people die very early, well before time. There were major ramifications for whānau in losing elders and parents. The most critical fact that motivates all of us to be here today is that 45 percent of Māori aged between 15 and 64 are current smokers, one in two long-term smokers will die of smoking-related diseases, and those who die lose, on average, 15 years of life. None of those statements are new, but we offer no apology in repeating them tonight as we look at this issue.

We are still losing generations of our people who are dying in middle age. Even more tragic is the fact that up to 46 percent of Māori sudden unexplained deaths in infancy are attributed to smoking.

We welcome the initiative championed in this bill by our co-leader Tariana. It will make tobacco less visible and attractive by reducing the tobacco marketing and advertising that still exists. It will, hopefully, make tobacco less accessible by providing for better measures to prevent sales to children and young people under the age of 18. These measures will not only aid in preventing young people from starting to smoke but help those trying to quit. There is actually a tragic history to the use of tobacco in Aotearoa, and it goes back to a time, for our people, before the Treaty of Waitangi. In terms of some of the accounts in my area of the Bay of Plenty from when the Treaty was taken around—having done some research around this—eight pounds of tobacco and twelve pipes were taken to chiefs in Ōpōtiki; five fancy pipes and half a pound of tobacco to Te Kaha; two fancy pipes and half a pound of tobacco to Tōrere; and eleven fancy pipes and five pounds of tobacco to Whakatāne. Hopefully, today we take on face to face some of that background history, which will overturn itself, at least, with the movement forward of this particular bill.

In closing, I say that Aotearoa’s approach to tackling tobacco harm has been turned up another notch, we hope, because of the Māori Party’s efforts, through, of course, working with the National Government, and with the support of the other parties, in general, across the floor. These are all efforts to save and preserve the precious lives of people across the country. If that is the motivation, then it cannot but be supported as we look towards positive influences for not only our young people, but, certainly, those who are older in age. Kia ora tātou.

This National Government is serious about reducing the harm caused by smoking. We believe that it is vital to do more to help people quit smoking. In particular, we are keen to stop young people from being tempted to take up the habit. We join with the Māori Party and other members in this House to celebrate the passing of this bill, which will improve the health and welfare of all New Zealanders, and, hopefully, deter young people from starting on the road to addiction to nicotine. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to support the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill and to congratulate—

💬 Darien Fenton: What do you think about that contribution?

Well, I am amazed, actually; I am quite gobsmacked by it. But I am pleased to support the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia, who has introduced bill. I was very surprised to see Minister Nathan Guy move the first reading motion. It was astonishing. This bill is a huge step in Parliament, and sitting next to Nathan Guy was the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, but he did not move the motion. That showed all of New Zealand that National never really wanted to move this next step. It put up a junior Minister to start the first reading debate, and I think that is terribly sad symbolically. It will be noted by those out there.

I want to congratulate Hone Harawira. I think he has been a warrior for smoking cessation, and a proud warrior. This was an issue of convergence, actually. It was started by Tukoroirangi Morgan—and we should acknowledge those who have gone before us in the House who were very brave—with the original smoke-free environments legislation. So this bill has been a long time coming; it has been a bit of a slow-burning issue. But any public health issue is about incremental change and bringing society with us. In this issue, the convergence is that of evidence but also public support. When Tukoroirangi Morgan brought his bill into the House, there was only about 29 percent support in the country for the smoke-free legislation, and the whole debate was very bitter. But at the end of 2003, with the next amendment bill, the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, which I had a part in, the support of society and acceptance of the evidence had grown to 80 percent. So it takes a while to bring communities with us.

I am a bit disappointed in this legislation. We get a crack at it only every now and again. The year 2003 was the last time; it is now 2010 and only one recommendation of the Māori Affairs Committee inquiry report has been picked up by this bill. I think the report offered a great opportunity, and I know that Minister Turia would have been fighting very hard with National to get more into the envelope of this suite of recommendations. There may be more that we can do once the bill has gone to the select committee. It is just that we will not get another opportunity for perhaps another 10 years. We should be doing more if we are to reach that goal of smoking cessation by 2025, because time goes by really quickly.

It is disappointing that I have to correct the record in the House tonight. In question time yesterday, after having spoken for 5 minutes the day before on the inquiry report, Minister Turia said that Labour did nothing about smoking cessation in its 9 years in Government. I want to acknowledge Helen Clark, who was a great leader with an understanding of public health and a champion of the issue of the impact of smoking and second-hand smoke on society. I had picked up the bill from Judy Keall, with support from Annette King and Tariana Turia. We got the support of Labour to push for smoking cessation in bars, cafes, school grounds—members will remember that people used to smoke in school grounds—and university campuses. I was saddened to hear the Minister say that. We do ask what has happened since 2003. There were two doctors in the House who supported the bill—Dr Lynda Scott and Dr Paul Hutchison—and they were consistent. But when I sat in the chair as the member in charge of the bill, the rest of the National members were vindictive and absolutely nasty about the bill we were introducing at that time, the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, taking away civil liberties. I think that communities themselves have now convinced National that this is the right thing to do, and that is often what happens in public policy. Public policy moves with time and the issues are definitely much clearer.

I think it is very brave, honest, and upfront of the Māori Party to say that this is largely a Māori issue that needs some Māori solutions. That is great. That is leadership, and that is what we are seeing. But there was also an element of pressure. Nothing was done after the petition of 20,000 people in 2008. I know we were in an election time, so nothing would have been done. But Iain Lees-Galloway did pick up those 20,000 petitioners and introduced a member’s bill. That is always a little bit of sand in the oyster that stimulates the Government to say that perhaps it should do something, even if it is not sure what. The Māori Affairs Committee inquiry also helped. But in that time of 2 years, from the time of that petition to Iain Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill, 10,000 people died from the effects of smoking. It is a known scientific fact that 350 people die every year from the effects of second-hand smoke. That is more than the number of people killed on the road in motor vehicle accidents in New Zealand. This is a Government that now sees the convergence of both evidence and research. The evidence was there, for goodness’ sake, about the impacts of smoking in 2003 when Dr Paul Hutchison sat on the Health Committee with me and Sue Kedgley.

I also want to comment on how it is fantastic to see two ACT members splitting their vote. That party has never been frightened about splitting the vote. In 2003 the worst response to the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill came from Rodney Hide. He came down to the House day after day and attacked our position on that bill. He also changed substantially the role of organisations like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) that were involved in lobbying for change. They were overt about lobbying for change. They did not hide behind physicians, nurses, doctors, midwives, Plunket, or others who were asking for change. They gave us information and put the evidence before us. Every month we got a newsletter. Rodney Hide changed the rules for Ministry of Health funding of advocacy on health issues, and organisations like ASH—which was the only organisation pulling together centrally all the research data that we needed as politicians—lost funding.

I thought that Sue Kedgley brought up some amazing points about the tobacco industry itself and how it hides behind other organisations, but I am saddened about one thing. I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee for 1 day, and after 1 day of hearings I said to Hone Harawira and Minister Turia that the one thing we needed to do was to re-establish public health funding for smoking cessation programmes. Quitline is great and patches are great, but there is nothing more effective for Māori people and others addicted to the impact of nicotine on their bodies than one-to-one coaching to help them quit smoking. The National Government, in its 2008 Budget, cut $12 million from smoking cessation programmes.

So how can National members sit in the House today and say that they support Tariana Turia’s initiatives? They have not put their money where their mouth is. They cut public health funding around the country right across the board. Under this National Government’s watch public health funding for health and wellness has been slashed in every region in New Zealand. It is absolutely wrong for National members to stand up and say that they own this and that they applaud it. All that happened here was that Minister Turia put pressure on the Government, which is a political reality, and National had to bow to that pressure. I congratulate her on that. I do not congratulate National on this bill tonight. This is a Māori Party initiative. This bill is a small change on yet another journey and I think there will be many more issues.

I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. I also congratulate Minister Turia on the introduction of this bill today. The bill’s purpose is to reduce the harm caused by smoking. We all know that the social and health costs of smoking are massive, and anything and everything that we can do to persuade young people not to start smoking or, indeed, to help people to stop is welcomed. I congratulate Minister Ryall on making smoking one of the health targets whereby people who are in hospital are given information about smoking cessation. I think that is a move in the right direction. I commend this bill to the House.

It is with much pleasure that I rise to speak on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. I have to say that one of the most worthwhile parts of my role as an Associate Minister of Health was working with Steve Chadwick, who was the sponsor of a bill that made huge progress in reducing smoking in this country, the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. Effectively, it has changed the whole perception of smoking.

It is pleasing to see that further progress has been made, although we have to acknowledge that it was through the efforts of the Māori Party and not the National Party, at all. When in Government, we sat and listened in this House to accusations of being a nanny State, and accusations of interference with private property rights and people’s right to choose, from that bunch of people over there. I would use the “h” word about them, but I am not allowed to. It sickens me to hear some of the absolutely pretentious statements from members on the other side of the House who campaigned against us when we were trying to make progress on this area. They absolutely slammed the previous speaker, Steve Chadwick, for her efforts in taking up that bill, which was originally brought into the House by Tuku Morgan.

💬 Colin King: Move on. Move forward.

We have moved on, but I think most people realise that the bill before us was not progressed because of the greater wisdom and the care for New Zealanders from the National Party; it was, quite frankly, because of the numbers game. The Māori Party threatened that it would not support the National Party on other legislation like the increase in GST, which will hammer people as well, because the Māori Party wanted a deal to make progress in one of the most significant areas of preventable deaths and preventable harms in this country.

The very basis of occupational health and safety legislation is that every employer and employee should do everything possible where they have identified a hazard to reduce and, if possible, eliminate it. But the National Party ignored that basis. This legislation was brought to the table only through the threats of the Māori Party. Well, I guess we have moved on.

The Labour Party and all of us here acknowledge the progress, but there is more to be done. We need to remove displays from the point of sale for tobacco. Where is the National Party on that matter? I have not heard a speaker say that that is the next thing National will do. Did members hear that from the National Party?

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: No, not from one of them.

Have those members shown any vision or any care? Do they care? No, they do not care. Those members over there are squirming a little bit.

💬 Nicky Wagner: No, we’re not squirming, at all.

Yes, they are. I remind those members so that the lessons of history are learnt and we do not repeat the same mistakes. All the collective wisdom of the people in the House, in getting up and making these statements, is that they welcome our support for legislation that we will bring to the House to progress this matter when we get back into Government next year. It will be about displays and it will be about more funding for public health initiatives. It will be in areas where greater education has shown to make an effect on smoking.

We still have too many people dying from smoking. In fact, the statistics on Māori women are still quite disturbing. I know that Georgina te Heuheu over there wants to support this legislation and does so with genuine commitment, unlike the vast majority of her colleagues.

As I said, the House knows our position. We have spoken of it and it has always been so. It was led by Helen Clark; we have to acknowledge that going way back. Trying to get smoking banned from restaurants was at first horrific. Apparently, the sky would fall in! When we proposed it for bars, I have to say—and I have said to many people—that one of the things I considered a real win as a Minister was to get the Hotel Association into my office, assisting me to progress the legislation that banned smoking in bars. In the end, it saw the wisdom in moving on this matter. It was better for its workers and its businesses, because they did not have the cost of cleaning up. It came in to assist us, in spite of its original concern about the effect on the association’s businesses. It saw the wisdom; we won it over. The association requested that the legislation be applied right across all clubs as well, and we did that. I think that was fair—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: And not have separate rooms.

That is right. We were concerned about, firstly, the health of the workers, and then, of course, the benefit of their businesses.

We made huge progress in that area. I do not know how many people’s lives we have saved, but the simple fact is that if we can stop someone from taking up smoking or get them to give up smoking, then we extend their life. It is as simple as that. Every cigarette someone has will affect their health and reduce their life. Some people come along and say that they know someone who is 95 years and smoking. Well, that is right, but they might have lived to 105 years if they had not smoked.

It is quite clear. The evidence is quite stark, and the reality is quite alarming. We still allow it; I know that Hone Harawira has sought a complete ban on cigarettes. The reality is that marijuana is banned—it is illegal to smoke marijuana—but large numbers of people still smoke it. So a legal ban will not stop the problem. It will not reduce the deaths and misery caused by tobacco. We have to improve the education and we have to change the culture. I think we almost have got to the point where it is now socially unacceptable to smoke in front of someone else and blow smoke over them.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Jonathan Coleman.

That is right. The odd National Party person tries to disprove that generally held view; thankfully, not too many of them do. Some can learn, and I am sure that he, too, will be voting for this legislation, which is great.

The issue of cut-backs in funding for education in the area of tobacco and harm reduction is a major concern. We expect this Government to reinstate that money, if it is true to its word. We have listened to all the wonderful speeches made in the House, which are short but none the less well worded, if not well meaning. We would like to see the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, front up and reinstate some of the money that Labour had in place.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He should stop hiding in his office.

No, no. It would be too much for Tony Ryall to come to the Chamber and speak in support of the bill. We cannot expect that level of the “h” word from that man—we cannot. He has been in this House, time and time again, railing against Labour’s initiatives to try to improve the health of New Zealanders. When he was in Opposition he slammed us. I guess we have to acknowledge that at least he has the decency not to come down here and be a total “h” on this issue.

There are a number of initiatives. There is still some debate on the issues of nicotine replacement therapy, smokeless cigarettes, the use of chewing tobacco, and the other initiatives. Those proposals are put forward by well-intentioned, well-meaning people who want to cut down the use of cigarettes in this country. I am afraid I am one of those people who say that if people want to cut the habit, they should just go cold turkey. People can give up cigarettes. I smoked cigarettes for 9 years. It is possible to give it up, and I am not saying that just because I did it. But with the assistance that we currently have in place, such as nicotine replacement therapy, and all the support and all the smart initiatives that we have, people can give up smoking.

I tell those people who might be listening tonight to have faith and to believe in themselves. When they do, they will be better off, their family will be better off, their children will not be inspired to take up cigarettes, and this country will be better off, because we will save billions of dollars in health expenditure. For that reason alone I guess Tony Ryall should be here supporting the bill. It is a shame he is not.

In addition to adding my acknowledgment to those who have been mentioned in this debate, particularly the Associate Minister of Health, Tariana Turia, and Iain Lees-Galloway, I also acknowledge my friends at the Otago-Southland division of the Cancer Society, and in particular its Health Promotion Manager, Penelope Scott, for the information and empirical research that she sent me, for her persistence, and, above all, for her patience. The patience won out in the end. I commend the Smoke-free Environment (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill to the House.

on behalf of the Assoicate Minister of Health: I move, That the Health Committee consider the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 8 April 2011.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to check something. I was listening at the beginning of the bill to my colleague the Minister of Internal Affairs, and he mentioned the committee, but I am not sure that he mentioned—[Interruption] He did mention the date? I have assurance from the Clerk; therefore, I accept that.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We checked this time from a previous occasion.

Motion agreed to.