Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill

It gives me a lot of pleasure to rise and speak in support of Part 1 of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. It is a very important and comprehensive part of the bill, with a lot of detail in it, and I expect there will be a lot of contributions from my colleagues on this part.

Although there is a lot in this part, I will go directly to Supplementary Order Paper 256 in my name, because I would like the Committee to give this Supplementary Order Paper serious consideration. It is certainly within the scope of the legislation. There were a number of amendments that I wanted to put forward, but like Rahui Katene’s amendment, which we debated just beforehand—

💬 Hon Member: We didn’t get a chance to debate it.

—which we will not, unfortunately, get a chance to debate in the Committee—those changes were outside the scope of this legislation. I suppose that that reflects the need to have a quick follow-up to this legislation, with more changes to our smoking regulations in New Zealand.

The Supplementary Order Paper in my name does two things. The first might initially seem quite inconsequential, and, to be honest, we sort of stumbled across it when looking through the improvements we would like to make to the bill. It is to insert a new clause 7B, which would amend section 28 in the Smoke-free Environments Act. This amendment seeks to achieve quite a simple thing. Section 28 refers to free distribution and rewards being prohibited. Subsection (1) states: “No manufacturer, distributor, importer, or retailer of tobacco products may,—(a) distribute any tobacco product;”. Basically, in a lot of words, it says that those people cannot give away tobacco products as a means of promoting their product or promoting their business. But a group is missing from that list, and that is wholesalers, so the first part of my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to include wholesalers in that list of people and organisations that are prevented from freely distributing or handing out tobacco products as rewards. What we are specifically trying to achieve with that is ensure that there are no loopholes by which wholesalers could give a form of discount to retailers that we do not wish them to give. Obviously, if wholesalers were free to give away free product to retailers, that would essentially be a form of discount to those retailers. So that is essentially what we are trying to achieve. The bill talks at length about sponsorship and the trade deals available that we are trying to curtail, and we felt that that is a potential loophole that really needs to be tidied up. I would appreciate hearing what members have to say about that amendment, and I would certainly appreciate support from members for that small change.

The second part of my Supplementary Order Paper refers to the signage that has to be on display wherever tobacco products are for sale—that is, the signage that says “SMOKING KILLS”, and informs customers that smoking products are not available for sale to people under the age of 18. My amendment would add a definition of what those signs should look like. Members may wonder why we would want to do that, but this was something that we discussed in the Health Committee. Some people have seen those warning signs that say “SMOKING KILLS” in use—I have an example here—and that inform people that tobacco is available only to people over 18; the signs carry out what I suppose could be described as a clandestine form of marketing and advertising. This photo is not the best visual aid, I accept, and it probably cannot be seen from the other side of the Chamber, but here we have the “SMOKING KILLS” sign. Next to it, for reasons that are absolutely beyond me, we have a picture of a packet of cigarettes. The packet of cigarettes has “R18” on it, and I am sure the retailer would say that it is trying to tell people that cigarettes are available only to people over the age of 18. If the thrust of this bill is to get tobacco out of sight and out of mind, and to get any visual reference to cigarettes and tobacco out of sight, I do not see why we have to have that cartoon picture of a packet of cigarettes on those signs, which are actually designed to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. The amendment is a simple amendment that states that the bit that says “SMOKING KILLS” is to be the only bit allowed. The amendment outlines how that sign should appear, essentially as this sign appears here but without the little cartoon picture of a packet of cigarettes.

I also point out as an aside—I took this photo myself—that this particular sign was down at about the level where a 7-year-old would see it. Again, it is beyond me why a 7-year-old would need to read that sign. It should be up somewhere where an 18-year-old could see it. A cynic might suggest that that was another form of clandestine advertising to our young people. So that is what the Supplementary Order Paper is trying to achieve. I would certainly like to hear back from members what they think about that, and, again, I would certainly seek the support of members for that Supplementary Order Paper.

The rest of Part 1 really is, as I said, the thrust of what this bill is all about. I can say absolutely that the Labour Party fully supports and endorses all the other aspects of Part 1, particularly of course the clauses referring to the display of tobacco products in supermarkets, dairies, petrol stations, and tobacconists. Wherever anybody may go, the one thing they have to look at when they go into a dairy is tobacco. Regardless of whatever they have gone into the shop to buy—whether it was a loaf of bread, some coffee, or some milk—the one thing they have to look at is that power wall of cigarettes behind the counter. Part 1 will see the end of that, and that is something we should all celebrate and we should all get behind.

There is nothing more important that we should be doing right now to reduce the harm caused by tobacco than to get those products out of sight, not only to stop young people taking up the smoking habit in the first place but also to support those people who have made that difficult decision to quit. Why should people who have decided to quit smoking tobacco go into a store to get some milk and then be forced to look at the addictive product they are trying to kick? They are trying to get rid of the habit, but there is tobacco right in front of them, tempting them every single time, no matter what they went into the shop to buy.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly support that provision of the bill, and I have no doubt that my other colleagues will take calls on the other clauses of Part 1. I will certainly look forward to coming back to discuss the other clauses in Part 1, as well.

I want to take a very brief call on Part 1 of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. Part 1 outlines the fact that we want to get tobacco right out of sight. Clause 4 talks through the purposes of this part and the general prohibition of displays, and it is absolutely great that there is multiparty agreement with the thrust of this bill.

One of the submissions to the Health Committee was from Action on Smoking and Health, and it related to forming a register of outlets. One such register has been formed in Scotland, but it has been going for only about 18 months. Yes, it is low cost, but we really do not know whether it is working. It may be that with time such a register could prove its worth, but the Government does not want to have extra bureaucracy. We feel that there has been great consensus on this bill, and that is one of the huge strengths of it. So that is the explanation. We do not want extra bureaucracy, particularly when there is no proof that it will work in the form of a register, but we are absolutely delighted that otherwise there is multi-party agreement on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak at the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. I commend the Minister in charge of this bill, the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia, for putting pressure on the Government to push this through. I know that on this side of the House there was some sense of anguish when we left office in 2008 that these measures were up and ready to go, and that for 2 years there seemed to be a lack of action on that. But it seems that with the help of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tariana Turia, some action has been taken.

I will concentrate on clauses 4A and 4B in Part 1, which are, basically, the main parts of this bill. They ban the advertisement or display of tobacco advertising on the interior and exterior of shops. This is all about imagery. It was the last bastion of advertising imagery that the tobacco companies were desperately trying to hold on to. I know from speaking to one manufacturer in my electorate, Whittaker’s, of the importance of the “golden wall” in supermarkets. To put this in a tobacco context, we see that this is exactly what the tobacco companies are trying to protect. I stand here with great pleasure to say that they have absolutely failed. As this bill went through the Health Committee, it was one of the first issues for me as a member of that committee that I addressed. The tobacco companies put up a big fight and a lot of resources—not necessarily through themselves but through other means, through retailers and other organisations—to vehemently oppose what we are trying to do today.

We are still getting letters from the tobacco companies saying that we should reject the submissions or the thrust of the work of the Health Committee. I say to one tobacco manufacturer that it should actually check who the members of the Health Committee are before it sends letters to them completely bagging a decision that they have made unanimously, but I look forward to meeting with manufacturers. As I said, this is about imagery and making sure that we can stamp it out. I attended a Pacific health youth expo today, and I got a pen from the Pacific Smoking Cessation Programme, which is based in Cannons Creek. That programme is obviously doing great work to decrease the number of young people who are smoking at the moment. This bill, in some huge way, will make an impact by making sure that these walls of tobacco are no longer in our shops and in our service stations.

With 700,000 Kiwis smoking at the moment and 5,000 Kiwis dying each year of tobacco-related illnesses, this is one of the most positive things that this House could do to make sure we clamp down on that. As I mentioned earlier, there was some vehement opposition to this bill from the smoking industry and from some other agencies that I fear are funded by the tobacco industry.

As I look at clause 4A, I see that the Health Committee made an amendment to the transitional exemption from compliance periods, from 2 years down to 12 months. I would like to congratulate all those anti-smoking organisations that made submissions to the select committee. They were vehemently opposed to the tobacco industry and the retailers having a 2-year period to make sure they could comply with the nuts and bolts of this part of the bill. We also made a concession, I think, in respect of the commencement date of this legislation. Although the provisions are to come into force a bit later, the law itself is to be all-inclusive sooner, so we moved from the 2-year period into the 12-month transition.

It is an absolute pleasure to be speaking here today to a bill that prohibits the display of tobacco in our shops and in our service stations. As I said, it was an interesting experience to listen to some of the tobacco industry’s submissions on this bill. It is clear that with the huge wave of money and resources the industry has, it could put up a huge fight. But I think that in the end common sense won out, and the efforts and the passion of organisations such as Action on Smoking and Health won out on the day. I think that was a positive thing.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak on Part 1 in the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. At the outset I congratulate the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia, on her success in continuing this very important legacy of having cultural change, I guess, in New Zealand. We have been very successful over a number of years in having cultural change around the issue of smoking. I think, actually, in respect of many things that we debate in the House, that this bill is a ray of hope in terms of the sorts of legislative and educative processes that, if we combine them successfully, can make cultural changes and change attitudes. I think this is an area that demonstrates that very well, and I hope this gives us all the courage to take bold leadership in the sorts of ventures we undertake as parliamentarians going forward on behalf of New Zealanders, particularly in the interests of their health. That is what is fundamentally at the bottom of what we are doing with this amendment bill.

Before I go on to specifically talk about Part 1, I recognise Steve Chadwick, who is in the debating chamber and who did many of the hard yards in this area. I know that Steve Chadwick suffered personal attacks and abuse because of the position that she took some years ago in terms of being a leader in this area and front-footing this issue when it was not popular to do so. I say to Steve that she should wear that as a badge of honour. It is something that she will always have, and I congratulate her on that.

I am not on the Health Committee, but I happened to be substituted on to it for another member on the day that one of these clauses was being debated. It was a very interesting debate because it was around the part of the bill relating to herbal products. There was quite a dilemma about whether herbal products were a good thing and ought to be on display because they were a gateway out of smoking nicotine, or whether they had harmful side effects, as well. It was quite a difficult discussion for the select committee to have, because it appeared that there had been no submissions on this issue to guide the select committee. The select committee had to ask questions of the officials, who gave very good advice about what evidence did or did not exist on this issue.

It is interesting to note that since the select committee made, I think, the right decision to include herbal products in the banning of displays through this bill, the debate we have been having in this country about Kronic has been put into even sharper contrast. I believe that Kronic would probably fit the definition of being a herbal product under this part of the bill. What foresight the select committee had! It was guided by the officials to make the right decision and say that we have no evidence that herbal products are beneficial in terms of the whole health harm that is caused by smoking, and in the absence of that evidence we will ban herbal products from being displayed in shops and in retail outlets.

Of course, the select committee also had to deal with the very tricky issue of what to do about internet sales.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Having had the benefit of a dinner break, I say just how important dinner breaks are. They are important for many, many reasons, and also for reflection upon a speech one might have been making just prior to 6 o’clock when the Committee broke for dinner—in this instance, on Part 1 of this Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. I got a little bit overenthusiastic in my praise for the Health Committee members about how wise they had been with regard to herbal products. I said that they had actually banned the display of those products. I reflected upon that over the dinner break, and have discovered that they did all sorts of good things about regulating herbal products, but unfortunately they did not go as far as banning the display of herbal products. I think that now we have learnt and had a debate about Kronic, and know that it exactly fits that criteria, perhaps in this Committee stage we should be considering the extra step of banning the display of herbal products, as well. Kronic falls fairly and squarely into that category. I think it is clear to us now that that particular product, be it herbal or not, is at least as harmful as cigarettes and tobacco products, and that it ought to be included, as well.

None the less, the select committee had another tricky issue to deal with in this part of the bill, which was the way in which to regulate the internet. That issue has vexed this Parliament on more than one occasion. It has recently been particularly vexing for this Parliament. How do we regulate, and seek to have some standards for and control over, something that has a life of its own, like the internet? The select committee was called on to consider that issue again, with regard to the promotion of tobacco products and herbal products. Of course, it is almost impossible to ban the display of those products on the internet, but the select committee has quite wisely tried to regulate what is, in fact, allowable in terms of the internet. That applies particularly to some of the health benefits that can be used on the internet to promote particular products. The select committee, and this bill, has sought to address that issue, which is a very tricky one indeed.

I think it is often said when we talk about this issue of smoke-free environments that it is like a woman scorned, is it not? People who used to smoke can sometimes be the most vociferous in terms of defending and promoting strong regulation for tobacco products. I put myself in that camp. I am a former smoker. I feel as if I am making a big confession. I will not say: “I gave it up.”, because that would imply that I gave up something valuable. It is not at all valuable. So I say instead: “I stopped.” I stopped smoking, took myself away from being controlled by the tobacco industry, gave myself a life, and ensured that I was a good role model for my children.

But the struggle with withdrawal from nicotine—and I am sure I am not the only member in this Chamber to have had it—is actually exceptionally difficult to go through. When one is going through that process, to have to be in an environment where displays of tobacco and advertising of tobacco are constantly featured is a very difficult thing to do. Clause 7, in Part 1, takes a very important step to take away those displays, to actually ban and prohibit the display of tobacco products in the environments we visit all the time. We visit them when we buy petrol, when we buy milk, and when we go into any retail environment.

The display of tobacco products has been used by the tobacco industry in lieu of advertising for those products. It came through really loudly and clearly in the submissions we heard on this bill that it is not just a display of goods so that people can see where they can buy the goods from. Display is quite deliberately used as a technique and tactic to replace tobacco advertising, which, of course, a former Labour Government took leadership on and banned some years ago. I think it is really important for us to continue to see that sort of leadership. You know, when the Labour Government did that, it was very bold. It was a very, very bold thing that the Labour Government did. It took leadership.

I think we are about to see that leadership again this week, but I will not talk about that in regard to Part 1 of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. But it does cause me to reflect on how important the bold leadership from Labour has been in terms of changing the environments and culture we have in relation to the issue of smoking in this country.

Just prior to the dinner break, I was reminding members about our colleague Steve Chadwick; I will repeat that in case members missed the contribution before dinner. I think that as an individual she took absolute leadership for the betterment of the health of all New Zealanders. I really congratulate her on that, because she was brave, she was bold, and she took a lot of personal flak over leading the charge on making smoke-free environments in New Zealand.

I rise to take a brief call on my Supplementary Order Paper 257 in relation to my new clauses 5A, 6A, and 9A to amend the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. Again, I will wrap some context around the reason why the Māori Party has been so consistently united in our determination to rid this nation of tobacco. I believe that every New Zealander should know the ghastly reality that about 5,000 deaths each year in this country are attributable to direct smoke or second-hand smoke. I say “ghastly” deliberately, as smoking harms nearly every organ and system in the body. It is the cause of 80 percent of lung cancer cases and is linked to many other cancers. It is a major cause of heart attacks and heart disease, stroke, and respiratory diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking can also cause blindness, impotence, and infertility, so there should be little explanation needed about why we are so fiercely in support of tobacco control initiatives.

I place on record my admiration for the way in which the honourable member Tariana Turia has maintained such steady progress in reducing smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. It is an inspiration to us all, and I have seen that reflected also in the commitment of others around the House, particularly Iain Lees-Galloway and Paul Hutchison, as well as all of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who really have become very strong advocates of tobacco reform. The onus is on us all to live up to this nation’s reputation of trying to eliminate tobacco harm. Clauses 5A, 6A, and 9A on my Supplementary Order Paper simply place on record that we should be concerned not only about supermarkets and dairies but also about the internet tobacco pushers, which we need to be aware of. My amendments place them and us on alert.

I will also speak very briefly to Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper 256, because I think it really is necessary that not only is it retailers that we are targeting, in relation to free distribution and rewards, but also, in his new clause 7B, that wholesalers are brought within the legislation. I think that this Supplementary Order Paper is a good one, and it makes it very clear that wholesalers, as well as retailers, need to be very careful about the promotions they run. There is one little problem, I say to Mr Lees-Galloway, that I have with the spelling.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: We’re fixing it.

The member has fixed it? OK, so it is “Ka mate”, not “Ka Mata”. That is very good. I am pleased to see that the member has picked that up. It is really important that when retailers put up advertising, they are not managing in some way to limit the message that we are trying to get across that smoking kills. It does, and we need to be very clear about that. We need to put the onus on those who are selling the drugs, and they must live up to their civic duty. Kia ora.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Raymond Huo. Ni hao ma.

Xie xie, Yizhang. Thank you very much. Relevant to the greeting, I have learnt that many Chinese Kiwis are “Puff the Magic Dragons”, or enjoy being “Puff the Magic Dragons”, so the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill is very important.

💬 Todd McClay: Is that Kronic? What a Kronic statement.

I wish the member would take a call on that particular point. My colleague Sue Moroney mentioned internet sales in her speech. I would like to touch on some experiences from other jurisdictions, to assist in better appreciating what our bill has to offer. Earlier this year US President Obama signed the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act, legislation to regulate the sale of tobacco products over the internet and through the mail. The law also makes it harder for vendors to avoid paying federal, state, and local taxes, and enforces internet retailers to comply with other regulations of tobacco products, including selling to minors. Among the measures two aspects are particularly worth noting—first, the ban on delivery of tobacco products through the United States Postal Service; and, second, requiring age verification upon both the purchase and the delivery of tobacco products.

Across the Ditch, in Victoria, retailers selling tobacco have been banned from displaying tobacco products from 1 January this year. Tobacco products cannot be visible from anywhere inside or outside a retail outlet. Tobacco products are also banned from being displayed on vending machines, which pretty much is along the lines of Supplementary Order Paper 256, which was submitted by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway. Some key changes to the tobacco laws in Victoria have included, firstly, banning smoking in cars carrying children under the age of 18 years, and, secondly, implementing improved cessation services with an emphasis on supporting pregnant women, Aboriginal people, and other groups with high smoking rates.

I come back to the bill. A few submitters argued for the banning of online tobacco sales, on the basis that such sales are inconsistent with the aims of the bill because of difficulties in verifying the age of purchasers and the difficulties of enforcement. Regarding enforcement, it is very interesting that in Turkey, for instance, the Government is tightening its grip even more by preventing the sale of tobacco products on the internet and through other electronic communication methods. Those who sell tobacco products online, on television, by fax, by phone, or through the post will pay a hefty fine. The company selling tobacco products will also have its internet access cut off. More interesting is that the smoking ban will be supervised by the police, instead of by municipal boards. Those who do not comply with the initial written warning will receive a hefty fine.

It is very interesting, and also very encouraging, to note that our select committee proposed that online sales should be subject to any regulations made concerning signs, notices, health information, or warnings. A number of amendments have been made to the bill to ensure that sale controls will also cover internet sales offering tobacco products. On that note I congratulate the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia, on such good initiatives. Thank you.

As a member of the Health Committee that heard the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, I think this is a great opportunity for me to take a call—my first call—on the bill. First, I will do as other members have done and recognise the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia. There is no doubt as to Minister Turia’s commitment to this issue and to dealing with the scourge that is cigarette smoking and tobacco products in New Zealand. She has had that commitment and has steadfastly put through various pieces of legislation, including this one, and I congratulate her on that.

The select committee was fairly unified in its consideration of the bill. It was not an easy consideration. There were a lot of technicalities, and in that regard I certainly thank the officials for their assistance in helping us to understand all of those technicalities. It is good to see the National Government is on side on this bill. It has not always been so with National when it comes to measures to curb tobacco smoking.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Always was with me.

Dr Paul Hutchison certainly always was; that is a very good point. He stood up against the rest of his party, including the now Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, when they opposed the banning of smoking in bars and restaurants. I am sure that Dr Hutchison’s colleagues now look to him as a man of wisdom when it comes to these matters.

The select committee certainly had an interesting array of submissions and submitters appear before it, and there were strong views on all sides. There were especially strong views from public health physicians and academics, from those involved in the anti-smoking groups, and from the friends and families of those who have died from smoking-related illnesses. It was difficult to listen to those submissions and know that we had the responsibility to take this small but significant step in reducing the harm caused by cigarettes in New Zealand.

Equally, on the other side of the argument we had submissions from retailers who were very concerned about the impact on their business. We also had some slightly odd submissions in that regard. I do not think I will ever forget hearing the evidence from the specialist tobacco retailer who spoke to us by phone. Extraordinarily, we asked him questions about what he knew about some of the people who came in and bought products from him, to the point that he told us that he was well aware how sick some of them were, that they were in the advanced stage of illnesses that had been caused directly by smoking, yet he seemed to think that was OK. It was quite extraordinary to listen to those submissions. I feel good that today we are back before Parliament with a bill that is rigorous and puts in place the regime that it does.

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: We’ll have to have the Royal Society in the next couple of weeks.

We will have more thorough examination of the activities of the Royal Society in the coming weeks and months. I am pleased that that will occur, but I will not be diverted on to that.

I want to speak briefly about Supplementary Order Paper 256 in the name of my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, because I think it does two important things that we seek the support of National members on. It adds to what has already been done, and I do not think in any way that National should see this as a hostile Supplementary Order Paper. In fact, it very much supports the direction of the bill.

The first of those amendments was just mentioned by Rahui Katene in her intervention. It is about extending the prohibitions that have been put in place concerning free distribution. People might think that the tobacco companies are not up to this nefarious kind of activity where behind the scenes they are trying to develop a relationship with a retailer who will put their products forward. They are. This is what the tobacco industry does, and it is doing this. Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper has a clause that makes not only retailers but also wholesalers deal with this. I think it is very important that the way in which tobacco products are distributed is taken into account in this bill and in this particular clause. I urge members on the other side of the Chamber to realise that all Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper is doing is extending the ambit of this clause to take into account the way in which tobacco products find themselves into people’s pockets, and that is through a retail setting, but also through wholesalers. I think it is very important that we support that amendment.

The other new clause that Iain Lees-Galloway suggests in his Supplementary Order Paper is around the kind of signage that is available at point of sale. The committee talked at some length about this, because it is possible for a tobacco company with its back against the wall, having lost the ability to have colourful displays that promote—

I rise to support the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, and I thank the Hon Tariana Turia for all the work that she has done in this area. This bill sends an important message to the public that the Government is committed to reducing the harm caused by smoking. We want people to quit smoking, and we are so serious about the issue that we have designated helping smokers to quit as one of the six health targets of every district health board across the country.

We are also assisting district health boards to help patients quit smoking by spending $50 million a year on tobacco control and smoking cessation. The money is used to fund the nationwide Quitline and to target smoking for Māori, Pacific, and pregnancy services. Importantly, the Government has mandated a sharp increase in the price of tobacco.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has been speaking for a couple of minutes now—

Thirty seconds.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated, please. I say to the member on my right that when a point of order is taken, it is to be terse and to the point, and there are to be no interruptions. It is heard in silence.

💬 Grant Robertson: My point of order is that the member, in the brief time she has been speaking, has not managed to talk about the bill, but rather about various other aspects of National policy. You sat me down when I was part-way through talking about a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member makes a valid point. The member had been speaking for only a minute. I was giving her an opportunity, but she should focus on the bill.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is somewhat rich. We have listened to a number of speeches from the other side of the Chamber that have swayed into all manner of different policy areas. Sue Moroney was getting into the area of capital gains tax and all sorts of things, but that was not pulled up by members on this side of the Chamber. It is a broad-ranging debate, and if we are to get into that space, we will be happy to stand up and make sure that Opposition members are closer to the bill. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution. We need to look at the context in which the bill is heard, and that means looking at how the Committee is operating as well. I ask the member to try, though, to speak to the bill, because that is why we are here.

The main purpose of this bill is to prohibit the display of tobacco products and to increase and enforce controls on tobacco. The aims are twofold: to reduce the uptake of smoking, and to help smokers quit. I have made a comment that the increased tobacco tax has driven a real change in behaviour to force people to quit. The number of calls to, and quit attempts coming through, Quitline have increased by 50 percent since the tobacco tax was introduced, and the number of people accessing smoking cessation treatments is up 82 percent in 18 months, so that is real progress.

Research clearly shows that display and advertising promotes the attractiveness of smoking and encourages more people to smoke, and more people to smoke more often. Most smokers take up smoking when they are young and, perhaps, most vulnerable to advertising. Virtually no one takes up smoking after they are 25 years of age, so it makes sense to try to prevent young people for as long as possible from taking up the habit. This bill will help to do that.

The prohibition of the display of tobacco products comes into force 12 months after the bill becomes law, but there is a further 12-month transition period for particular classes of business. But in a very short time we will expect to see the delivery of no advertising, and that will lead to a further reduction of smoking in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the Committee.

I have been dying to take a call on this Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, but I have been happy to defer to the members of the Health Committee who have done all the work on it. I congratulate the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tariana Turia, on her commitment to the bill. Wonderful work is going on here, and Part 1 is the main part of the bill.

The previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, talked about the purpose of the bill, which is to prohibit retail displays of tobacco products, the aim being to gradually reduce tobacco uptake, particularly among young people, and to help smokers to quit.

I will bring some context to this bill as a former smoker, if I may. I will stick to Part 1 as much as I can, but I think it is really important to note, when looking at this bill, how far we have come as a nation on the issue of smoking. As I said, I am a former smoker, so I take a particular interest in Part 1. I recall way back when Labour embarked on changes to smoking environments, particularly in the workplace. I never dreamt that we would get to the point where we would agree, as in Part 1, to ban displays of tobacco advertising. I remember the angst that went with that issue, but it did help me give up. That was the time when I started to give up smoking, and I think all of these measures—with this one adding to them—have helped smokers like me make the decision that smoking is not for them. Of course, I had a bit of agitation from my family—my husband and son.

As others have, I acknowledge my colleague Steve Chadwick for her work on this matter.

💬 Todd McClay: Who?

The member opposite said “Who?”. Well, I think that is very ignorant, actually. He should study history, because there was huge angst about it. In fact, National voted against Steve Chadwick’s member’s bill, the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, as I recall, which was about banning smoking in restaurants and workplaces. I remember that, and I remember that National voted against it. I remember the angst. I was involved in it, because I was representing Sky City union members at the time, and they made submission on it. They said that smoking was bad for them and it hurt—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Whose bill was it?

It was Steve Chadwick’s bill, I say in answer to that member.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Rubbish. Stop telling porkies.

It was Steve Chadwick’s bill during the 9 years of the last Labour Government.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. A member made an interjection. I do not want to repeat it, but it clearly implied that the member was telling a lie. It was unparliamentary, and it will bring disorder.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is absolutely right. The member on my right will stand and withdraw. To imply that is incorrect, and it is not permissible.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw.

💬 Todd McClay: I withdraw as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is trifling with the Chair.

Returning to Part 1, if I may, I think there is a very interesting history lesson in Part 1, particularly in respect of—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Get your facts straight. Who was it?

I am happy to do that; it was Steve Chadwick. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That member continues to interject on the same line that he has already withdrawn. He continues on that line of saying that I am not telling the truth.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is entitled to make reasonable interjections, provided he is doing so from his own seat. If he moves to facilitate interjection, he is out of order. This is a debating chamber, and I would add that it is not a public house. It is the debating chamber.

I turn to Part 1, again—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Whose bill was it?

—if the member will let me. I hope he will take a call, as a person who has recently given up smoking. In clause 5, the interpretation clause, is a very interesting lesson in history. It amends section 2(1) of the Smoke-free Environments Act by repealing a number of definitions, including the definitions of “children’s product” and “pouch pack”. That brought quite a lot of memories back to me—the days of roll-your-own. I remember a doctor saying that roll-your-owns and smoking tobacco in a pipe were actually better for people than smoking cigarettes. So it is good to see that the definition of “pouch pack” is disappearing—and “tobacconist’s shop” too. It is a long time since I can recall a tobacconist’s shop. I was interested when I visited France a few years ago to see that they still had tabac shops. They would argue that it is much more important to have a specialist shop, but I do not know of any such thing as a tobacconist’s shop any more.

Then “tobacco packages in a visible stack” is being repealed. “Tobacco package” was used to mean “a box, carton, pack, packet, pouch, tin, wrapping, or other package that— (a) contains a tobacco product or products;”. “Tobacco packages in a visible stack” means “2 or more tobacco packages”.

Clause 5, the interpretation clause in Part 1, demonstrates that things have changed a lot. Although we have changed our smoking habits, and although this bill really contributes and builds on the work that has been done in the past, it also shows that we have come an awful long way in respect of products, and the various ways that tobacco has been sold in the past. So it is good to see the pouch pack, the tobacconist’s shop, and tobacco packages—

Here is the history lesson that all members should know, which I am gobsmacked they do not know: the member responsible for the gestation of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill was a former member of this House, Mr Tuku Morgan. It was his bill. He was responsible for the gestation of what we are doing here tonight. It was his bill and I am absolutely gobsmacked that none of the members on the other side of the Chamber could get it right. I expect Darien Fenton not to get a few things right; the whole of west Auckland feels that way. But I am gobsmacked that the Hon Rick Barker sits there—and he is a learned member of this Committee—and even he did not know. Well, I think he did but he was just being mean.

It is a bit like what is going to happen on Thursday with the “jealousy” tax. But I digress. Mr Chairperson Robertson, if you put your hands together you will get a clap.

I thank Tuku Morgan, I thank Stevie Chadwick—you see, I can be gracious—and I thank the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia. But here is something else.

💬 Hon Member: Is this a point of order?

Does the member want me to take a point of order? I want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee and Hone Harawira. We do not see eye to eye on a whole lot of things—milkshakes included—but he was the one who had the guts to get up and bring the inquiry and the terms of reference to our committee. We all had a hand in the writing of what I still consider to be one of this House’s very, very good reports. It has had repercussions around the Pacific and around the globe. I thank the Minister for going the extra mile as well.

I have one final thing to say to the Imperial Tobacco Group, which had the gall to write to me—me—and ask me to vote against this legislation. Later on, I might even table both its letter and my reply.

💬 Hon Member: No bad language!

No, it is OK. It is all good. I, too, commend this bill and the work of the Hon Tariana Turia to the Committee. Kia ora.

Certainly I have to agree with the speaker who has just taken his seat, the Hon Tau Henare, that anyone who has had the courage to try to bring about any kind of legislative change in this area deserves to be recognised. There is no question about that. I was not aware of Tuku Morgan’s bill to ban tobacco displays, but that is fine—that is great. I know from Steve Chadwick’s experience of personal threats made against her and her family that it is not an easy area to get into. Where I have an issue with the honourable member who has just taken his seat is that some members of National are now making out that it is all because of them that the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill has come about. I recognise the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia, for all the work she has done. To be fair, this issue has been around for a long time, and our local National member refused to turn up to events to support the banning of tobacco displays. She refused to accept the postcards that the youth ambassadors for the Cancer Society had collected, and she refused to provide support. So from my personal experience of having supported those young people and the Cancer Society in Tai Rāwhiti to ban tobacco displays, I have not seen up until tonight a lot of support from National, but I welcome it and I think it is very important that these issues have cross-party support.

Part 1 of the bill, which I shall speak to, is about exemptions from the prohibition of advertising of tobacco products. We know that the tobacco companies themselves will be looking for other ways they can get the advertising of their products out there. I remember when I was at high school I worked in a dairy, a lotto shop, and a superette not long after the changes had been made to ban tobacco advertising. Suddenly we saw these displays come in because the tobacco companies saw the loophole: they could not advertise but they could use the packaging itself as an advertisement and they could use the displays that hold the packages as an advertisement.

I very much remember having people from the industry come into the business I worked in, looking at the area behind the counter, right next to where all the lollies were stacked up, and seeing how they could get the best value out of that display. There is a serious question to be asked as to whether Parliament ever intended that. I think that when Parliament banned advertising of tobacco products back in the late 1980s, it did not intend that these power walls would become the de facto advertising. But that is, in fact, what happened. When one works in retail, a lot of industry representatives come into one’s shop to see how their products are placed in the business. The business I worked in had quite a high turnover and I never saw as many representatives from any other area of industry as I did from the tobacco industry when I was doing that after-school job. They were in on a regular basis. I never saw as much turnover of advertising displays as there was in the tobacco area.

So, clearly—and we know, because billions of dollars have gone into developing power wall displays and getting the best value out of them—those displays have an impact, because these companies would not spend the money on them if they did not. But I am very, very pleased to see the closing of that loophole in this legislation.

The question then comes about exemptions, and I note the extensive work that the Health Committee did on new sections 22 and 23, which deal with the exemptions. There have to be exemptions, obviously: internal company pamphlets or information needs to be exempt from this. There will be some artworks that involve using tobacco, insignia of tobacco products, and we would not want to see them exempt. There is also the very fraught issue of all the television, radio, magazines, and newspapers that originate from outside New Zealand. We cannot begin to tell CNN that it has to adhere to this law as well. The select committee has drawn a very fine line and I think it has done it particularly well in saying that provided a particular form of media was not specifically meant for New Zealand, or the New Zealand market, then obviously it would be exempt as well.

There has been an enormous argument internationally about the use of tobacco products and tobacco advertising in the movie industry. For a while there was a real move away from showing any form of use of tobacco products. I think that has gone back the other way. These are not things we can control in New Zealand, nor should we try to, but they are things we need to be aware of. From my own experience of seeing how the tobacco industry was able to use power walls as a loophole with the previous legislation, I have no doubt that it will be looking for loopholes in this new legislation.

I want to take just a very brief call regarding Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper 256. He made a great contribution during the Health Committee. Oh, the lights temporarily went out—hopefully, not permanently! I am informed that the—[Interruption] Ha, ha!

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We have one speaker in the Chamber at the moment.

This was to be a short call, indeed. As I was about to say, the issue we have with this Supplementary Order Paper is that new clause 7A has been inserted in the provisions of the amendment bill to prohibit wholesalers from offering trade discounts on tobacco products, so this matter is already covered.

His second amendment, to clause 9, amends new section 29AA, which has certain provisions concerning signage, but, as currently drafted, the amendment will not prevent retailers and wholesalers from creating personalised signs that could contain favourable or misleading images. In fact, in the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill as currently drafted the signs may do no more than communicate health information or warnings, and must comply with regulation, and those regulations will ensure the tobacco industry does not personalise the signs to contain favourable or misleading images. The Government’s approach in the bill also enables more flexibility in terms of making the signs more effective and having them put in the right places. The danger of the proposed changes in the Supplementary Order Paper is that they could restrict the ability to regulate for the best outcome. In view of that, we believe they are totally unnecessary.

If I may I want to make just one other point, and that is on the to-ing and fro-ing on the glory in respect of who has been responsible for this bill, whether it be Tuku Morgan or whoever. But I would make this one point: it goes back to 1960 when Sir Richard Doll, an epidemiologist from Oxford, realised there was a connection between tobacco smoking and morbidity and mortality. Since that time legions and cohorts of people—non-governmental organisations, organisations like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), and many, many people—have tried to get to where we are now. I absolutely celebrate the leadership of the Hon Tariana Turia, of Hone Harawira, of the Māori Affairs Committee, of Tau Henare, and of everyone in this Chamber who has agreed that this legislation is worthwhile. Thank you.

Just before I call the next member, I advise members that there has been a major power outage and it will be some time before lights return to normal.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the kōrero tonight. I will follow on from Dr Hutchison by remembering the champions who have created the bill, the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Bill, that we have before us today. I thank the Hon Tau Henare for his history lesson, because I think it is important at this point in time that we acknowledge the people who have brought to fruition what we see today. I particularly want to honour the work that Hone Harawira has done in bringing this kaupapa to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I particularly acknowledge the work that the Hon Tariana Turia has done to ensure that this kaupapa was brought before the House in this parliamentary term. I think it is important to make a comment about leadership.

This bill is a very big bill. It will save many lives, and the lives I want to focus on are the lives of our babies. I was particularly taken with the submission made by the group at the University of Auckland dealing with sudden unexpected death in infancy. It was astounding for me to read the statistic that between 2003 and 2007, 328 of our babies under 1 year of age died. Of those 328 babies, 202 were Māori babies, and of the mothers of the 328 babies, 75 percent smoked. So the correlation between smoking and infant mortality in our country is so explicit that to not do what we are doing today would have been completely unethical.

I want to talk particularly about the prohibition of displays. I think that this bill has de-normalised smoking for our children, and it will continue to do so in the future. When we look at the statistics we can see that having an environment where smoking is not normal is incredibly important. When we look at the fact that we have 5,000 premature deaths per year because of smoking—whether it be people who smoke or people who live in environments within whānau where people smoke—we can see that it is relevant to all of us.

I think all of us would have a family member who has died as a consequence of smoking. I will talk about someone close to me, my father, who at 63 died of coronary heart disease. He had a massive heart attack. He was a chain-smoker; he smoked two packs of cigarettes a day. I grew up in an environment where I could not breathe, actually. As a young child I remember not being able to breathe. For me that meant that I was never going to smoke. I listened to my body. My body rejected smoke, so I did not smoke.

I have been fortunate. I smoked once in my life because of peer pressure, because I grew up in a community where smoking was normal, but I decided I would not smoke. The first cigarette I had was at the lake in Taupō. I threw the cigarette in the lake, and my family chased after me to give me a hiding because I had thrown the smoke away.

I inherently knew that smoking was bad, but a lot of children grow up in environments where smoking is normal. They do not know that smoking is bad. They may have had the first response that I had, which was to choke and not to breathe, but they persist because their peers smoke and because society says to them that smoking is normal.

The potential I see with this bill is amazing. It is amazing because we will create an environment where smoking is not normal and smoking is not cool. That translates to our children growing up and having the opportunity to not be influenced by the fact that when they go the dairy, for example, cigarettes are there on display and are encouraging them, whether or not they know it, to take up smoking.

I am very pleased to belong to a Parliament that sees a bill like this before the House, and I am pleased that we have cross-party support for such an initiative. I wanted to comment on something that Dr Hutchison said, which was that because we will be prohibiting the display of tobacco, it is out of sight and out of mind.

I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. Part 1 is about transitional requirements and extending them to internet sales. The bill also talks about sponsorship. But I thought the Committee—and I ask the Chair to give me a little leeway—would like to hear of an update.

As of 1 July prisoners in New Zealand are no longer able to smoke, because prisons are smoke-free. There are 6,000 prisoners on nicotine replacement. Today is day 13 in terms of prisons being smoke-free. The planning for this has taken a year, and there has been education, obviously, and prisoners have been given nicotine replacement to start on, and on day 13 it is going extremely well. There is no rioting. There is no burning of beds, or anything like that. It has gone extremely smoothly, so I congratulate the Minister of Corrections on her work in this area. I think it is very indicative of where the momentum is going, as far as smoking and the damage it does to our society is concerned. Certainly, the Government made an excellent initiative early in the year by increasing the excise tax on tobacco products by an unprecedented 30 percent over time. That really is an extremely effective way of reducing cigarette smoking. The use of Quitline has increased dramatically, and people are giving up in droves. That is excellent indeed.

This Government is extremely serious about reducing the harm from cigarette smoking, and this bill will go one step of the way by getting rid of displays of cigarettes in retail stores. I commend this bill to the Committee. Thank you.

Tēnā koe. I have absolutely no time for the tobacco industry. I have an absolute loathing for that industry and the havoc it has caused. In my short time here in the Committee stage I want to touch on the devastation this industry has caused to us as Māori. I think of my two uncles—Hau Davis and J J Johnson—who died 10 years ago, in their early 70s. They both died of lung cancer. They were both smokers, probably from about the age of 7 or 8. So they had close to 60 years of smoking. Their premature deaths have robbed us and our hapū of probably 10 or 15 years of their knowledge, their language, and their understanding of te reo Māori and culture. I will narrow this speech down slightly soon, Mr Chairperson, but I think it is really important to say that this has meant that people like me have been left to cover the role that they once covered, woefully inadequately prepared for that task. So it has had a devastating effect on us as Māori, on our culture and our language.

I applaud any move to remove incentives, such as tobacco displays in shops, and sponsorships. I do not care who dreamt up the idea 30 or 40 years ago, or who carried it through. The fact is that this Parliament is making something of it now and that is what is most important. We cannot afford to carry on for another 10, 15, or 20 years providing these incentives. Every time we walk into a dairy or a service station we see the power wall of tobacco products on display and it makes it so easy for children to come in and, instead of looking at lollies, which are bad enough in themselves, all they can see is a big power wall display of tobacco products, the colourful packages, and the names that are meant to excite and entice them, such as “Holiday” or some brand like that. It is meant to appeal to young teenage girls. “Slim” is another one. To me it is despicable that the tobacco industry has absolutely no conscience about the damage it has been doing to generations of New Zealanders—generations of Māori and of people right throughout the world.

I want to go back to a story that was told during the tobacco inquiry. I acknowledge Hone Harawira, who drove that tobacco inquiry, for the work that he did. I have to add this plug: it is amazing what he can do when he works within the system—he is actually very, very effective—instead of railing against it all the time. There was a story about a family who went to hospital because their mum, their nana, was in hospital dying of cancer as a result of smoking. This whānau, because of—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is a debate going on between two members who do not have the floor. I have called the honourable Kelvin Davis.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Because of the stress this family was under, nursing their dying mother, they had to go outside and have a cigarette themselves. They sat on a park bench in the smoke-free hospital grounds and had a cigarette. Right next to that park bench was the maternity ward. Pregnant mothers were coming out and sitting on that same bench, having a cigarette, with these people. The point of the story is, what is the bet that in 20 or 30 years’ time it will be those unborn children who will be sitting on that same park bench having a cigarette while watching their mothers, who were pregnant back then, dying of cancer in hospital?

It is a circle not of life but a circle of death that the tobacco companies perpetuate, and they need to be held to account. The way to hold them to account is to cut their profits, and the way to cut their profits is to make smoking less attractive. This is one of the steps that this Parliament is taking to remove those power displays and sponsorship so there is not the incentive for young kids when they go into dairies or service stations to see those tobacco displays.

I acknowledge everybody who has brought this bill to the House and brought it to this stage. We are sending a message to the tobacco companies that we will not tolerate their insidious product.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have a few things I would like to discuss in this call on Part 1 of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. First, though, I would like to respond to Dr Paul Hutchison. In fact, when he started to address my Supplementary Order Paper 256and the lights went out, I thought that maybe he was going to woo me. Unfortunately, I was quickly rebuffed. That was sad and I was disappointed. I would argue, particularly in relation to the second amendment in my Supplementary Order Paper, that there is a need to be quite restrictive as to how the signs can be displayed. Although the intent is clearly there in the bill as it is written at the moment, I think there is still the opportunity for a creative person to find a way to manipulate it and to use the signage as a form of covert advertising.

In a way I am a little bit disappointed that I got the call right now, because I was in the middle of a text conversation with Carrick Graham. People will know who Carrick Graham is—he is the public relations man for the tobacco industry—and we have been having a little conversation about what is going on tonight. He has just sent me a text saying that Foodstuffs will be—and pardon my language, this is a direct quote—“spewing” about my Supplementary Order Paper. I was just about to write back and say “Really? Why?”. That suggests to me that maybe there is something underlying here about the way in which supermarkets use this signage as a form of covert advertising. If Foodstuffs will be upset about my Supplementary Order Paper, then maybe—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: He hasn’t told you why.

No, I wanted to get to the bottom of why it was, but, given that it is Carrick, I think I might know why it might be. If there is some discomfit about what my Supplementary Order Paper would achieve, then maybe we need to delve a little bit further into why the retailers might be uncomfortable with it. I implore the National members to reconsider their position, particularly in relation to the second amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper.

However, what I really want to talk about in this call is the issue of herbal smoking products. It was a decision that took a lot of conversation at the Health Committee. We were all really on the same page. We see getting rid of the point-of-sale advertising of herbal smoking products as something that is a positive move. But I have to admit that when the Ministry of Health brought this issue to the select committee—and it was very much at the last minute—the late arrival of this suggestion did not help in terms of the select committee getting to the decision that the Ministry of Health wanted us to make. My initial response was “Hang on, I don’t think this is a matter for the smoke-free environments bill, because the bill is about tobacco.” The Minister in the chair, the Hon Tariana Turia, has wanted to focus on tobacco, and I felt that this might be a distraction from the issue. In a way it was a learning experience because I discovered through that process that herbal smoking products are already covered by the Smoke-free Environments Act. We eventually came to the decision that because we had not had public consultation about what to do with herbal smoking products, it was better to not include it in this bill but to make a strong recommendation to the Government that it was something we wanted to move on as quickly as possible, using the right legislation.

I note that further restriction on advertising of herbal smoking products is something that Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne is wanting to achieve through the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, which is also progressing through the House at the moment. I suppose that reflects the crossover whereby tobacco is, essentially, a drug, and in different times we might have thought that maybe we should put tobacco into the Misuse of Drugs Act rather than have separate legislation for it. But it does get confusing and it is a bit messy. Ultimately, that led to why the select committee chose to not include herbal smoking products in the display ban. However, we did decide to include herbal smoking products in some of the other restrictions that this bill brings in.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My recollection is that the Committee was not instructed to consider that amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The rest of the amendments were not part of the scope, but these ones here that we have are OK. It is up to the members to vote how they want to.