Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I begin by thanking the members of the Health Committee for their thorough consideration of this bill and their suggestions for its improvement. Can I also thank the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, who saw this bill through its first reading and was a huge supporter of it in the last Parliament.

The committee has recommended that the bill proceed with amendments, and it is timely that this bill should now proceed. A number of countries have taken similar steps to standardise tobacco products and packaging, so we are in good company. Progressing the bill through its next stage today is showing that New Zealand is committed to putting tobacco into plain, standardised packaging.

Tobacco products kill New Zealanders. Every year 4,500 to 5,000 people die prematurely. Smoking is a leading, avoidable cause of premature deaths in New Zealand, so we want to stop New Zealanders from smoking, and we are going to take every practical step to achieve that. Most people in society will know a friend or a family member who has died prematurely. I think the good thing about this bill is that it will also prevent young people—and others—taking up smoking, through standardised packaging of tobacco.

Tobacco products already carry large, graphic health warnings, and cigarettes and tobacco can no longer be displayed at point of sale or advertised in any media. Now we are removing the last marketing tool, and consigning the cigarette pack to a plain green-brown colour, stripped of its bright packaging and brand imagery. A lot of time and money goes into designing products and packs to appeal both to existing smokers and also to the next generation. Allowing tobacco products to be advertised or promoted in any way is inconsistent with our Government’s wider goal of making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025.

The bill is intended to tightly control the design and the physical appearance of cigarettes and tobacco products and any packaging used or intended to be used with those products. The bill continues to allow manufacturer information and brand names to be printed on the packs, but only in a tightly controlled way. The bill is essentially a piece of high-level enabling legislation. It creates the new regulation-making powers so detail of the product design, appearance, packaging, and labelling can be developed.

On World Smokefree Day last month I released a consultation document with proposals that mandatory health warnings will cover at least 75 percent of the front of the packages. It also proposes that all tobacco imagery be removed and that brand names will be allowed, but the regulations will standardise how and where the printing is on each packet. A final decision on those detailed regulations will be made after the consultation period ends next month and submissions have been carefully considered. We want to get the detail right around this, and we want a set of regulations that puts into effect the intent of this bill.

The bill generated a large number of submissions—in fact, over 15,500 submissions, of which there were approximately 200 substantive submissions. A number of common themes emerged, including the damaging impacts of tobacco on health. There was concern shown for children living in the homes of New Zealand’s 550,000 smokers. Those children are at the highest risk of taking up smoking, and it is a particular concern for Māori, Pacific, and other high-risk groups. The importance of standardised packaging as a key plank in New Zealand’s overall comprehensive tobacco control programme was also raised, and the Government’s view is that the standardised packaging is part of a suite of tobacco control measures and quit-smoking services, as well as the increases in taxation that we passed in this Parliament earlier this year.

Another focus of the submissions was the anticipated impacts of standardised packaging. A large number of submitters, including the World Health Organization (WHO), are convinced that plain packaging reduces the appeal, the social acceptance, and the approval of smoking and tobacco products. These submitters want warning images and messages to be more noticeable and effective. They point to an extensive body of research and international evidence and reviews that give confidence that the bill will work here as intended over time. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that more evidence and evaluation reports have been tabled, and results from a post-implementation review endorsed by the Australian Office of Best Practice Regulation are continually coming in from Australia that show that plain packaging is working as intended, and is making a real difference to Australians.

Yes, it is true that plain packaging on its own is not responsible for all of the continued fall in smoking rates in Australia, where the smoking prevalence is around 12 percent, but an econometric study published in Australia looked at a significant period of time before and after the introduction of plain packaging, and found that plain packaging alone was responsible for 0.55 percentage points out of the 2.2 percentage point decline in smoking prevalence over the period of that study. In other words, standardised packaging alone was responsible for fully one quarter of the measured decline.

Submitters were also concerned about New Zealand’s international obligations, and the WHO and several other submitters were strongly supportive of the legislation, as consistent with our obligations and our commitments to the United Nations Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. On that point, our Government’s position is extremely clear: New Zealand can implement standardised tobacco packaging in a manner that is consistent with our international trade obligations, and we will.

There are three substantive changes to the bill as it has been reported back to this House. The Health Committee recommended widening the concern for harmful social, economic, and health effects of smoking to include an additional and important cultural dimension. This is to be reflected in the amended purposes of the Act section, and in the scope of new warning messages that will be required under it. It also wanted to ensure that the existing minimum quantities in which cigarettes and tobacco can be sold are maintained in the principal Act. The committee also wanted to clarify rules around the transitional period, when distributors and retailers can sell the branded packs.

The committee has also made a number of small positive changes, key among them the title of the bill and the use of the term “plain packaging”. This legislation will undoubtedly standardise the appearance of tobacco products and packages to prevent them from being used for marketing and product promotion purposes. The committee has therefore recommended that we use the more accurate and descriptive term “standardised packaging”.

This bill is designed to save New Zealanders’ lives. This bill is another tool to fight against the slow, relentless killer that is tobacco. This bill helps people to quit, and prevents others from smoking. I am pleased to support all of the committee’s changes to the bill, which I believe are sensible and well considered. I commend this bill to the House.

Labour supports the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill, and we support it with enthusiasm. Can I tell the members that there are a few here who actually sat on the Health Committee to hear the submissions on this bill. I think my colleague Kevin Hague was there. I think Barbara Stewart was there. I am not sure whether there are any National members left in the House who actually heard the submissions.

The Government made a decision to have this bill on 18 February 2013. Then the bill was actually referred to our committee on 11 February 2014. So the first point I want to make is that from February to August 2014 the select committee dealt with this bill. We travelled around New Zealand to hear the submissions. We received and considered 15,682 submissions from interested groups and individuals. A number of the submissions were form submissions and they did replicate the content. We heard oral evidence from 32 submitters in Auckland and Wellington, and I have to say they were overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. Practically the only ones who were opposed to it were the tobacco companies that flew in from around the world to make their submissions to the committee for 15 minutes—because they got the same as everybody else. So for thousands of dollars, for something they said would not work, they were prepared to come and make a submission. I say good on them if they wanted to make a submission, but it really did convince me that this was obviously going to be an effective measure, because if it was not they would not have bothered even making a submission.

So my criticism of the Government is not the bill. The bill in the form in which it is now being presented to this House, due to the work the select committee did—and I am pleased the Minister has said the Government has accepted all the amendments—is a good bill, including the name change. But what I will be critical of is the time that it has taken to get this bill here. We are talking almost 2 years—2 years waiting to pass a piece of legislation that tightens the screws on tobacco control in New Zealand. Why did we wait 2 years? We waited because the Government refused to be a leader in the fight for tobacco control, with this measure. It wanted to wait to see what happened in Australia, because Australia had the guts to put in place plain packaging. It said: “We are an independent sovereign nation. We will make our own decisions about what we have in public health law.” And they went ahead, they passed their legislation, they brought in plain packaging, and they were sued by the tobacco companies. So rather than say “We are a sovereign nation. We are prepared to stand up for New Zealanders and pass our legislation.”, we sat there wringing our hands and saying: “We need to wait and see.”

I was really disappointed because, do you know what? New Zealand has been a leader in tobacco control for decades. The first real legislation passed in this Parliament was passed by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. [Interruption] The Rt Hon Helen Clark—for Simon O’Connor, who does not seem to remember her—was the Minister of Health and she brought in legislation banning smoking in workplaces. Once upon a time, like on Gliding On, you could sit in your office and puff away as much as you liked—or in your factory, or wherever you worked. That was the first legislation. Then, over the years, legislation, regulation, and education have been implemented in this country.

I want to say that the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which is our international agreement, was negotiated and passed when I was the Minister of Health and it was ratified under a Labour Government. We committed ourselves to the principles of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. One of them is plain packaging. There is still more that needs to be done, but that is where we were the leaders. We were out there. We were there with the Australians and some of the Scandinavian countries arguing at the World Health Assembly and arguing against big tobacco companies.

But I do think, maybe, the problem that National has had, apart from not showing the bottle to be able to bring in this legislation in our time frame—New Zealand’s time frame—is the fact that National has had two tobacco lobbyists in its caucus. I raise this issue because Philip Morris’s spokesperson was Chris Bishop, and you need to hear what he said about this bill. He said that there are not any studies that suggest that plain packaging will work at stopping people from taking up smoking or helping them to quit smoking—there is not one study to suggest that. He then went on to say this: “We’re worried about the retailers. We’re worried about the impact. We’re worried about the retailers.”

💬 Hon Member: Who was that?

This was Chris Bishop. He said: “We’re worried about the retailers. We are worried about the impact of plain packaging on intellectual property treaties that we are subject to.” This is a member of the National caucus with these views—no wonder it has dragged the chain when it came to implementing this legislation.

But, you see, research that was cited to us from the New Zealand Medical Journal states that New Zealand studies show that plain packets that feature large, graphic health warnings are significantly more likely to promote cessation amongst young adult smokers than fully or partially branded tobacco packs. I am more inclined to believe the World Health Organization, the New Zealand Medical Association, the Public Health Association of New Zealand—the experts who have devoted their lives to reducing the consumption and the prevalence of tobacco in New Zealand. I am more inclined to believe them than the words of a backbencher who is a former tobacco lobbyist.

So what do we have in this bill that is now before us? And I do hope we are not going to drag the chain and have the second reading and then wait for the end of the year to have the Committee stage and then, maybe, eventually, pass it. If this is in the process now, I say to the Minister, get this bill through—get this bill through and stop mucking about as we have done to date.

This bill does, I think, four very important things. First of all, the principal objective is to reduce the appeal of tobacco products and smoking, particularly to young people. I have to say, Minister, I have seen some of the pictures that are going to be on the so-called plain packaging—not plain at all; that is a real misnomer—and they are graphic. If they do not put you off smoking, they ought to put you off smoking. So that is the first objective.

The second one is to reduce the wider social acceptance and approval of smoking and tobacco products. We must do that if we are going to be smoke-free by 2025. The Government says it has signed up to that, but I do not believe we will make it under the progress that has been made by this Government. Minister, there is so much more—so much more—and the Minister would have a place in history if he just took hold of this portfolio and really moved it along. The third one is to increase the noticeability and the effectiveness of mandated health warnings, messages, and images, and the fourth is to reduce the likelihood of consumers acquiring false perceptions of the harm caused by tobacco products.

Of course, some of us come from the era when smoking was very, very acceptable—where you, as a young person, put your cigarette in a cigarette holder and thought you looked cool. You had the false perception of tobacco. Over time we have got rid of that perception, and this bill helps it. You have got a packet of cigarettes, you are going to have some—[Interruption] No, I am not speaking to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Those who have a packet of cigarettes—

💬 Hon Member: A pipe.

And your pipe—I am looking to have labels on pipes as well. But there will be no doubt that if people are buying tobacco cigarettes, the package will show the damage and the harm that can be done to them.

There is much more that can be said, but I do want to say we recommended a change in the name of the legislation, and the Minister said that he has accepted the change—replacing “(Tobacco Plain Packaging)” with “(Tobacco Standardised Packaging)”. I remember—[Interruption] This is quite an important point, Mr Assistant Speaker. I could just finish it if you gave me a minute.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will give you 10 seconds.

10 seconds. Sir Geoffrey Palmer said when he was at the Law Commission that bills should accurately reflect what they are meant to do, and this change of name does that. Thank you.

I wonder whether, as a consequence, I have lost 10 seconds on my speech now, but who knows?

💬 Hon Member: We can only hope.

Ha, ha! That is right—it is an optimistic thought on a Thursday. I am very pleased to speak on this Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill here in its second reading. I am quite delighted, as chair of the Health Committee, that this bill has come up the Order Paper and is being read now a second time, and I too am looking forward to it progressing through the House.

I would have to disagree with the member opposite, Annette King. I think this is actually proceeding at a timely pace. In fact, I also want to acknowledge the Minister, Sam Lotu-Iiga, for the work that he is doing on this. I think, really importantly, this whole plain packaging, or standardised packaging—and I will come to that in a moment—actually sits on a whole pile of work that the Government has done and continues to do. In fact, one example that immediately comes to mind is the Minister leading during the Budget process a new bill around excise taxes—just another example of what this Government is doing to target a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025.

We have heard many times in this House through various discussions about the positive progress that has been made overall, but none of us, particularly in the Health Committee, is unaware of the disaggregated figures—that is, when we begin to break down smoking into, say, ethnic or age categories, there is still a lot of work to be done. I mention that because this legislation is not a silver bullet. I know there are some out and about in the community who feel that this alone is going to solve the smoking issue. I do not believe it will, but I think, actually, it is about a whole suite of activities that will assist and this is a strong one within that role.

I am conscious, too, of some of the counterarguments that have been put forward around intellectual and property rights. Although I can sort of understand that from one point of view, I think it is really important to make the distinction that, in this case, tobacco product owners still own the property rights, or the intellectual rights; they are just not allowed to use them for, I think, very good reason because, ultimately, the public good overrides it.

I think it is important to really stress this is about standardised packaging; it is not about plain packaging. It is not just going to be a black, grey, pink, or blue box. In fact, as several members—and particularly the Minister—have noted, there will be graphic images on these packages. There will be graphic warnings. I think people still need to be reminded of the downside—serious, serious downside—of smoking, but this bill is ultimately about making these packages standardised and taking away from any advantage that could be given by trying to make smoking, via its packaging, more acceptable. I have certainly noted—going back years past, in my university days, different ones who smoked would often be comparing the various brands that they were smoking, and I think we are able to push that to the side.

I think it is also important to note it is not actually a bill that was considered by this current Health Committee. There are members on the current iteration who were there, but I think it is important to acknowledge and note Dr Paul Hutchison as the chair at the time, who took this bill through the committee stage, and to rightly point out the real, positive suggestions he and the team then made. I am going to be interested to hear the New Zealand First approach to this, ultimately, Barbara Stewart, because I note the minority view has New Zealand First opposing it, so I will be interested to hear what is said today.

Finally from me, it is really important for the House to understand too that this bill is relatively simple and high-level. Ultimately, it is about the passing of regulations, and this bill enables that to happen. I think I heard from the Minister—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that it is into July that there is consultation on these regulations.

💬 Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Yeah, end of July.

Yes, end of July. In other words, if you in the listening public or those who are expert in the area are wanting to provide some opinion on what those regulations should be, then you have got less than a month to go. I commend this bill to the House on its second reading.

That was an unenthusiastic contribution from the chair of the Health Committee. I have to say that this is an unusual Government bill in that it was introduced by the Government but the real impetus, the real enthusiasm, for this bill, came from the Opposition—from right back on 18 February 2013, when the Government first decided that it was going to pursue this course of action of introducing plain packaging for tobacco products. That, of course, was a decision not of a National Government Minister—it certainly would never have been a decision of a National Minister—it was the decision of the Hon Tariana Turia.

Of course really, if we are honest about this, the only reason that the Government introduced this legislation was its agreement with the Māori Party, and, boy oh boy, has that Government dragged the chain on this legislation and taken every single possible opportunity to slow the process down. So more than 3 years—more than 3 years—after the Government first decided it was going to introduce plain packaging, here we are, not passing the bill, not passing it into law, not actually beginning the regime of plain packaging—but here we are at the second reading. My goodness, what progress we have made in the last 3 years! Of course we all know why. We all know why, and it is because this Government always prioritises business interests over the interests of the health of New Zealanders. It was concerned that its business buddies were going to sort of give it in the neck for actually doing something that the tobacco companies did not like.

I have to say, of course, all of this is tied up in the business of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and free trade and investor-State dispute clauses, and the threat that the tobacco industry continues to make that it will try to sue the New Zealand Government if this Parliament enacts legislation designed to protect the health of New Zealanders. I have to say that if I was an exponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—which I certainly am not. But if I was someone who was a backer of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and if I was someone who was an enthusiast for investor-State dispute settlement clauses, I would be really hacked off with the tobacco industry right now. This is because the tobacco industry, with its threat to sue the New Zealand Government if this legislation is passed, is actually playing into all the fears people have about what will happen to this country if we sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and if we pass the legislation enabling the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The tobacco industry—the Minister looks confused. The Minister is trying to figure out how this is associated with this bill. He does not do his reading if he does not understand it. This legislation, if it passes, will trigger the tobacco industry’s suing the New Zealand Government under investor-State dispute settlement clauses. That is what people fear—this Parliament not having the sovereign right to legislate in the interests of the public health of New Zealanders because we fear being sued by the tobacco industry, or by any other industry for that matter.

💬 Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: You want me to table the agreement?

Sorry?

💬 Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: You want me to table the agreement so you can read it? It’s carved out.

So this legislation, though, Sam—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Sam Lotu-Iiga, Associate Minister of Health, this legislation—the tobacco industry is threatening to sue the New Zealand Government if this legislation is passed. I am sure the tobacco industry will sue the New Zealand Government if this legislation is passed. That is why the Government has said that it wanted to put this legislation on the back-burner. It is more concerned about business interests. It is more concerned about the tobacco lobby than it is about the public health of New Zealanders. It is more interested in the lobbying from the tobacco industry than it is in the lobbying from people who are interested in the health of ordinary New Zealanders.

Simon O’Connor said that this legislation is not going to be a silver bullet and that, in his view, lots of people out there think that this is going to be the silver bullet. I do not think anybody thinks this is going to be the silver bullet. Nobody came to the select committee and told us that this is going to be the silver bullet. What this is is the next logical progression in a long line of things that this Parliament and Governments have done over the last three decades, nearly now, to steadily eradicate the prevalence of tobacco smoking and the harm that tobacco does to New Zealanders. So we got rid of advertising, we got rid of sport sponsorships, we got smoking out of workplaces, we got it out of pubs and cafes—all of that opposed by National, by the way.

Every single one of those steps was opposed by National, and it was not until the National Government formed an agreement with the Māori Party that it actually started to agree with these types of steps. So I can see why perhaps some National MPs are confused and they think this is the silver bullet, because they have only just realised that they should be on the right side of this debate and actually start supporting legislation that reduces the harm caused by tobacco. Of course it is not the silver bullet. It is just the next logical step, and this Parliament and Governments have been on this pathway for a long time. It is great that National has finally caught up. We are all actually quite pleased about that, and it is a shame really that we have not been able to advance this cause more quickly over the last 20 to 30 years because of the opposition that National has put up at every step when Labour-led Governments and parliaments where Labour has had the majority have sought to legislate in that direction.

This is an important step. What it actually does is it gets rid of the last bastion of tobacco advertising. This has actually been a process that has taken quite a long time. We got rid of what everybody would think of as tobacco advertising a long time ago. We got rid of that insidious, horrible ability that tobacco had to sponsor sports events, which was just crazy because sport is all about health and there could be nothing that is more detrimental to the health of New Zealanders than tobacco, so those two should never have gone together.

Then, of course, we had the tobacco displays, where tobacco companies could use the packaging for cigarette packets as a wall of advertising in dairies and supermarkets. We managed to get rid of those, but, of course, that does not get rid of the fact that, actually, every time a cigarette packet is put out on the kitchen table where kids can see it, that is a form of advertising as well. We do need to get rid of this, and we can actually use those cigarette packets to deliver the message that we actually need young people to see, which is that smoking is not cool. The packaging looks disgusting, it is not the sort of thing that you want to show around in front of your friends, and, in fact, we have got the messages on there describing to young people exactly what the consequences of smoking tobacco are, and over the years it has all been successful.

We have heard from National over the years, we still hear from the ACT Party, and we still hear from others that none of these things is going to be successful and none of it is going to make any difference, but the truth is that we have seen a dramatic fall in the number of people who smoke. We have seen dramatic improvements in people’s health, but we have still got some way to go. There is still a significant, but a much smaller, minority of the population who smoke, but it is still a significant proportion of New Zealanders who smoke, and not only are they doing damage to themselves but they are putting an unnecessary burden on the health system, all so that the tobacco companies can make a profit.

So this is the next step as we head towards being smoke-free by 2025, but it is going to require a continued and sustained effort from this Government and the Governments that come after it. We had a period of a succession of moves to tackle tobacco. We had getting rid of the tobacco displays. We had increases in tax, and that was great while Tariana Turia was the Minister. Sadly, since Tariana Turia left and we have had a diminished Māori Party and a Minister who does not seem to show as much enthusiasm for this as his predecessor did, the wind has gone out of the sails a little bit. This bill has been sitting on the Order Paper a long time and it is a long time since we have actually done anything to maintain that momentum and keep the pressure on the tobacco industry.

So this is the next step. I hope that we do not have as long between the second reading and the third reading as we had between the first and the second because we do need to get on with this. We do need to keep the momentum up. Just because the Government does not have a Minister who has the enthusiasm that once existed in that Government, it does not mean that we cannot keep the pressure on and keep doing this. Come on, let us get this thing through as quickly as we can.

It is a pleasure to be standing and taking a call on this piece of legislation this afternoon. It is not a new piece of legislation, as we are hearing, but it is a new piece of legislation to me. It is part of the goal of becoming smoke-free by 2025. The previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, talked about—you know, we have talked this afternoon about whether it is a silver bullet or whether it is not a silver bullet. I agree that everything we do in this process actually gets us to the goal of being smoke-free by 2025, and this is another avenue, another piece of the puzzle, that is going to help us get there.

We have heard this afternoon about it not being so much plain packaging but standardised packaging. We have heard about some of the gory pictures that are going to be on this standardised packaging. I support that because, honestly, colours and images are the things that make for peer pressure and cool activities amongst our children and our teenagers, and they are the very ones who should not be looking at this type of product and who should not be using it because we all know that the younger that those people start smoking, the more chance they have of getting the diseases and the cancers and the emphysemas and everything else that comes from it.

We talked about standardised packaging. The plain packages will likely feature a single colour - dominated background with pictures on it, and the tobacco brand variant names would be in a very small font, so they will not be out on there in large writing, as they have been in the past. A package will not be showing off who produced it and who has got the brand and created it by a whole wow, but, actually, it will be in just very small writing. We have done a number of moves by actually putting these products away in supermarkets, so that young people do not get to view them in the way that they used to, along with a whole range of things in terms of helping people to stop smoking.

So there is not one silver bullet; there is a whole range of things. It is not easy to tell people to just stop smoking like that once they have started, so it is actually much better if we can stop people getting attracted to it in the first place, and this is very much part of that process. I want to say as well that there have been some conversations in the public world about a black market. It is still very important that anything that goes into a black market around any of this continues to be investigated and continues to be prosecuted. So it is a big pleasure to take a call on this bill this afternoon. Thank you.

I would like to begin this contribution, even though it seems odd because it was such a long time ago, in the usual way in a second reading of thanking members of the select committee and thanking the submitters. Most of those members of the Health Committee, as Annette King has remarked, are now gone, but to the submitters, who are still around, I say thank you. To the officials, also, I say thanks very much for the great work that you did to support us, and thanks to the Minister today, the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.

Much of the impetus for this bill came from the inquiry by the Māori Affairs Committee that came up with the grand goal of having a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025—a great goal that I think is pretty well universally supported by members of this House—and part of what that inquiry realised was that in achieving that goal, we would need to be active across a wide range of different domains. So we would need to be increasing the social marketing around tobacco but also recognising that smoking is not really a rational choice—social marketing by itself is clearly not enough. We needed to be more aggressively increasing the price of tobacco, because there is good evidence of the effectiveness of that. We needed to be extending smoke-free areas—a fantastic initiative from previous Labour Governments, and Annette King has mentioned Helen Clark. I would like to mention Annette King herself as being someone who has very strongly contributed in that area. We needed to be moving into the supply side—licensing retailers for tobacco products.

I have to say that it has been very disappointing to see that, really, we have not increased the social marketing. Prices have increased since the inquiry was finalised, but not nearly at the rate that the experts told us was required. We have not extended smoke-free areas and there have been no supply side controls. But in this one area of plain packaging, or standardised packaging—which is the topic for this particular bill—there has been a bill. And, as Iain Lees-Galloway has remarked, in some ways the idea that sits behind this bill now, with the changed name, is in fact to do away with the last vestige of marketing.

Not so long ago—20 years ago—we could have gone to any sports stadium in the country and seen billboards around the outside advertising Rothmans, Benson and Hedges, or other cigarette brands. Such a sight today would be a total shock to someone who was not exposed to that. I have done an experiment of showing photographs of those stadiums to young people and their eyes widened because they could not believe that that was allowed. What the tobacco companies have done is respond by making their packs mini-billboards for their products. So those cigarette packs littered around our cities—the point of them, from the point of view of the industry, is to market the product.

I mention all of that by way of preamble because we are currently not on track to hit that goal—a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025. That slow action—being a slow follower rather than a leader, on the part of this Government—will ensure that we do not meet that target, so the delay in bringing this bill back to the House is, in my view, inexcusable. I have mentioned Helen Clark and Annette King, and I do also want to particularly acknowledge the contributions of the Hon Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira in the last several parliaments on this kaupapa of smoke-free Aotearoa. Their impetus behind plain packaging was incredibly important. I also want to mention Marama Fox, in fact, and how much I enjoyed Marama Fox walking out of that interview on television at the weekend, with the latest of those big tobacco representatives who have come to our country to try to tell us how we should be making our domestic policy.

I raise that because, as Annette King in her contribution noted, in the select committee we received a lot of submissions. Some of the very worst of the submissions that we received were from the tobacco industry. They were contributions that were frequently amateurish, where the tobacco industry sought to give us a vaguely science-y-sounding or science-y-looking submission. They were from proxies of the industry—people whose research was funded by the industry itself. I found it extraordinary, actually—the amateurish nature of those submissions. I believe that they were amateurish because they were from an industry that is used to getting its own way and that is very slowly adapting to a public policy environment, where it is required to actually front up with evidence. In this case, it is an industry that did not have that evidence. I celebrate, in fact, that that industry has become a pariah industry.

But I want to say something to the members of another submitter—to the members, in fact, of the Food and Grocery Council, an organisation that opposed the plain packaging bill that we are discussing here today and that has, in fact, opposed every single piece of legislation that I have seen in my time in this House that was aimed at reducing harm from tobacco. It is now spreading that same approach to measures that are intended to reduce harm from alcohol and from the food environment. I say to the members of that Food and Grocery Council, who are many more than simply those members from those industries, please think carefully about who you want to represent you and whether you want to be the proxies for those industries.

Although we received some poor submissions, we received some very good ones also. I do want to particularly note the submissions from Hāpai Te Hauora Tāpui, from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), from the Smokefree Coalition, and from the Public Health Association, and say that across many years now those organisations have been the sources of authoritative and useful information to members in this House.

In that connection, I want to say that this House, as we seek to take forward not only this measure but also those other tobacco-control measures that we will need to reach that smoke-free Aotearoa goal, will be the poorer for the Government’s decision to remove the funding from organisations like the Smokefree Coalition and from ASH. That is a retrograde step that I hope the Associate Minister of Health—and I can see he is listening intently to this contribution—will reconsider, because those organisations form a vital part of that public debate on tobacco control. They have an essential contribution to make to reducing the harm from this industry.

Let us remember that every year 5,000 New Zealanders die from preventable tobacco-related illness—600 of those are Māori. And everything that this House can do, everything that the Government can do, everything that civil society can do, to prevent those deaths we should be doing. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have discovered quite an unusual situation. The Associate Minister of Health spoke in this second reading of this bill. I have just noticed that in fact this bill is still in the name of Tariana Turia, and I am wondering whether this House needs to change the name of the Minister on this bill, because it is an unusual situation where a bill we are debating is in the name of a Minister who is no longer in this Parliament, but the Associate Minister is taking responsibility and credit for it.

I will seek leave to change the name on the bill to my name.

I cannot stop the member seeking leave in that way, but I think it would be slightly impractical for staff to go around with twink and sort of—does twink still exist—twink it out while we are mid-debate. Can I encourage the Minister to let me not put that leave. I will indicate to the Hon Annette King that the normal practice is for the name of the Minister to change when the bill is reprinted. We know that this has taken some time, but I think I can remember that even when that member was an honourable Minister of Health, she might have had some legislation herself that stayed in her name even when the Government changed. [Interruption] Order! So I think what we will do, if it is all right with members, is that I will not put the leave, and we will continue. I think we will accept that it is an unusual situation for something to be in the name of someone who is not even a member, none the less.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the second reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this bill to select committee at the first reading because we believed that it was really important to get the views of submitters, which we listened to with interest, and we promised to do that in our first reading speech. It was challenging to get a substantive view of the situation when we listened to the statistics, because it depended on who was presenting the submission to us—whether they were in the industry campaigning for smoke-free, or whether they were actually tobacco manufacturers—as to what the actual statistics were.

There is absolutely no doubt that cigarettes are harmful and they cause a significant number of deaths every year. I was fortunate enough to be a part of the select committee that travelled to Australia to find out a little more about their smoke-free experience—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Sounds like a junket.

No, it was not a junket this time. We found out that from—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Tell us about the other one then, because that’d be a much better story.

We did not do that, so—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

—plain packaging in Australia—the trends showed that there is a downward trend of tobacco consumption in Australia, but that was not necessarily related to plain packaging. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare confirmed that plain packaging does not show itself to be the key factor in this downward trend. Rather, price was the key factor. Of course, Australia is carrying out annual surveys, and its population shows that in the year after plain packaging was introduced the consumption actually increased in most states. Youth smoking actually increased in that time, as well. The researchers from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia analysed the Australian consumption habits and found that “any evidence to suggest that the plain packaging policy has reduced household expenditure on tobacco is simply lacking.”

So the experience over in Australia showed that the Australian tobacco industry actually sold far more cigarettes and tobacco in the first year of plain packaging than it did in the last year of branded sales. In fact, part of that growth was due to a large number of people buying roll-your-own tobacco because it was far easier to actually get. People were buying based on price. That was the cheapest way to go, and it was easier than buying the cigarettes. We believe that people are not stopping smoking because of plain packaging, but only changing the tobacco product that they purchase, and, really, in New Zealand First we would like to see some reduction in tobacco consumption.

Ironically, I was talking to a group of young people and was told that they were not interested in the packets—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That is ironic.

This was a lot of people I was talking to, actually, Mr Bridges, and they were interested only in what was inside the packet. They did not care about the outside, just the inside, and, of course, it is very easy to buy containers to actually put the cigarettes into. They are easily available, so that you do not have to see these diseased body parts when you want to indulge. So it is really easy to get around this plain packaging legislation with very little effort. Most smokers are now desensitised to those pictures on the tobacco packets, so in New Zealand First we believe that a totally different approach is actually needed because those pictures do not mean a lot any more. We know that there should be education—we do not want people to die from cigarette smoking—and so, perhaps, we need to look at ads that are similar to the Tui ads, which actually capture people’s attention. They may be the best for smokers—something along that sort of line.

We also want to know, if we are going to go ahead with this plain packaging because we believe it is improving the health of New Zealanders, whether we are going to apply the same precedent to alcohol, which causes far more harm than tobacco. Are we going to apply it to high-sugar foods, chocolate, energy drinks, high-salt foods, and gambling? All of these are harmful. Why do we not remove branding from these items as well? We know that there are 1.2 million New Zealanders who are obese, costing around about $686 million per year to the health care system. Why is there no action on branding? Likewise, this afternoon the Government was unwilling to ban sunbeds, even though there is a clear link between sunbed use and the development of melanoma. So why is there no sunbed-free New Zealand from 2015, or something?

The Associate Minister of Health talked a lot about smoke-free New Zealand by 2025, and said that implementing plain packaging was going to be the very first step. We do not believe that there is a hope of introducing a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025, particularly if we keep following the path that we are on. If New Zealand is to be smoke-free, why not ban tobacco? It is a legal product. We know that about 17 percent of New Zealand adults smoke, so why not ban the product altogether?

Also, the excise tax on tobacco products raises about $1.4 billion each year, and around $300 million is spent on smoking-related costs. What is the Government going to do to replace the over $1 billion in tax revenue that will no longer be collected if New Zealand becomes smoke-free? Also, for tourism—our Asian tourists are smokers and it will have a negative on tourism. We have had letters saying that tourists will be turned off, unwilling to come to New Zealand because they are not able to practise the habit that they enjoy. How many tourists are we actually going to lose with this stance?

Finally, we know that there is an increase in crime around cigarettes. Young people, in particular, are breaking into service stations and liquor stores, which are being targeted not for the till but for cigarettes. Already in New Zealand we can see an increase in black market activity. We know that the New Zealand illicit tobacco market is estimated at about 8 percent of tobacco products. We are likely to see the same levels of illicit tobacco entering the country. Of course, we have to be aware that people can—and are—growing their own tobacco products and drying them in their own garages and wherever.

We do not believe that introducing plain packaging is the way to reduce the incidence of smoking. There has to be far more than that. In New Zealand First we have always said that we will support good legislation and we will oppose bad legislation. We do not believe that this measure is going to do what everyone believes it will. We will not be smoke-free, we will still have smokers, and we are just wasting our time carrying through this piece of legislation.

Thank you for this opportunity. I am taking a short call to support the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill in its second reading. This bill is to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products, and its aim is to reduce the number of young people who take up smoking and also to help smokers to quit smoking.

This issue of smoking is one that I think is discussed in a lot of households. It is because there is a family member who smokes, or it is because a parent or older members in the family are teaching young people in the family not to take up smoking. This is not the first time that it has been debated here in the House and in the community. I remember those days when smoke packs used to be really fancy and were displayed in cabinets just behind the counter in shops and supermarkets. It was very easy for young people to see the kinds of tobacco products that were available and what kinds of choices there were.

We changed that packaging to the packaging that we have now, which is showing pictures of diseased body parts or organs to show the ill effects of smoking. Also, the display of smoking and tobacco products was then banned from behind the counter so that young people cannot see them, so we can stop them getting attracted to smoking. As part of Budget 2016, we are increasing tobacco tax by 10 percent from 1 January each year for 4 years.

We know that one measure is not going to make New Zealand smoke-free by 2025, and that is why we need a number of measures. This bill is one of those measures. I have already spoken about other measures that we have taken in the past. Those measures plus this measure will definitely give us the desired outcome.

Speaking about plain packaging, it is not really plain. There will be warning signs on packaging as there are now, but logos and colours will not be as attractive as they are now. That will definitely help to reduce the advertising of tobacco products. In Australia, as we have heard from other contributors, this plain packaging regime was introduced in December 2012, and we have definitely seen that this has helped to reduce the number of people who take up smoking.

It is not just one measure. As I said, it cannot be claimed that it was just one measure that gave the reduction that Australia saw. There are a number of measures it has taken, and, similarly, we are taking a number of measures to reduce the number of people who are smoking. We know that around 4,500 to 5,000 people die each year due to smoking-related illnesses. It is 4,500 to 5,000 people who die each year because of smoking-related illnesses, and that comes to 12 people a day. Twelve people a day die because of smoking-related illnesses. If we can save these 12 people from dying, then why not? That is why I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. I am very proud to stand and support the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. Like, I think, everybody, I definitely want a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2021, and I definitely support using all of the good, effective tools that we can to help us get there. For my mother, who is watching, essentially this bill introduces a plain packaging regime for her ciggies that she likes to get, and will punch that marketing right in the guts to stop the appeal, particularly to young people, which is what the evidence shows—I am just referring to my New Zealand First friends—does have an effect. Otherwise, why would the tobacco companies stand with so much kaha to oppose it? Why would they do that if it did not work? There is the evidence—and I find myself checking myself, but I agreed with the Associate Minister of Health when he told the story of the evidence and why it did have a significant and important reduction in smoking rates. I want that, too.

I fondly remember that I received an award in 2006 from Te Hotu Manawa Māori—which used to be a Māori health provider under the ministry, actually—for being a Tāmaki-makau-rau Auahi Kore role model. I liken it to a beauty contest, but for non-smoking. I toured the country as a non-smoking Māori woman, reclaiming our traditional auahi kore status through the power of being Māori women. Something we have known for a long time is that Māori women have featured far too highly in the incidence of smoking. I recall fondly my involvement in that work, and being awarded that award back then. I also recall fondly featuring on a postcard for the Ministry of Health as a pregnant Māori woman to encourage smoke-free pregnancy. So it is my honour to stand here and recall my support in supporting those incredible workers and agencies, who were out there long before I was, trying to get us to auahi kore status.

I want to right now do a big mihi to the Hon Whaea Tariana Turia and her relentless, courageous, and urgent work to try to get us to this point. I acknowledge that she also said very recently—I think last month—that it should have been done earlier. She also dissed it a bit. She said that “Oh well, we’ll wait to see how Aussie goes.” is not actually a way to plan our own laws. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Kevin Hague, who acknowledged my other colleague Marama Fox. I agree with Marama Fox. Those tobacco bullies do not need to be given a platform here in our country, so I want to acknowledge those people, as well. I also want to acknowledge Hone Harawira, who supported and worked with Whaea Tariana to push this through.

I want to talk about the fact that Māori are the group with the most prevalence of smoking, more than any other ethnic group. At 32.7 percent, the rate is more than double the rate of non-Māori smoking—more than double. I heard before some discussion about one of the arguments—tobacco lobbyists want to protect their intellectual property. We have to be more concerned about protecting the intellectual property, the wairua property, and the contribution that people are going to make without having to die from smoking and without having to get sick from smoking. That is the intellectual property that we should be worried about in Aotearoa New Zealand. So I wanted to just bat that one away.

My brother, Boyd Broughton, and my sister-in-law, Jeanine Tāmati-Paratene, work for Action on Smoking and Health and work for smoke-free health organisations. I want to also acknowledge the work of people like them and many others who for a long time have been telling us to utilise all the tools that we can—the effective tools—to get a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2021. That is what I want, too. Kia ora.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. Let us just get a couple of pieces of evidence on the table. One is that smoking is really bad. I do not think there is anyone in this House or anyone listening who is not aware of that. The second piece of evidence, from the only jurisdiction that we can really analyse as to the effectiveness of plain packaging legislation—Australia—comes from its post-implementation review, which, by the way, is a very good thing for countries to do when they make regulations. What it told us is that over 3 years after plain packaging was introduced in Australia there was a 2.2 percent decrease in smoking rates, part of a trend that had begun several decades earlier, and, according to the very reputable econometrician whom Australia employed to do this study, anywhere from 0.05 to 0.95 percentage points of that decrease in smoking could have been because of plain packaging. On average they think that about 0.5 percent of Australians stopped smoking over that period because of plain packaging.

So those are the facts that are not in dispute. At least 0.05 percent of Australians stopped smoking because of plain packaging laws. Those are the things that are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not smoking cessation is the only value that New Zealand holds. I think that there are a number of other values that are important to New Zealand, including property rights and the right of a business to employ its brand.

Some of the speakers earlier in this debate have said that we have the proof that this legislation will be effective because none of the tobacco companies want it. Well, of course none of them wants it, any more than political parties would want to have their brands removed so that they could not compete with each other. Every business wants to have its own brand, so that it can compete with other businesses. So it is simply not true to say that tobacco companies are worried that there will be a reduction in smoking. What they are worried about is that there will be a reduction in their ability to compete with other tobacco companies. They are worried that what they are they going to find is that the tobacco companies that succeed under this legislation are the ones that are prepared to compete on price only. So it is perfectly understandable that the tobacco companies would be opposed to having their property rights confiscated.

We have in this country a tradition that you are free to do what you like, so long as you are not causing harm to others. You might have understood restrictions on banning tobacco advertising if you thought that it was going to be seen by people who had not sought it out and who would be sinisterly influenced by seeing that advertising, even though they were not looking for it. You might accept that argument. But what is put forward by plain packaging is that people will not be able to look at these brands, even though they have actively chosen to see them by asking to have the cabinet in the shop opened and by taking them home and looking at them in their own private spaces.

It is said that hard cases make bad law. It is a hard case. Nobody wants to defend the tobacco industry, but the principles behind New Zealand’s tradition of property rights, freedoms of trade, and the freedom to do as you damn well please so long as you are not harming anyone else are also very important. That is why I am opposed to this bill, which will have a minimal effect on smoking behaviour, as demonstrated in Australia. But it is a major step in eroding our tradition of property rights and freedom to trade. That is something that every legitimate business in New Zealand and every business person listening tonight should be very, very concerned about. The ACT Party proudly opposes this bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I agree with the previous speaker, David Seymour. Companies that do mete out harm, destruction, and death on people who buy their products should be worried.

As I was preparing for this second reading I came across these words—and, if I might, I am going to quote them—from the late Dame Whina Cooper: “Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel. For how the children grow, so will the shape of Aotearoa.” This woman, in her 80th year, gathered 60,000 signatures and led a hīkoi of 1,000 miles, from Te Hāpua in the far north to Parliament. Te Roopuu o Matakite—those with the foresight—was launched at a hui at Māngere marae in early 1975, in response to the relentless alienation of Māori land. The diminutive Dame believed that it was time to unite Māori across iwi boundaries, under the banner of “Not One More Acre”. Her hīkoi encompassed overnight stays at 25 marae, each one mobilising conversation and sparking commitment to the cause.

“Take care of our children.” What does that mean? Forty years on from the land march, we are still marching. We are marching for our mokopuna, marching for them to survive another day. This bill, the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill, continues that hīkoi, for a different kaupapa in a different setting, but in the same vein as all the other marches that took place earlier this week. I have the same passion and energy for this bill as I do for fighting any cause that robs our people of land and life, that erodes our spirit, and that destroys our capacity to be strong, healthy, and alive.

Just to be perfectly clear, there is no safe level of tobacco use. Tobacco use causes many types of cancer, including cancer of the lung, larynx, mouth, oesophagus, throat, bladder, kidney, liver, stomach, pancreas, colon, rectum, and cervix, as well as acute leukaemia. Tobacco use is the leading cause of cancer and of death from cancer. People exposed to second-hand smoke have an increased risk of cancer through access to the many chemicals that damage our very DNA. Tobacco smoke contains many chemicals that are harmful to both smokers and non-smokers. Breathing even a little tobacco smoke can be harmful. Among the 250 known harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 69 can cause cancer.

So I come back to the kōrero “Take care of our children.” My most significant qualification for this debate is that I am a mother of nine children—the most exquisite mokopuna you will ever see on the face of the earth. What we all know is that smoking has been found to harm nearly every bodily organ and to diminish a person’s overall health.

I may have overstepped when I personally attacked an industry baron who came to our shores to promote the use of tobacco. It was a diminishing conversation, and I have apologised to those New Zealanders who took offence at my words, such as “peddler of death” or “corporate executioner”. I was angry, and I take full responsibility for my words and the way that I spoke. But over the last week I have reflected on the reasons for that anger, and they never stray far from home: “Take care of our children.”

A study last year by Dr Rob Young, associate professor of medicine and molecular genetics at the University of Auckland, sets it out in stark clarity. Again I quote: “Lung cancer in Māori is characterised by: Earlier age of diagnosis (6-8 yrs younger) despite comparable smoking exposure; … more aggressive cancer histology and greater susceptibility … to the effects of smoking; Two fold greater mortality …”.

This bill is one more step to give effect to Dame Tariana’s vision of a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025. It is one more step to support an educational campaign increasing our efforts to increase quit rates and be mindful of the risks of lung cancer. If there is one thing I know, it is that people who quit smoking, regardless of their age, have substantial gains in life expectancy compared with those who continue to smoke.

If we do not listen to our own successive Ministers of Health, select committees, professors of medical science and environmental health, Dames, advocates, Māori activists, economists, doctors, and nurses, then perhaps we will listen to international experts. Over the last decade headlines in the international medical journal The Lancet have been consistently compelling. Here they are—this is what those international headlines have said—“Maori have the highest rate of lung cancer of all the populations in the 4 high income countries studied”, “Tobacco control in NZ has failed Māori”, “The country needs Māori to lead a new approach to cutting smoking rates”, and “Māori are treated differently in the health system”. I implore the Minister to ensure that Māori are at the heart of auahi kore initiatives. Take care of what they hear. Take care of what they see. Take care of what they feel.

In the Health Committee commentary the advice is to be straight-up in our use of language, to introduce the wording “quit smoking” and “have quit smoking”. It is a move that I totally support. We must speak the way the people speak, so that everyone understands. The committee also recommends that the cultural effects of smoking be included within the context for introducing plain packaging. I cannot help but think of the greater cultural framework into which this whole debate was kicked off. Smoking had not been a part of the Māori way of life. The first Pākehā to be seen smoking a pipe was Captain Cook. Not much later on sealers, whalers, traders, and settlers would trade with tobacco and pipes as a form of koha and as a form of currency to purchase land. By the end of the 1840s the use of tobacco by Māori was widespread among adults and not unknown among children. It comes back to the land, the whenua; the people, tangata whenua; and, most of all, it comes back to our children, our mokopuna.

Fifteen years ago one of the Māori Party’s founding co-leaders, Pita Sharples, was the champion featured on posters of the widespread campaign “It’s about whānau” to promote smoking cessation. Last year the other founding co-leader, Dame Tariana Turia, was presented with the Luther L. Terry Award for Exemplary Leadership in Tobacco Control at an international conference in Abu Dhabi. The American Cancer Society selected Mrs Turia for her enduring commitment to the health of all New Zealanders and tireless pursuit of a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025.

Today our pursuit of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill follows in their steps, follows in the steps of many others before us, and, most of all, sets out to create new footprints for a world free of tobacco harm. The true face of smoking is disease, death, and horror, not the glamour and sophistication that the peddlers of the industry try to push. Tobacco control measures that eliminate smoking altogether will be the only effective way of reducing disparities. We stand in absolute support of this bill, in rejection of the tragedy that smoking has inflicted and continues to inflict on Māori but, most of all, to preserve our slice of paradise for our children. For how the children grow, so will the shape of Aotearoa.

I do want to commend the previous speaker, Marama Fox, for her eloquence. It was very important to hear the messages that are coming from our Māori community about smoking. I must acknowledge the work of the previous Māori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, because she has been strident and strong and passionate in ensuring that we get to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. There is no doubt that smoking is definitely something that we should seek to be eliminating from our communities.

I had the pleasure of sitting on the Health Committee ably chaired by Dr Paul Hutchison when we were examining this bill. It seeks to do a couple of things. It really seeks to reduce the appeal of tobacco, in particular for our young people. But it also seeks to reduce the social acceptance of tobacco products, and increase the noticeability of those messages and health warnings that we need to get out into the public arena and keep reinforcing. There is no doubt that this measure alone will not effect the change that we want for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. But it is part of a range of measures that started with the Smoke-free Environments Act, when we looked at ensuring that our workplaces were smoke-free and that our places of gathering, such as restaurants and bars, were smoke-free, so those places where we could suffer significant second-hand smoke harm were eliminated or reduced as far as possible.

It is important to note that the emphasis in this is around ensuring that we not only minimise the number of young people starting but also target them as a group that should not start at all. There is no doubt that once you have started smoking, it is very difficult to give up. So if we can make our best efforts to ensure that we stop people from smoking in the first place, that is the best way to go, but our young people in particular need to be encouraged not to take up smoking in the first place. The bill will look at the penalties that are currently in place, and look to increase the penalties for non-compliance. The penalties for current offences will be increased as well.

This bill also looks at ensuring that the property rights issues that the tobacco companies raised during the submissions are continued, so that the tobacco companies can still have their logos on their tobacco products, but the idea is that they will be standard across all products. All tobacco companies will have the criteria for their logos on packaging determined by this legislation, so that in terms of the percentage or the proportion of the packaging itself the logos of the tobacco companies will be reduced. The packaging itself—and this is one of the issues that is raised in the report from the select committee—is not plain. The packaging is not plain; it is standardised, and what will be included on the packaging are health messages. The colour of the packaging will be used as a deterrent, and so will the images and the messages on the packaging. What the bill attempts to do is to standardise that across the range of tobacco products and companies producing those products. So the recommendation by the committee is to change the title of the bill from Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill to the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill.

I want to talk about the Australian evidence. The Health Committee did hear from the Australian Parliament. One of things we heard from the Australians was that the daily rates of smoking for people aged 14 and over declined from 15.1 percent in 2010 to 12.8 percent in 2013. Although it was too early to say that there was a direct correlation to the introduction of plain packaging, it was certainly something to be celebrated, and also out of line with the messaging we had heard from tobacco companies that when plain packaging is introduced, smoking rates actually go up. So it was an indication, even though it was early days in their plain packaging regime, that there was some hope that that could add to the whole continuum of looking to reduce smoking in our communities.

I also want to comment on the fact that as a select committee we encouraged the use of the vernacular. We encouraged the terminology “to quit smoking”, because “quit” is a word that is synonymous with giving up smoking and with the programmes that are associated with giving up smoking, such as Quitline. I think I want to credit myself for insisting that we used Quitline. I want to acknowledge the work of all of those quit coaches out there in New Zealand, and particularly I want to note my sister Tokerau Williams, who taught me a lot about the work that she did as a quit coach for a Māori health provider. I know that using the terminology of the day that is in popular use is unusual in legislation, but I think in this case it actually adds to the ability for us to get those messages out into the community.

I also want to comment on the fact that we ensured that there is a cultural reference within the bill. When we look at the acceptance of smoking in our communities, we must do what we can to ensure that there is a cultural element within the work that we do with regard to quitting smoking. This is because there is no doubt that there are populations and groups that are more susceptible to the message from our tobacco companies—and it is a shame that our young Māori women in particular have taken up the smoking in rates that are the highest amongst our population. So it is important that we do what we can to ensure that we address those cultural aspects.

I want to go back to the notion of the way the packaging will look. We heard from many of the submitters—and there were many Māori providers of quit-smoking services and there were some Pacific providers of quit-smoking services—and they talked about having grown up in homes where the red packet for a particular brand of smoking, or the blue packet, or the green packet was very prominent within the home. They talked about how that kind of subtle reminder of smoking, day after day after day, really influenced their decisions about whether they took up smoking or not. I can recall, when smoking advertising was a lot more prevalent in our media, just how cool it looked to have a cigarette in your hand, so it is important to ensure that we do what we can to reduce those images and make it as uncool as possible.

I should out myself and say that I was a smoker. I was a smoker for 20 years, and I started at a very young age. One of the things that we have ensured in this bill is that we restrict the size and the number of cigarettes that we sell. In my day the local dairy used to sell cigarettes singly, and I am really pleased to see that this bill will look to eliminate those small pack sizes, because it really just encourages young people to continue smoking if it is easy to access cigarettes.

Lastly, I just want to comment on the transitional provisions. We felt on the select committee that 6 weeks for distributors and 12 weeks for retailers was sufficient time for them to look at the reduction of old stock that does not conform to the plain packaging. We did not buy the argument from the Retailers Association that retailers would have lots of the old stock on hand.

In conclusion, this is a good bill. I think the select committee did a good job on addressing a lot of the key issues, and I commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to speak to the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. Plain paper packaging—or standardised packaging, as we prefer to call it—has been shown to reduce the incidence and uptake of tobacco smoking, especially in adolescence.

In 2008 the Northland District Health Board made nine recommendations to the Māori Affairs Committee, and its recommendation 2 talked to this: “Tobacco packaging promotes the attractiveness of cigarettes. The introduction of plain packaging would help reduce that attractiveness and therefore uptake of smoking by teenagers. The tobacco industry knows that plain packaging will be effective in reducing tobacco sales. Introducing plain packs are likely to protect Māori by reducing the attractiveness of smoking.”

So here we have it—this is fundamentally how this works, and I think Dame Tariana really summed it up. It is all about the marketing. In the first reading, she actually said this: “In essence, the decision to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products in New Zealand is all about the branding.”—this is how it works—“It takes away the last means of promoting tobacco as a desirable product. When tobacco manufacturers push tobacco, they are not simply selling a stick of nicotine; they are selling status, social acceptance, and adventure. The design and appearance of tobacco products and, in particular, the way they are packaged influence people’s perceptions about these products and the desirability of smoking. Brand imagery demonstrably increases the appeal of tobacco brands, particularly to youth and young adults, helping to attract new smokers and also implying wider social approval for tobacco use.”

So there are three parts to the branding: there is the background, there is the image, and there is the text. If we look briefly at these separately—let us look at the background first of all. When the Australians deployed plain packaging in 2012, they commissioned a panel of experts who, over 3 months, tried to determine what would be the most offensive background—the background that was most likely to deter and discourage tobacco purchasers. The colour on this paper is what they came up with as the most effective—or the most offensive, if you like—background colour. It is called Pantone 448 C.

💬 Grant Robertson: I’ve got that on my kitchen wall.

Ha, ha! They called this olive green, and all was good until the Australian Olive Association said “No, no, that’s not good. We don’t like the linkage, thank you very much, with smoking.”, and so it was changed to drab dark brown. So this is actually the colour that is now used as a background in Australia. So we have got the background—that is important.

We have then got the image that is used. There is clear evidence that the image has an effect on deterring adolescents, particularly. If we look at the European Journal of Public Health in 2009, they asked adolescents what sort of packaging they were more likely to take notice of—packaging with a picture or just with text, and clearly it was with a picture. So the second part—the image.

Third is the text, and that is a story about the narrative, the font size, the type, and the colour. Again, if we look at the British Journal of Addiction in 2008, before plain paper packaging was deployed into the European Union, they looked at before and after—without a warning label, and with a warning label—and clearly were able to show some effect. So, as Dame Tariana said way back when, this is simply all about the branding—that is its effectiveness.

As other speakers have noted, this is not the silver bullet; this just adds another tool to the armoury combatting tobacco use. And, with that, I commend this bill to the House.