Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill

I move that the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Malo e lelei, in Tongan Language Week. Before I speak on this bill I just want to send my best wishes out to a friend and a colleague, Nikki Kaye, and wish her well for her full recovery from her current ailments. I just want to wish her well and send our love to her.

I want to thank members across this House for the wide support that this bill has received up till this point in time. Today is a historic day, and I do want to acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia for her stewardship of this bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. I have just picked up that when you moved the motion you called it “Plain Packaging”. The actual title of the bill is the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill, so I just ask that you—have you got the copy of that? If you just move that again, and then carry on.

OK, thank you, Mr Chairperson. I move that the Smoke-free Environments (Standardised—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No—“Tobacco Standardised”.

Sorry. I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I want to acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia for her stewardship of this bill in its early stages, and particularly her compassion, her commitment, and her aroha as my predecessor in bringing this bill to the House. I also want to thank the House on behalf of all the individuals, the families, and the communities around this country who see the harm that smoking causes every day and who want it reduced. Also, I want to thank members for voting for this bill on behalf of the young people who will no longer be subject to glamorous branding that may entice them to take up smoking. I also just want to thank all those who work every day in the tobacco control sector—the GPs, the nurses, and the counsellors—who save lives on a daily basis and who work towards the goals that we share in this House today.

We also know that there is no other product that is as widely used and that directly poses as high a level of risk to users as tobacco. This standardised packaging bill is the next significant step to reduce the devastating harm that leads to between 4,500 and 5,000 premature deaths every year. It is true that there are already significant restrictions on advertising and promotion. There are increases in taxation that I brought to this House earlier this year, and we also have a consultation paper out on e-cigarettes, which is being consulted on currently, but we know that much more is needed.

In 1996, 25 percent of adults in New Zealand smoked on a daily basis. Today, that figure is around 15 percent, and we are heading towards 5 percent, which is deemed to be the smoke-free target. This bill takes away the last means of promoting tobacco as a desirable product. It stops the promotion of smoking as cool, fun, and glamorous, and it sends a clear message—a clear message—that this Government is serious about ending premature deaths related to tobacco use. Around 13 people die prematurely every day from smoking-related illnesses—that is, 13 per day.

Since the passing of the Smoke-free Environments Act in 1990 we have seen a shift in the way that tobacco is being marketed in this country. Often the choice of pack design and colours distracts attention away from the important health messages that are contained on packages, which reduces their impact. Standardised packaging ensures nothing on the pack undermines the impact of the mandatory graphic picture warnings. This is a bill to protect children and young people from being tempted to try smoking cigarettes. In far too many cases a quick puff leads to a lifelong struggle with nicotine addiction, with subsequent major health consequences.

For long-term smokers the chance of premature death from a smoking-related cause is over 50 percent. That is a coin toss that no one should have to make. Many of those who die from smoking-related illnesses are still in the middle years of their lives. On average, middle-aged smokers who die prematurely lose over 20 years of their lives. A detailed consultation document was released at the end of June, and in it there are proposals for mandatory health warnings to cover at least 75 percent of the front of the packs. It also proposes to remove all tobacco imagery from packets. Although the proposals allow for brand names to be standardised, they also standardise the way, and how and where, they are printed on each of those packets.

I just want to show an example to the House of what standardised package branding looks like on a potential packet. This is what will make a difference. This type of packet will make a difference to the lives of many New Zealanders. A final decision on those detailed regulations is still to come and will happen after submissions have been carefully considered. We want to get the detail right. We also want a set of regulations that puts the intent of this bill into effect.

When cigarette packs come out of a smoker’s pocket or are left lying around on a table where others can see them, there will be nothing but a drab, ugly background colour and large, prominent, graphic pictorial warnings, as I have demonstrated with this packet next to me. This will put off our young people from taking up smoking and will also help encourage existing smokers to quit. As a consequence it will reduce everyone’s exposure to tobacco smoke and secondary smoke, including those who smoke.

The bill allows manufacturers to print information and brand names on the packs, but only in a tightly controlled way. Along with the existing suite of tobacco control measures and quit-smoking services, standardised packaging is a logical step towards our 2025 goal. In passing the bill, this House will be on the right side of history and in good company with other countries that are going down the same path.

We know that the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, and Canada are at various points in their journey towards standardised packaging. Australia has had standardised packaging in place since December 2012, and in less than 4 years this has already reduced the number of smokers by at least 108,000 people. These results come from an econometrics study published in the Australian Government’s post-implementation review. The study found the move to plain packaging, or standardised packaging, with large health warnings was responsible for 0.55 percentage points out of the 2.2 percentage point decline in smoking prevalence over the study period. In other words, standardised packaging alone was responsible for one quarter of the measured decline, and that is a measure that is making a real difference to our friends across the Tasman. Standardised cigarette packs are already starting to appear on shelves in France and the UK in advance of them coming into full force in January and May of next year, respectively.

We too will have standardised packages starting to appear in New Zealand next year, by passing this bill into law today. They will be stripped of bright colours, and there will be no glamour. The bill will undoubtedly improve the health of New Zealanders and save lives. Along with tobacco excise increases and restrictions already in place, this move towards standardised packaging will help people to quit and prevent others from smoking. I commend this bill to the House.

I too commend this bill to the House on behalf of the Labour Opposition. I agree with the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga that this is a very important day in the fight against tobacco and the use of tobacco and its impact on the health of New Zealanders. We join with the Minister in congratulating this House on reaching the third reading and the final passage of this long-awaited bill.

The Minister has set out what this bill is about. It is about to give effect to a decision that was made on 18 February 2013 to introduce a plain packaging regime for tobacco products in New Zealand. In fact, it was in a speech that the Associate Minister Tariana Turia made on 17 December when she introduced this particular bill. I thought it was worthwhile going back and looking at Tariana Turia’s press release because she has been, and was, a very, very strong advocate for reducing tobacco consumption in New Zealand. She was when she was in the Labour Cabinet and worked closely with me and with Stevie Chadwick to have tobacco control and a number of measures; she continued when she came into coalition with the current Government.

What she said on 17 December 2013 was: “I look forward to taking the legislation through its Parliamentary stages in 2014. That will include a select committee phase and the opportunity for people to make submissions on the bill.” She went on to say the Government was pushing forward with the legislation without delay because it was convinced that plain packaging is an important step and it will stack up against our World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations.

I have quoted those words from Dame Tariana Turia’s press release on the introduction of this bill, and it was her dream that we would have passed this before the 2014 election. Certainly, Kevin Hague, me, and Barbara Stewart—we did our best to try to get it through before the election in 2014. We sat through those submissions. Particularly memorable ones were in Auckland, where we had an overwhelming number of people—the majority, except for the tobacco companies—who came and said we need to pass this legislation.

So, Minister, if I am going to make a criticism at all—and you know it has to be made—it is about the delay in passing this bill.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: It doesn’t. It doesn’t, Annette.

It does need to be made, because although the member opposite, Mr Bridges—“Mr 10 Bridges”—says we do not need to make the point, it does overlook, Minister, how many people’s lives could have been saved by more measures to reduce consumption of tobacco. That is something that I know, from the Health Committee, is very important to members on both sides of the House—an extremely good select committee.

I have to say at this point, and it is perhaps the only time that I will be able to say it, that we are going to miss Kevin Hague. He has been an amazing member of the Health Committee, and, Kevin, I have to say that I was looking forward to, in Government, having you as my associate in health. You would have made a fine Associate Minister of Health. But seriously, Kevin’s influence and impact on health policy in New Zealand has been huge. He brought with him a very down-to-earth, can-do approach to health, and one of the issues he was promoting along with the Health Committee has been this particular legislation.

My disappointment, Minister—it is not this Minister’s fault. I am going to give that to him, because he got the job only late in the piece. He probably wondered how the hell he got it, actually, but he got it late—

💬 Grant Robertson: We were wondering.

And we are wondering. That is true. But he has been hamstrung not by his own desires but by the desires of his Cabinet. This is where Cabinet did not show the internal fortitude that was needed to get this bill through in a timely manner. Unlike Tariana, who said that we are convinced that plain packaging will stack up against our WTO obligations—she said that. She believed that as an Associate Minister. She came up against a Cabinet led by Mr Key and Mr McCully and Mr Joyce that would not allow us to pass this bill just in case the Australians were found to be in breach of WTO regulations.

I sometimes have a dig at the Australians, even though my grandchildren are now Australian, but I have to say that I felt rather miffed that the Australians beat us in a health policy, because we have led them for generations. They have followed much of what New Zealand does because we are a small, nimble nation that is able to do things as a nationwide service. We do not have to worry about state and Federal Governments, and some funding for hospitals, some funding for primary care, and some funding for elder care in different jurisdictions. We can go ahead and put together the sort of health policy we want to implement. They have admired us, and when I went to those ministerial councils, they were a little jealous that we are able to do so much because we are a small, nimble country.

But we were beaten by the Australians in the passage of this bill. They said: “We couldn’t give a damn what the WTO thinks. We believe that the health of our Australians is more important than what some tobacco company might think.” So they went ahead and they passed the legislation. Well, I have to say—

💬 Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Why are you being so political? Celebrate. Annette, just celebrate. Be happy.

Do not worry, Minister. Do not take it personally. Whenever you are in a third reading, you rehearse what has gone before. You say what has happened, and this is what has happened. Minister, your name will be on a piece of legislation, and there are not going to be many members opposite who will ever have their names on a piece of legislation. It will go down in history as a very important tool that was put in place to meet our obligations that we signed up to many years ago under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. It is an important day, but it has to be said that when we come to the next measures to reduce tobacco consumption, let us not wait to see what some other country does. Let us be the first movers—the first movers—not the slow second, third, or fourth movers.

Minister, I know you have got a few other things up your sleeve to try to reduce tobacco consumption. The Minister has told me in written questions that he is interested in stopping smoking in cars with children in them, and I would have thought that would be the next cab off the rank from the Minister. Oh, the other one, Minister, that I hope that you are looking at is stopping duty-free cigarettes. That has been put up as a proposal. Why do we allow people to bring in duty-free cigarettes? There is no gain for New Zealand in that except cheap fags, and we are arguing that they are not good for your health. So there are a number of measures. I am sure you have got some of them there, Minister, and you are going to share them with us over the next year as you run out of time to hold this portfolio.

So well done—well done to this Parliament that we are passing this bill today. It is not the panacea; it is one of the measures, and it is a measure that is going to ensure that regulations can be put in place that will set out the detailed requirements for design and the physical appearance of any packaging used or intended to be used with tobacco products. The Minister has shown us—and, Minister, you might want to hold that up again for people who did not see—the kind of plain packaging, or standardised packaging, we are going to have. For those who are listening, I have to tell them, it ain’t plain. It might be standardised, but it is not plain. It is graphic, and the photographs that will be on tobacco and cigarette packets show what can happen to people who smoke.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate, as I have said, the passage of this bill. But let us not rest here, because we are now being told that unless we take some more measures, that lofty goal of smoke-free 2025 will not be achieved. Already we are falling behind meeting that target in 2025. That is not said by me, but said by those who are monitoring it, Minister. We are falling behind. We will not be smoke-free in 2025—more measures like this will be needed.

I am very pleased to take a call on the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the two speakers and, particularly, the Associate Minister of Health Sam Lotu-Iiga who have spoken, but we have, effectively, just had an issue raised that we are behind the Australians and that we should be the first movers, so I thought I might just attempt to impart a little axiom that might help. It is quite true that the early bird catches the worm, but it is actually the second mouse that gets the cheese. So I think that in this case we are in a good space.

I begin by acknowledging the Minister for the work that he has led to bring this bill to the House—I think in a timely manner but also very quickly. We have moved through a very good and thorough select committee process and so, in thanking the Minister, can I thank also all the members of the Health Committee not only for their support of this bill but also for the process as a whole. As I often try to do as well, I thank the officials and advisers who have played their part.

But I want to also echo Sam Lotu-Iiga’s thanks to those who are working out there in the sector, day after day, to reduce smoking in New Zealand. We have a real and excellent goal in making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025. We in this House have a small part to play in this legislative approach, but it is actually the hundreds, if not thousands, of Kiwis who are working every day in our hospitals, GP clinics, health outreach, and Quitline, who are doing an amazing job. I want to thank too the various public health lobbyists. I am not going to name all of them. There are a good number who have emailed, phoned, tweeted, and the like to me, so I want to thank them for their advocacy as well.

This is an important piece of legislation. This is the legislation that stands beside a whole raft of dynamic approaches the Government has taken. We had some in urgency earlier this year as well, around the Budget—changes there, once again targeting smoking. I think that is important. I was going to say “smokers”, but actually this is not targeted at people per se; it is targeted at the action of smoking.

So one of the first and important elements—and it has come out from both speakers so far—is the whole semantic change between talking about plain packaging and standardised packaging. Fortunately, the Minister has been very kind to give me what is a very dramatic example—this enlarged cigarette pack. Fortunately, packs are not this big, although if we made all packs this big we might actually see a bit of a reduction as well.

Importantly, this is about standardised packaging. We initially had it around plain packaging. It is very clear, certainly for those who can see this visually, that this is not a plain pack. Really importantly, as with current cigarette sales, there are very graphic warnings that are going to be there so people can understand the consequences of what they are doing. What makes it standard though is basically the text and the format, to try to ultimately take away any attraction that can be associated with the difference between brands. I certainly know through talking particularly to young people, but not exclusively to them, that there can be a play-off between different brands: “Well, I am smoking this versus that.” We want to take the glamour away.

We also are very conscious that there is still a battle. The figures overall are very good, and I have said it in earlier speeches that the overall numbers for smoking decline are excellent, but when you de-aggregate, there are some sectors in society that we still have to keep working with. I want to stress that—not working at, but working with. I want to again acknowledge the work that Ministers lead in that space, right across our various age groups and ethnic groups.

I also want to just talk very briefly around what is sometimes called a wash-through period. This is a transition period. Once this bill comes into force and the regulations are in play, obviously this product is still out on the shelves. So, importantly, I think 6 weeks—well, it is a 12-week wash-through period. In other words, from the time when this becomes a law and is in play, there is going to be a total of 12 weeks to get the old stock off the shelves. It is not going to happen overnight. Distributors have about 6 weeks to get their product out into the stores. They have got that 6-week period, and then 6 weeks after that the actual suppliers—so dairy owners, service stations, and the like—have 6 weeks to clear the shelves.

It is something that we have thought about and discussed. I think it is actually a very prudent model. We still respect, to a degree, people’s choices in this space and the need for businesses to prudently destock, but we are looking forward to having this law in play soon. I am very pleased to commend this bill and the Minister’s work to the House.

Phew! We have finally got here, to the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill. It only started 3 years ago and we have moved through the process at lightning speed, and a mere 3 years and 15,000 deaths later, here we are at the third reading of this piece of legislation.

I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time this afternoon because we have already taken long enough getting to this point. But I just want to reiterate what others have said about the importance of this measure. This is about getting rid of that last bastion of advertising. We got rid of tobacco advertising a few decades ago, then we got rid of the tobacco displays, but still, having the packets out on the kitchen table or on the table at the pub was, and is, a form of advertising, and it is important that we eliminate that.

One thing that has not been spoken about so far is the very clever ways that the tobacco industry already uses what limited opportunities it has to advertise. Even things like using different colours—this has been done deliberately to convey particular messages about different brands of tobacco and different brands of cigarettes. So red, for instance, connotes a strong flavour; green is coolness or menthol; white packs connote being low tar. You hear words like “slim” or “mild”, which are intended to project an idea that somehow some cigarettes are less harmful than others.

All of these methods are used to try to encourage people to smoke, and to try to convey incorrect and inappropriate messages about tobacco. This standardised packaging will eliminate all of that. All tobacco packets are going to look the same—all cigarette packets are going to look the same. They will have a different name on them, and that is about it. They will have a very large graphic warning.

The other thing that the evidence shows us—and there is really strong evidence in favour of standardised packaging, no matter what the tobacco industry tries to tell us—is that people who see a plain packet remember the message in the graphic warning a lot more clearly than they do when it is jumbled in with the branding of the cigarette brand itself. That is really important, that we can actually use these packets as a way to convey the messages that we want people to see about the impacts of smoking tobacco—messages like “Smoking can kill you.”, “Cigarettes are addictive.”, or “Tobacco causes fatal lung diseases in non-smokers.”

The messages that we have been putting on those packets for years are actually going to be a lot clearer, now that we will have standardised packaging. It is a lot more than just trying to make them look less glamorous; it is actually about conveying the messages that we want people to hear about this product.

Why do we do this to tobacco and why are we not doing it to any other product? Well, tobacco is unique in that when used as the manufacturer suggests you should use it, it kills half of its users. There is no other product that does that. Yes, other products can be abused and misused, but this product—tobacco—when used as directed kills half of its users. This is a unique product, and it should be treated in a unique way.

I have no qualms about any affronts to the intellectual property rights of tobacco users. I do not know whether David Seymour is going to vote for or against this legislation. He seems to have lost his principles around property rights in the last few days. Maybe he will demand a sunset clause on this piece of legislation.

This is a good move. We have taken long enough in getting it here. Let us crack on and get it done. Let us take the next step in making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025.

It is a pleasure to also be standing here and taking a call on this Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill in its third reading. It is a historic day, as Minister Lotu-Iiga mentioned at the start of the reading. I would also like to acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia. Although I did not work with her in this Parliament, I know it is a very special time for her, knowing that this bill is going through. I would also like to acknowledge the work of previous Health Committees. The Health Committee is a good committee to be part of, and it is good to be standing here today, doing this.

We have heard a lot about people being young and impressionable, and the previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, spoke about the language and calling cigarettes “slim”, and “mild”, and all of those sorts of things. We have been shown the packaging today, and if you look at the likes of some of the language that is likely to be on them in the future—talking about toxic chemicals, talking about damaging your body’s cells, talking about breaking down your immune system, and looking at some of these pretty ugly pictures that are going to be on this standardised packaging—I think it is really important for our young people to be seeing that on a regular basis. It is that space repetition, and if you are constantly engaged in language, or are looking at graphics of something that looks very, very bad, then it is going to ultimately—hopefully—put people off.

So it is really important that these messages and these pictures get across. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and health loss in New Zealand. We have heard that up to 5,000 people die prematurely every year. It is avoidable. It is something that we can save, not only for our health system but we could actually save lives. I am sure that every family in this country who has lost somebody to lung cancer or some other form of cancer could identify with this. Not only that, there are also people who currently are living with emphysema and with some diseases that are really, really not nice to live with.

The day that we get to smoke-free Aotearoa 2025 will not be a day too soon. It is still a wee way away yet, but I think we have to work together collectively, and we have to make a really big effort to make that happen.

I also would like to say that the only term that we are using is “standardised”. We have made it pretty clear that it is not the word “plain”. The reasons that we have used “standardised” have been well explained today. Thank you.

As I think members know, I will be leaving this House in a couple of weeks’ time. I would like to thank the Hon Annette King very much for her kind words in the debate, and I also thank the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the Associate Minister of Health, for doing me the favour of bringing this bill back so that I could speak on it one last time before I go. It is great to be able to see this bill enacted before I leave. It also gives me one last chance to give the House a bit of a lecture on health promotion—you know I cannot resist the temptation.

The fundamental thing about health promotion is the understanding that people do not change their behaviour because of information, by and large. So the idea that “Homo economicus”—the rational economic decision-maker—will translate Adam Smith’s 1776 theory into their health behaviour and weigh up the pros and cons of different behavioural choices, and thereby choose the option that is going to produce the best health results, is just nonsense. It does not happen that way.

If one thinks about the processes of choosing food, or smoking—as in this case—or alcohol, or sexual behaviour, these are not, in fact, rational choices. So imagining that we can change people’s behaviour by giving them better information is fooling ourselves. It turns out that the things that do actually work empower those communities that are most affected by health problems. Those communities will tend to be most affected not only by one particular health problem but by every health problem. There is a clustering of health problems in particular communities that are marginalised and, as it happens, those same communities will be particularly adversely affected by problems in education, or justice, or social development. So empowering communities to design and implement their own interventions is one of the fundamental things that we can do.

The second thing that we must do—and this applies particularly to this House, to Parliament, to the Government—is that we must create supportive environments around those communities through legislation, public policy, social and physical environments, and economic environments. That is the formula.

As Iain Lees-Galloway has said, in this bill we are dealing with standardised packaging. We are removing the last opportunity that tobacco companies have had to market and advertise their products through visual means, using the very packets that their products come in. So this is an intervention that is about creating an environment that is more supportive of good health outcomes.

Other speakers in this debate have talked a little bit about the history of this country, of Aotearoa, being a leader in tobacco control public policy. It is a legacy that political figures from several parties actually have the right to feel proud of—for example, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, the Hon Annette King, Stevie Chadwick was mentioned, and, appropriately so, the Hon Tariana Turia, Hone Harawira, and Tau Henare. Actually, I want to also praise Paul Hutchison, who had a history of crossing the floor of the House to support sensible tobacco control measures. That was a brave thing for him to do.

But I wonder now, after all the delay on this bill, whether the delay was caused not so much by the Government being scared of being sued by tobacco companies, as the Government said at the time—using investor-State dispute settlement provisions and going through proxies in the World Trade Organization—but whether it was not prepared to be the leader any more, like the kid in the classroom who does not want to be the first to put their hand up. Actually, we have seen this in other areas of public policy as well, where our country has moved from being a leader internationally, or even a fast follower, to becoming a slow follower, a laggard, internationally. That is a change that I regret.

In that fine tradition of leadership I wonder where the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is going to rank—and, Minister, I urge that you step up to that leadership role because the goal of having a smoke-free Aotearoa 2025 is a laudable and necessary goal. We have just heard Barbara Kuriger, in fact, from the Government side, eloquently making the case for urgency in tobacco control and for a comprehensive suite of measures, yet we have had a Government that has said no to many of the measures that could have taken us there. We have had a Government that has dragged its heels on this bill, on this measure, which actually had a really important contribution to make. So, Minister, I hope that you will be the person who will lead us in that comprehensive plan for tobacco control and to achieve a smoke-free Aotearoa, because right now we are not on track for doing so.

That plan has got to include things like smoke-free cars, like smoke-free parks, and like licensing retailers of tobacco products. It has got to include the public health advocacy—and it was interesting to hear Simon O’Connor praising the public health advocates that he has been hearing about in relation to this bill, because the Government has chosen to cease the funding of most of those public health advocacy organisations. The people whom Simon O’Connor has been hearing from probably do not have jobs any more. The plan also needs a massive injection of funding into services for quitting smoking, and I look forward to seeing that from the Government. To do that, to show leadership in achieving a smoke-free Aotearoa 2025, will require considerable courage.

In the submissions that the select committee heard, the ones from the tobacco companies themselves and from their proxies were notable because they illustrated a strategy that the tobacco industry has followed since the 1950s, when Doll and Hill first conclusively showed the link between tobacco consumption and lung cancer. First of all, tobacco companies denied that such a link existed. They then tried to throw into the mix their own research, to add confusion to the picture. We actually see the sugar industry following precisely that path now, and we see the oil and fossil fuel industries doing the same on climate change. They are following the game plan of the tobacco industry, and right now the tobacco industry has got to the point where the phase of the strategy they are pursuing is delayed.

So that is what sits behind the delay that we have seen on this bill. The tobacco industry, which has opposed every single measure intended to curb tobacco-related harm in this country, will do the same on all of those other measures intended to reach a smoke-free Aotearoa 2025. It will require leadership and courage from the Government to stand up to those tobacco companies. Does the Government have that? I wonder.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill. I think that in this House today all of us are in agreement as to the damage that smoking can actually inflict on one’s health. We all know somebody who has been affected in some way. Whether it is cancer, whether it is heart disease, or whether it is lung disease, we know someone who has been affected. However, as New Zealand First has said all along, we are opposed to this bill.

From the very beginning, when this legislation was first introduced back in 2013, New Zealand First voiced our concerns about the lack of clear evidence to demonstrate that plain packaging itself was effective. We also talked about the unintended consequences we could foresee that were likely to happen when this bill comes into law. We are quite perturbed at the expenditure that is being directed towards a legal product. We have to remind people that $1.6 billion in excise tax is going into the Government coffers every year, and this is due to rise to $1.8 billion in 2020. There is a clear ulterior motive here, and it is not public health, as it should be. Those dollars could be invested into smoke-free programmes.

In New Zealand First we remain unconvinced that plain or standardised packaging is effective in reducing the level of tobacco consumption. The evidence from Australia, which introduced plain packaging in 2011, indicated that there has been a steady decline in tobacco use over a long period of time and, basically, that plain packaging has no real effect on that. A survey that I read showed that four out of five states had actually increased rates of tobacco use in the year immediately following the introduction of the legislation: Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and South Australia all showed increases. South Australia’s tobacco usage rose from 16.7 percent to 19.4 percent.

What they found over in Australia was that there was a different way of using tobacco. People’s tobacco use continued, but rather than buying packs of cigarettes, people were purchasing roll-your-owns. Basically, they were purchasing based on price. So we do not believe that the evidence is sufficiently there to support this bill. Additionally, we are concerned about the potential increase in illicit tobacco, which is currently estimated to be about 8 percent of tobacco sales. We believe that it is likely to increase as a result of this legislation and the continued increases in excise tax.

In all the time that we have spent in this House looking at this legislation, we believe that we have underestimated the intelligence of smokers here in New Zealand. Many of them will go out and buy their cigarettes; they will also buy packages to put them in. I myself know of people who go out and repack their cigarettes into something that is different from the cardboard packet. From the smokers’ point of view, it is easily solved—I know this, as I have already been told it. I cannot say that I have seen it, so I will not be saying that. We also know that these cigarette packets carry very graphic health warnings—horrible pictures with the adverse effects of smoking. However, over a period of time, people do not even notice these pictures. Therefore, making these images a little bit bigger is not really going to have the effect that it should have.

Education on the harms of tobacco smoking is what is really required in this particular instance. So, if we are doing it for cigarettes, why are we not doing it for other products that are causing New Zealanders harm? We know that there are a lot of them: alcohol, sugar, fat, and salt. Many of us can be considered to be obese in New Zealand, and that actually costs the health system a conservative $868 million every year. So why are we not targeting some of these other products? We believe that it is an area that demands attention before it is too late. We owe it to our health. We owe it to the health of Kiwis, and we know that the health system is already struggling to cope.

In New Zealand First we are very concerned about the harmful effects of alcohol on our society. We know that it is hazardous. We know that the hazardous rate of drinking is actually increasing year upon year, and it is alcohol that causes so much more harm than tobacco. So why is the Government not focused on this as well? If the Government is so concerned about our health as New Zealanders, why did it not support the introduction of a complete ban on sunbeds earlier this year, when it had the opportunity?

We have heard supporters of this bill say that tobacco companies use packaging to make their products more desirable. Yet, when we go into a shop—into a dairy, into a supermarket, or even into a petrol station—we do not see any packets of cigarettes or any packets of tobacco because they are in a locked cabinet, away from the public’s view. I understand that people say that a few cigarette packets left lying around may entice young people to smoke, but if they are going to smoke, they smoke anyway, because most of them—and I have seen it myself—do not smoke the packet; they smoke what is inside the packet. That is what is attractive, not smoking the actual packet. We were quite concerned—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: You don’t want to smoke the packet, Barbara.

No, we will not smoke the cardboard.

We put through two Supplementary Order Papers to try to ensure that there was reasonable lead-in to this legislation for the manufacturers and for the dairy owners, but, of course, that got voted down. We know that many of these businesses are quite dependent on the sale of tobacco products and it is difficult to estimate the quantity that is required. I will emphasise for Mr Bridges that we are not in the back pocket of the tobacco companies, or in any pocket. We sought to introduce common-sense measures to ensure a smooth transition when this bill comes into force.

I would like to conclude by saying New Zealand First does not support this bill. We know that smoking is a huge issue, here and around the world. We know, too, that the goal of a smoke-free New Zealand in 2025 is just about impossible. We know that we sell a lot of cigarettes at the border, and that we depend on tourists to come in. Will they follow our law in this area? We do not believe they will. We will be following this legislation and its introduction very closely and we will be looking at the subsequent smoking rates, and also looking to determine whether or not this legislation is going to slowly creep into other products that are harmful for all New Zealanders. Thank you.

It is good to see that most of the parties around this House want to do something to reduce the incidence of smoking. I was very distressed to hear Barbara Stewart’s speech because she seems to be proposing—in fact, the member just said—that New Zealand First does not support measures that are intended to reduce the incidence of smoking. Surely I did not hear right. Surely I did not hear that New Zealand First does not support measures to reduce the incidence of smoking.

Do we not know that smoking is highly addictive? Do we not know that almost all smokers take it up at a young age—9-year-olds, 10-year-olds, 11-year-olds? Do we not know that a high proportion of young people who take up smoking go on to become lifelong smokers, suffering then not only the expense but the deteriorating health issues, serious disease, and, in many cases, premature death? Do we not know that? Is that not a fact? Do we not want, therefore, around this House, to do everything we can to prevent youngsters from taking up this highly addictive and expensive habit? And why does this whole House not support this bill, which does exactly that?

The last remaining avenue that this House has—well, at the moment; we might think of something else—is to shut down the advertising of this product. Plain packaging achieves that. I simply do not accept the argument put forward by Barbara Stewart of New Zealand First that it does not matter whether there are branded packets of cigarettes lying around for young people to see, and that they are going to stuff them into other boxes—like, really? Are people really going to stuff cigarettes into other boxes? Come on! That argument does not hold water.

What we need to hold on to in this House is that any measure that gets us closer to the goal of being smoke-free in New Zealand by 2025 should be supported, should be strongly supported, and should be supported by this whole House, as it is by this Government. Thank you.

I rise to take a short call for the Greens on this bill. I am a quitter. I quit regularly. I remember the first cigarette I had. I was around about 10 years old. Every, every, every, every time the Government has moved to make smoking more difficult, I have welcomed it. Tobacco kills—we know this. That is why we support this legislation for standardised packaging.

I know that it has taken a long time to get to this last reading, and that this bill was originally introduced in 2013, but we welcome its passage, because half the people who smoke will die from it. It costs our country enormous amounts of money to deal with people who are suffering the effects of smoking, and that is not counting the people we lose along the way, and their potential.

I was raised at a time when smoking was normalised. It was advertised as a glamourous type of occupation. That glamour was used to attract and hook new customers. The tobacco industry has to attract new customers—of course it does, because half of those customers die. So I am a quitter—I keep quitting. Over 40 years I have quit many, many times, and over 40 years I have gone back to smoking, so I am living proof of the comments that my colleague Kevin Hague made about behavioural change not necessarily happening from simple measures but being an ongoing task. It is an ongoing task for the Government to continue to put measures in place that protect our citizens from smoking, because the tobacco industry needs more customers. Our job is to protect our citizens from dying, and that means we need to reduce the number of customers that the tobacco industry hooks.

As a quitter, I welcome every move the Government has made to discourage young people from picking it up and becoming smokers, and I welcome every move that discourages current smokers and encourages them to quit. I remember the Smoke-free Environments Act being introduced in 1990, and the start towards a smoke-free Aotearoa New Zealand. I remember the banishment of cigarette advertising from the sports arena, and that was a major thing as well. I remember, and I support, the introduction of graphic images and messages stating the reality of what happens to a smoker’s body, and having those images on the cigarette packets—I absolutely support that. I supported, and I continue to support, the fact that retailers cannot show cigarettes for sale in their shops. I support every single price hike we have ever had that takes smoking out of the reach of affordability for young people and acts as a further discouragement for people like myself.

I am a quitter, but I remember that my mum used to smoke Matinée Kings. It was glamorous—it had yellow packaging—and she felt glamorous when she smoked her 25 cigarettes a day, and she died at 64. I also want to reference the cigarettes that my sister smokes: Holiday. It is self-evident what the message is there from the brand, and brand is important. That is why I personally support this legislation.

The Greens support the legislation for standardised packaging because we want a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025. Thank you.

I come to this House to say hallelujah, hallelujah, and—one more time—hallelujah. I am going to congratulate the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga on his procrastinated bravery. The Government has finally come to its senses, and we stand here to pass the plain packaging legislation that was introduced by my predecessor, Tariana Turia. I am not going to take too much out of the Associate Minister, because actually we have engaged in some very good conversations about where we can go and the 10-year road map to take us to 2025—oh, except that a year has gone by since we started that conversation, so now it is 9 years. But that is all right. We are going to put some plans in place to bring us to that point.

But we are here today to celebrate the fact that we are going to usher in the next step, the next stage, for plain packaging and the fight against tobacco. And why? Everybody knows why: because half of smokers—as the previous speaker, Denise Roche, said—will die from smoking-related illnesses, and the other half will be sick. Of those people who smoke, half will die; half will be sick and lead debilitated lives.

Six million people die annually around the world from smoking-related illnesses. Recently, yes, I was confronted by the spin doctor who gets to trek from country to country to country. Everywhere a country wishes to make legislation to cease the march to the urupā, this man is sent around the world to try to dissuade the conversation, to convince people that the black market is going to open up and people are going to be hurt and, therefore, we should not do anything. We should just stop. We have been accused of being a kuia State. Well, I tell you now, to those members who accused us of being a kuia State, that our kuia were not impressed that they were being used in a derogatory way like that. They asked me to make that point clear, and so I do. We should be proud to be considered kuia in this country, because they are knowledgable, they are wise, and they have made it to that status because they are still alive.

There are a number of our whānau who are not alive. Just last night I was visited by Campbell Knox, who, 2 months ago, buried his darling wife, who had smoked for 40 years. He came to bring me his wishes to tackle tobacco control in this country. He said she tried everything. She was non-stop trying the e-cigarettes, she tried the patches, she tried cold turkey. She tried every cessation method out there and could not kick the habit, and eventually she died trying. Today I want to remember her and remember that conversation with her husband. Her name is Memory. Her husband said to me: “Marama, we must do more for our rising generation, so that they don’t have to make the choice that my wife could not.” The incentive for our rising generation is an incentive of hope and the brightness of a future where young people today do not have to choose to give up, because they never started. When we put taxation in place, we put it out of the reach of young people to spend $20 to $30 on a packet of cigarettes.

We must make further steps. If we pass legislation after the procrastinated bravery—but bravery none the less—of bringing in plain packaging, well, what about cars with children being smoke-free? What about voluntary smoke-free communities? What is the next suite of activities that we can herald in to ensure that our young people do not face the same future as Campbell Knox’s wife, Memory, who spent the last 2 years clinging on to every minute to try to spend some more time with her children and grandchildren? I commend the bravery of the Associate Minister to the House, along with this bill.

I too want to join with colleagues across the House who are supporting this third reading of the bill. I had the privilege of sitting on the Health Committee in the last Parliament, and during the time that this bill was being considered by the select committee in the last Parliament we also had an opportunity to visit Australia. The Health Committee was chosen to participate in a visit to Australia, and one of the things that the select committee focused on was discussions with various health organisations in Australia, and also the Australian Department of Health.

At that stage it had not actually been very long since the plain packaging legislation in Australia had been introduced, back in December 2012, I think it was. So at that stage the results were really still out in terms of whether the impact had been as great or as widely spread as was expected. I noted just recently that since that visit, actually, the statistics that have come out of Australia are now undeniable. Back in July of this year Kylie Lindorff from Cancer Council Victoria visited New Zealand. She was able to present to the public of New Zealand some really, I thought, useful statistics. Amongst them was that since Australia’s introduction of a similar regime to the one that we are about to implement, that legislation has now been credited with the largest drop in smoking rates in 20 years in Australia. It is simple, effective, and very meaningful.

Kylie Lindorff went on to tell New Zealand media that what Australians still refer to as plain packaging but we are now calling standardised packaging is working much better than they had ever expected. The number of Australians smoking since the introduction of that legislation had dropped by 13 percent in 2 years. It is perfectly logical to assume that we could expect similar results here in New Zealand.

Studies in Australia have shown since the introduction of its legislation that at least a quarter of that drop is down to making the cigarette packaging unappealing to the eye. When the select committee was considering and hearing submissions from a number of submitters, one of the submissions that I remember being of particular interest was from a graphic designer who gave us evidence on exactly what the packaging should look like. Of course, we came very quickly to an understanding that “plain” was not the right term. If we are to think about carrying this legislation further, we might like to, as a House, consider at some stage the actual cigarette sticks themselves. There was actually some quite compelling evidence that showed that if we were to change the cigarette stick from being white with a cork-coloured butt filter—imagine, if you will, a khaki, or a horrible colour. I dare not mention a colour, because it might—

💬 Hon David Parker: Your tie—National Party blue.

Oh, no. I was thinking more of a khaki green or a shameless red, or something like that, with a black butt. If we were to change the cigarette colours to that then, in fact, that might have a further positive impact in terms of reducing smoking.

This is a good bill. I am very pleased to have been part of the select committee process that has brought it to the House. It has been a good process. I commend it.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very delighted to be able to speak in the third reading of this piece of legislation. This is a historic day. I do commend all of the contributions that have been made, even the contributions from New Zealand First, because there are different perspectives and views on tobacco control. But, certainly, when it comes to this piece of legislation, you cannot argue against it.

It is so ingrained in our culture that smoking is bad and smoking kills, and this is just the next step. This is just the next step that we need to do to reach our 2025 smoke-free goal. I want to commend, as we have heard throughout the contributions today, the whakapapa. There is a long whakapapa—history—to this legislation and to tobacco control measures across this country, from the Labour Governments through to the present Government, although, I must say, it has taken a while. It has taken a while to actually get to this third reading. I understand it was initiated in the last Parliament—you know, it has taken a few years. But it is no surprise—no surprise.

I am sure there may be a connection that two members of the current Government—National members—have been paid tobacco lobbyists. So draw all the inference, whatever you may, from that. But the fact that there has been such a long delay—I would not be surprised if quite strenuous debate and effort has been going on internally to delay and to hopefully prevent the passage of this bill, but, fortunately, that has been unsuccessful.

We have heard the heralding of angelic hallelujah and praise come forth from my tuahine over there, Marama Fox, and I too acknowledge her joy in the passage of this legislation. In terms of “kuia State”—I admit, that was one of my best tweets, ha, ha! We have got to read it in context, and we also have to look at things from the wider perspective of our people, the impacts that it has on them, and their desire to maybe have some enjoyment—granted, though, that this is not the way to achieve that. All I am going to say is that that is satirical, maybe comedic—a bit of a jab here. It does not detract from my wholehearted support for this bill. Have I gone over time, Mr Assistant Speaker? I have not.

I do want to hit on a very serious note, because I have been concerned that this bill, I believe, does not close down the purchase of tobacco-related products on the internet. How do I know? Well, I have done it, not once, not twice, but three times. I have ordered tobacco—little cigars, cigarillos—on the internet. They have come through and have not even been stopped by the Customs Service. Only one package was stopped. These are private importations that anyone can do—jump online. I am very concerned that the Minister of Customs has not clamped down. There should be restrictions. There should be restrictions on the importation, otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of actually having tobacco control. So that is one challenge that I want to put to the Minister—to really close that loophole.

I am not a smoker, but in receiving this assortment—this colourful array of flavoured cigarillos—what was I to do with them? What was I to do? In a generous gesture, I knew that a certain leader of a certain party in this House quite enjoys having the odd puff, so I generously gave a koha of these little cigars to such a leader. I will not name particular names. I am sure that they went through an intermediary. He did not acknowledge them, but I did get a response back that he did appreciate them and he did enjoy the flavour of that particular koha.

In all seriousness, this is a very commendable bill and I do support it wholeheartedly. Kia ora tātou.

Kia ora. It is a little bit hard to follow my colleague Rino Tirikatene, after that very useful contribution—very useful contribution—to this debate. Firstly, some acknowledgments. I want to acknowledge Dr Paul Hutchison, who led the Health Committee when we first heard the submissions on this particular bill. I want to acknowledge Hone Harawira and Dame Tariana Turia for their pioneering work in getting us to the point where we are about to have the third reading of this particular bill.

There are a couple of points I want to make. The first one is the use of the vernacular “quit” in the legislation. It is something that I was really happy to advance, because the vernacular “quit” is something that we now associate with giving up smoking, with smoking cessation. We all know about quit coaches, we all know of Quitline, we all know about quitting in reference to smoking cessation, so I am really pleased that this piece of legislation has responded to the use of “quit”—the vernacular; the common term of the day—so that we know what we are talking about in this legislation.

The other thing I am pleased about is the use of the term “standardisation”, as opposed to “plain”, because the whole purpose of this bill is to reduce the impact of tobacco companies’ influence on the kind of latent advertising that is the packaging of cigarettes. So standardising the packaging really neutralises the impact of the individual tobacco companies’ influence on that packaging. The standardisation also refers to the types of messaging, the types of graphics, the size of the font, and the colour of the packaging, so all packaging will be very similar. The tobacco companies will still be able to put their name on it, but it will be in a format that is standardised across all of the products.

The importance of this piece of legislation is about prevention. It is not necessarily about getting people who are currently smokers to give up. That is not really the full intent of it. It is really about prevention. It is about ensuring that we prevent our young people from taking up smoking in the first place. There is one thing I do want to say: I am the daughter of smokers. Both my parents smoked, and both my sister and I were inevitably going to become smokers because we were in the environment where smoking occurred. But one of the biggest things that motivated me to change—I think many of us in this House who are parents will know that our children are the greatest motivators for change in our lives. The day that my daughter said to me “Don’t do that anymore, Mum, that’s yucky.”, was the day I said: “You know what? She’s right.” The other thing she said to me was: “I don’t want you to die.” That was pretty compelling.

The reason standardised packaging is so important is that we want our children to get the message really early on that smoking is “yucky”, because they will motivate their parents to change and they will not take up smoking themselves. That is really important when we look at Pacific rates of smoking, which have really gone through the roof. We want our children to motivate us as parents to change, and also to be leading the charge by not taking up smoking themselves. So I really commend what is happening with the standardised packaging—with the graphics and with the messaging. At the Health Committee we heard stories from previous smokers about the old packaging that they used to see in their homes—the colour of the packaging and how compelling that was. I am really pleased that the prevention aspect of this legislation will go ahead.

The one thing I do want to say in conclusion is that yes, I too was concerned when the select committee had done all this work and we were delayed in bringing the bill back to the House. There were a couple of reasons that were promoted. The first one, of course, was the impact of the litigation that was going through the World Trade Organization at the time, and the other one, which my colleague has rightly pointed out, was perhaps the significant influence of the tobacco lobby in delaying the passage of this bill. I can only surmise that it may have something to do with two current members of the House. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take this, the last call on the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill. I too would like to acknowledge all those who have got it to this point in time, this momentous point. This bill adds further tools to the anti-smoking tool box, and if we look at some of the anti-smoking interventions that we can be a part of as legislators, it sits beside excise tax increases and smoke-free environments legislation.

Every speaker here today has talked to the imagery and advertising that is at the core of this bill. Dame Tariana Turia went further and said: “When tobacco manufacturers push tobacco, they are not simply selling a stick of nicotine; they are selling status, social acceptance, and adventure.” This bill uses imagery to convey the messages we want to convey, and the facts as we understand them. This bill changes tobacco’s status, social acceptance, and adventure. It changes it from what we heard from our colleagues in the Greens—the “glamour and the hook” were the words that were used. It changes it from the images of the Marlboro Man, the independent, rugged cowboy of the 1950s and 1960s—one of the most effective advertising campaigns ever, with what is considered maybe some of the most iconic and behaviour-changing influences ever in American society.

But, you know, things did not actually go well for the six people who acted as the Marlboro Man. At least four of the Marlboro Men actually died of smoking-related diseases. Eric Lawson, who was the Marlboro Man from 1978-81, started smoking at 14 and he died at 72 of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. David Millar was a Marlboro Man. He died of emphysema, another smoking-related condition, at 81. Wayne McLaren, tragically, died at 51 of lung cancer. David McLean died at 73. He died of lung cancer also—another Marlboro Man—and in his 1996 lawsuit it stated: “The commercials were very carefully [constructed], and David McLean was required to smoke up to five packs per take in order to get the ashes to fall a certain way, the smoke to rise a certain way, and the hand to hold the cigarette in a certain way.”

Standardised packaging removes all that imagery. We know that standardised packaging is effective. We also have the benefit of learning from the Australian experience—a 10 to 25 percent decrease in tobacco consumption—and I am pleased to see the images that we have here, which my colleague has shown today, to see what our eventual product is going to be like. But as we are extracting from the Australian experience, I was keen to see what it is actually doing. I was not part of the Health Committee, which visited, so I had a family member, who has an environment where there are smokers, send me some images of what Australian cigarette packets look like. They are very similar to ours—images of heart disease with a message, really compelling images, and, on the back, statements about why smoking is clearly harmful to you. It is quite desperate when it shows children on oxygen masks.

The Australians have been using this since 2012, again, as my colleague said, to get that sort of decrease. I would like to contrast this with what my colleagues across the House said. I do believe the Australian experience. I do believe that standardised packaging does decrease tobacco consumption. In summary, this is an important addition to the tools we have to prevent smoking. I commend everyone who has any sort of commitment to smoking to fall in line with this very important legislation. Again, I thank everyone who has got it to this stage. I commend the bill to the House.