Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take my call on this, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First stands in support of this bill and acknowledges the work with the Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa, working together with this to progress this bill, because it is important for the health of all New Zealanders that we take this bill through all its stages.

The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill introduces vaping regulations that strike the right balance between making sure vaping is available for smokers who want to use it as a quit tool while ensuring that these products are not marketed or sold to children and young people. So this bill will achieve a few very important things. It will ban the sale of vaping products to under-18-year-olds. It will prohibit the advertising of vaping products and smokeless tobacco. It will restrict the sale of flavoured vaping products and e-cigarettes to R18 specialty stores and will limit the general retailers—including dairies, supermarkets, and service stations—to only selling three flavours. Also, and probably more importantly, it will introduce a product safety system which enables the Ministry of Health to recall, suspend, and issue warnings about vaping products.

As a member of the Health Committee, I’ll be very pleased to hear the submissions that will come to us, as we all are, in the Health Committee, I think, in agreement that this bill is very much needed and timely as well. Just making note of the Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa’s comment, as she set out in her statement this morning, that the public health in New Zealand has battled against smoking and tobacco for decades, and that Governments of all descriptions, in fact, have pursued and progressed policies that sought to reduce the harm, the deaths, that come from smoking-related diseases inflicted on our communities.

The areas that I’d like to talk to in my contribution today relate around flavours and advertising in particular. Vape flavours, really, have come about as some sort of creative writer’s dream. They must sit around thinking up really cool names for these flavours: Nectar of the Dragon; Banoffee—bit of a dessert one, that one; Bad Blood, which is “Exotic blackcurrants and a chilling sensation that will excite the tongue”. Maybe there’s going to be a New Zealand flavour: Chur Bro. Even the musical genre is part of vaping flavours: Afternoon Delight.

Advertising, and in particular cigarette advertising, goes way back to the 1950s. Marlboro advertised and they had a campaign which had more influence on society than any other advertising campaign. Originally, Marlboro was a women’s brand of cigarettes, and it targeted women because they had these filter tips, because they knew in the 1950s that, actually, there was harm from smoking cigarettes. So they first of all targeted women by saying “Ivory tips to protect the lips”. They also went on with the Camel cigarette brand to have doctors used in advertising, and their slogan was “More doctors smoke Camels”. So we know that advertising is a really powerful tool to change the minds and persuade the populations.

So what they did with Marlboro was that they used macho, masculine types of characters, and then eventually they settled on the cowboy because he was a strong, hard-working, silent man in a hat, with spurs. They had this tagline: “Come to where the flavour is. Come to Marlboro country.” Now, the influence of this advertising campaign saw Marlboro become, in a very short space of time—in one year—the fourth-largest tobacco company in America, and within four years it was the biggest tobacco company across the country. The influence was absolutely huge, and, in fact, 90 percent of schoolchildren knew who the Marlboro Man was, yet they weren’t targeting children. However, at least four of the Marlboro men died of smoking-related diseases. Probably the most famous of them was Wayne McLaren, who died at 51 years old, after 25 years of smoking.

So we know that tobacco companies are masters at advertising, and we have in New Zealand—and my colleague from across the House Matt Doocey talked about it in his contribution, about the advertising: we don’t know how much money is being spent in New Zealand, because we haven’t taken that data and had a look at what they are advertising in terms of dollar figures with vaping. But we do know that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Half a dozen large vape clients in one media company are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. One client in particular is spending $200,000 on a campaign. They are finding creative ways to skirt around rules and regulations. Maybe if it’s a visual for a digital advertisement, they’re using things like a very gorgeous looking woman, and instead of a cigarette in her fingers, she’s holding a piece of broccoli. There’s no mention of the word “vaping”. There are no other words other than very small ones at the bottom that will be the logo of that particular organisation.

There is one company, JUUL. Their vape is like a USB stick. They are called the iPhones of vapes because their cool tech makes people, young people in particular, attracted to vaping, addicting a whole new generation to nicotine. So we know that vaping and the advertising ban that will come in place with this piece of legislation is extremely important to protect, in particular, our young people.

I’d like to finish my contribution by acknowledging the work that will be done in the select committee, but also too the connection that New Zealand First and the close work we’ve been doing with Action for Smokefree 2025 over the past 12 months to ensure that we get world-leading legislation that has been properly peer reviewed internationally. Action for Smokefree 2025—I’m sure they will come to select committee, and we look forward to their contribution on this piece of legislation. This is a very sensible bill that we’ve worked with our coalition partners on, and we very much are pleased that it is here today for its first reading. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Let me begin with a positive, and that is to acknowledge the fact that, in the House this morning, we have heard some very intelligent contributions on this important issue from all who have spoken, and I want to thank them for that. But there is no getting around the fact that, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse mentioned earlier, this is certainly not only about time but, frankly and shamefully, well past time. I do want to acknowledge, as a couple of my colleagues have done, the Hon Nicky Wagner, who has done an outstanding job in providing not only leadership in this issue but in also doing all the work. Because we are, essentially, here belatedly acknowledging—and, I hope, ultimately enacting—the fine work that the Hon Nicky Wagner, National Party MP, former Minister under Sir John Key and Sir Bill English, did, and which was available more than a year ago and should have been enacted at that time.

Members of the Government ought to be shaking their heads, or, rather, hanging their heads in shame, as they acknowledge—and their heads are all down at the moment—the fact that this could have been dealt with by now. The important measures of this bill could already be in place, had they taken action, and the Minister in charge of the bill has to take responsibility for that. She’s a very pleasant person, and I acknowledge that. I have no pleasure in attacking her, but we have to lay the blame at her door and also at the door of the Leader of the House for failing to organise their legislative programme, in such a way that an important measure of this type has just not been dealt with.

So as I say, this is a National Party bill, and for that reason, we are naturally going to support it. The reason I’ve laboured that point at the outset is because what we will not be supporting—in fact, what we on the Opposition side of the House will be opposing as strenuously as possible—is the proposal that has been indicated by the Government to move for a shortened select committee process in order to deal with this bill. Well, they need to be reminded that they are a Government who have spent more than two years enacting very little of their own work. A huge amount of what has gone through the Parliament the last two years has been bills that they inherited from the previous National Government.

Even more importantly, even though the work that we’ve been dealing with has largely been unopposed for that reason, their members—including, at times, senior Ministers—have come down to the House, night after night, to filibuster on those bills, and some of them are in the House this morning.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Did Faaf do that? Faaf wouldn’t have done that.

He did, among others. They have filibustered on bills that had no opposition in order to drag things out, because they didn’t have any work of their own to introduce to the House, and now here they are, just six months out from a general election, thinking, “Yikes. We’re running out of time. We do actually need to get on and do something, and in order to do that now, we will have to inflict upon the nation a constitutional outrage of a shortened select committee process, which denies members of the public the opportunity to have their say to make detailed, considered submissions and to be able to appear before the select committee to talk to those submissions and to raise questions and hear answers.”, and all because the current Government has been a chaotic shambles that has been completely out of control of the legislative agenda during its time in office to date.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And now we can come to the bill, OK?

I feel I have been speaking on the bill, Mr Speaker. Now, I’m not on the select committee—

💬 Jenny Marcroft: Good.

—but I have occasionally been subbed on to it. It’s nice of Mrs Marcroft to say that she’s pleased about that. I actually thought that we’ve worked quite constructively together when I have been on that committee. I am on National’s health caucus committee, and so I will follow the issue very closely. I do wish them well in their deliberations, and, as I say, I have respect for all the members of the Health Committee. When I’ve sat on it, I’ve been impressed by the work that they do.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: And the morning tea.

I haven’t often had the opportunity to enjoy the morning tea, Mrs Marcroft, but please let me know when you’re providing it and I’ll do my level best to make sure that I return to the committee and get subbed on, if only for the 20 minutes when it’s made available.

Now, this is an important issue because we know that many people are still dying in New Zealand of smoking-related illnesses every year. Fortunately, it’s trending downwards. I’m delighted that there are far fewer people smoking than used to be the case, and this vaping legislation is an important part of trying to continue to achieve our drive towards a smoke-free Aotearoa policy of 2025, which I think most people are strongly committed to; certainly most members of this House.

I recognise that giving up smoking is a difficult thing. I haven’t been a smoker myself other than, as Mr Woodhouse acknowledges, when I too, as a young fellow, occasionally did silly things at inappropriate times that would have caused my parents consternation, but I haven’t actually been—

💬 Hon Member: Cannabis!

Ha, ha! Well, I’ve already been pulled up by the Speaker once, for speaking irrelevantly and I really don’t want to tell him what I might have got up to in my school days, but—

💬 David Seymour: We’re interested.

I’m delighted you’re interested—I’ve lost my train of thought.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Well, sit down then.

The important thing is—no, no. I’m pleased to say that even when I lose my train of thought, Mr Jackson, I’m far more coherent than you ever have been in any of your speeches. I’m back on track now because, of course, what we are talking about is the important drive to reduce smoking in this country—ideally, to stop everybody smoking. I think we all acknowledge the fact that vaping has an important role to play in that. The health officials and advisers all tell us that—as long as we get the balance right.

This bill is about trying to get the balance right so that we provide vaping options for those who are trying to quit smoking without doing anything that encourages vaping as a cool activity, particularly for young people who might not otherwise have taken up smoking. And I’m sure all MPs, certainly electorate MPs, have heard regularly from school principals and health workers and others about their concern that we mustn’t create a regime whereby vaping becomes the next cool option. There’s already some evidence that it is. We want to try to ensure that that doesn’t become any more so.

So let me just focus on a few of the key provisions of the bill.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Well, that would be nice!

I’ve already alluded to some, Mr Webb, but actually, given your particular interest, I want to draw attention to some aspects of the Government’s bill that—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Ooh, we can’t wait!

Goodness me. Aren’t they excitable—aren’t they excitable! Clearly I’m hitting the spot. They didn’t like being reminded of how incompetent they’ve been—did they?—but fortunately, because they’ve picked up the Hon Nicky Wagner’s fine work, this bill would prohibit sales to under 18-year-olds. I think that’s important. We don’t want young people walking into the shops and being able to access vaping materials. We hope that their parents and caregivers would be able to influence sensible choices and be able to control the decisions they make. You can’t always control what a 14- or 15-year-old might do, but I think this is the right position for the bill to strike.

It would allow health professionals to recommend that people take up vaping in place of smoking. Obviously, we want that to be the better alternative if they are going to do one or the other. It would ensure that there are appropriate rules around advertising. That’s vitally important. As a child—and I think Mrs Marcroft was talking before about Marlboro adverts; I remember them and they were actually very appealing—I remember we used to have posters of them. You’d rip them out of the paper or the magazine, and you’d stick them on your bedroom wall. I do remember having pictures on my bedroom wall of the Marlboro Man or whatever it was, on his horse, with his cigarettes. My parents didn’t object to that as long as I wasn’t smoking under the bed covers. Fortunately, we’ve moved light years away from that. I guess I’m showing my age in even admitting to that.

But coming back to the bill, and I shouldn’t say that because I’m going to get another silly interjection from the other side, it is important, obviously, that we try to discourage that sort of inappropriate advertising and that we set quality standards and it of course does require the Ministry of Health to approve products and prohibit vaping in smoke-free areas.

In the short time available, as the shadow Attorney-General, can I just note that the Attorney-General has put forward a report suggesting that this is in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because of the constraints on advertising, as he is required to do. I respect the report that he has given, but I also believe that it is appropriate, and there’s ample precedent for this, not to allow that particular report to dissuade the Government from proceeding with this. It’s his important role to focus on that aspect, but there’s a more important overarching objective here, and there is ample precedent, as I say, for the Government to override that particular report. But I just wanted to acknowledge it because that is one of the portfolio responsibilities that I have.

Well, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this contribution. I’m delighted that members of the Government have as well and I do commend the select committee in the work that they will do. Let’s get on and pass this bill.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. In light of the fact a number of people are sharing their past experiences with the culture in which they grew up, around smoking and tobacco and cigarettes, it probably is incumbent on me to talk about my experience when I was thrown out of class—I think in year 1 or 2—at primary school—

💬 David Seymour: For smoking?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Not for smoking, Mr David Seymour, but for creating a small business in class whereby I cut up pieces of paper and emulated what I saw my dad doing, which was to create rollies, cigarettes, and I sold them for about 50c each. That was how cool smoking was when I was in primary school.

Fast forward a number of years, about 20, and my little brother is now 13 years old. I’m really stoked to say that smoking is no longer seen as a cool thing for kids of his generation. However, it is unfortunate that when he finds himself on the internet falling down the rabbit hole of YouTube videos, he is exposed to advertising for vaping, and that has led him to think that vaping is really cool and that it may actually be harmless. So what we need to be talking about here is figuring out how we strike the balance between harm reduction—recognising that vaping is a really important tobacco smoking cessation device and that we need to have some consistency in our approaches to addictive substances, which I’ll get to later, but also that what has occurred so far with regard to vaping and the market that has emerged around it has occurred as a result of self-regulation.

What we’ve seen in that process of self-regulation is that there has been advertising. There has been advertising, which some would argue appeals to children, and there has been the likes of these YouTube ads, but there’s also been what some may be familiar with here, known as influencer marketing. That is the more subtle way of having people who have profiles online utilising these products in their daily lives and presenting them as cool or important in their daily life. I think that that form of marketing needs to be all the more transparent.

But I diverge from the point of this legislation. The importance here is that we have the potential to get more people off of a really harmful, addictive substance. It’s really critical that we acknowledge as well that vaping is not 100 percent safe. In fact, it also comes with its own raft of potential health ramifications; a number of which we’re still researching and are coming to light. But they are still far less harmful than what we know with the decades of research that we have amassed on the smoking of tobacco.

One of our bottom lines in working with the Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa in supporting this legislation, as the Greens, was to make sure that we didn’t cut things off at their knees in that potential for smoking cessation, so that we didn’t move ahead with what was floated in the cultural conversation around potentially removing all flavours, bar three. The important thing to us is that there were limits to access, particularly for younger people. But for those who were getting off of tobacco smoking and moving towards vaping, if it was a certain flavour that got them on board with that, then they should still be able to go and purchase and utilise that through a specialised shop.

So I think the other really critical thing to speak to here, and what some have conflated this conversation around vaping regulation with, is the number of deaths that have occurred overseas, particularly in the United States. It’s important that we put on the record that all of those vapes that were associated to those deaths and to those illnesses—colloquially known as “popcorn lung”—are vapes that came off of the unregulated black market. That is the importance of regulation here. This experience that we’ve seen, with vaping moving towards self-regulated kinds of standards, but also through the black market, to me really emphasises the importance of regulation and the consistency that we should have around a harm reduction approach when it comes to all substances. I’d like to say that the Greens are probably the party with most coherent kind of approach to all substances—that being that we would like to see similar kinds of standards applied to alcohol, with regard to the reduction or complete removal of the ability to advertise and sponsor. I’d love to see the major political parties in this place take up that mantle, particularly given that it was work progressed under the former National Governments, which they kind of dusted under the rug, but, again, I digress.

What we know—and this is research out of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which canvasses both licit and illicit substances—is that you see the peak in societal harm with the use of a substance when the supply of that substance is controlled either by the underground black market under a complete prohibition, which is what happens when we force substances or practices underground, or when you have a complete free market; that being complete corporate control. In both of those instances, in both of those polar ends of the spectrum, you have entities that have an incentive to exploit vulnerable communities in order to make a quick buck. So what we’re trying to do here is to narrow that spectrum away from those extremities and to introduce regulation that reduces access, reduces harm, and changes the cultural conversation.

So I’d invite any New Zealanders who are interested in this conversation to submit before the select committee. We are really looking forward to watching how this progresses. It’s been fascinating watching, in particular, regulation unfold in the United Kingdom, who jumped on this quite a while before us—about a decade ago, I believe. They have put forward some really meaningful approaches, which we’ve adopted, actually, in this legislation—including the ability, I might add, for health practitioners to give advice and recommendations about vaping products to a patient or client who is looking to move away from tobacco smoking.

The bottom line should be that we are not trying to create a new big tobacco market. We are not trying to create a new addictive substance that can cause more harm in our communities. We are trying to offer sensible regulations for tobacco smoking cessation, and at this point in time, the Greens think that this bill strikes the right balance. Looking forward to hearing from members of the public. We are proud to support this legislation.

It’s a pleasure to take a rise and speak to the first reading of the vaping regulation bill. May I start out by saying to this House: what has taken us so long to get here? We gave this House everything, and I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner. How good is Nicky Wagner, everybody? She did a tremendous amount of work to research and put a law together in the member’s ballot 2½ years ago. And what has this Government done since then on this issue? Nothing. And it is appalling, that we are here 2½ years later, where the public of New Zealand and the sector itself have had no certainty over the regulations for the sector. It is, frankly, appalling that it has taken us so long to get here today, not to mention the harm that is being caused, potentially, to our youth in New Zealand, but also to the business sector. I come from an area of Northcote, and there are many businesses, and some who have gone out of business because of the lack of certainty and the threat of regulation over this sector. I welcome the opportunity to vote in favour of this law, but it is frankly appalling that it has taken us so long.

From where I sit, the benefits of vaping are becoming clearer by the day. It is a fantastic cessation tool. I must disclose that I have been a smoker in the past. I’m not proud of it. Thankfully, I haven’t smoked a cigarette in quite some years. This is a bill that will do a tremendous amount of work to those remaining 16 percent, 17 percent of New Zealanders who are smoking, and will help them, in fact, transition away from this terrible product.

It’s also going to help us achieve our 2025 smoke-free goal. I want to acknowledge that it is an aspirational goal. Whether we get there will depend on the success of initiatives like this but, certainly, we all remain committed to this.

But I also want to talk about the economic opportunities of this legislation, and what it will do to give certainty to those who are manufacturing, supplying, or selling these products to New Zealanders, and talk about the economic job opportunities as a result. I must say, I’ve got scenarios in my own community of Northcote of businesses that have bloomed because of the rise in vaping in New Zealand, but they need the certainty to know that this is done in a way that is consistent with the law, and therefore this law is important.

Research backs this up, that there are fantastic benefits. I want to call out the work the Cancer Society has done for researching this and providing us, as parliamentarians, fantastic resources to research the extent of the benefits, but also some of the costs as well from vaping. Some of those costs are very clear. While it is a good cessation tool for some, on the flip side it also has the potential to actually have a gateway effect for our youth, which is why, in fact, this law is so important, to provide safeguards, and to actually say, “Look, if you are under 18 and you want to vape, don’t vape. You cannot vape in this country.”

National is a fan of sensible regulation. We’re not a party of unfettered access to products. Well, even people like Adam Smith would appreciate regulations, because regulations essentially allow the playing field to work in a sensible manner and allow businesses and agents to get on with the practice of doing their transactions and business in a legal matter of fashion.

But I must come back to the point. We are here after two years of inaction of this Government. It is appalling that now we are here, 2½ years later. We are 2½ years behind the ability to actually have this in our society. We are 2½ years down the road of potentially harming our youth, providing uncertainty to businesses, and it is now incumbent on us to ask ourselves, “What is the correct process for this bill to go in?” I know we’re going to come to that very soon, but it is very concerning that now, six months before an election, 2½ years after sitting on their hands and doing nothing, this Government now wants to rush this legislation through.

I do raise this because there are a lot of people that we’d want to hear from in the select committee process. Just to disregard the constitutional arrangements that we have, in order to fit the Government’s time line to get this through so that they can go out there and say, “Look what we’ve done on vaping.”, is, I think, irresponsible and poor policy-making in New Zealand.

I look forward to hearing from the vast array of people that this law will affect, people like children. How is it going to affect them? You know, I talk to kids in my electorate of Northcote. School principals—really want to hear from a vast array of school principals about how this law is going to work. Vaping firms—I’m really keen to hear from them around how we can encourage job opportunities at the same time as addressing some of our health concerns. Researchers and organisations like the Child Cancer Foundation and the Cancer Society—I’m really keen to hear from them about the most up-to-date research that has been done on the positive effects and the negative effects of these products.

Things like flavours—that’s one thing that I think we should discuss in select committee, which is what are the effects of flavours. Actually, do we need flavours or do we not? I’m agnostic on that question. I just think it is incumbent on us as good policy makers to have a robust debate around subjects like flavours. That requires that the select committee process be, in fact, consistent with all other laws that we’ve been talking about here since I’ve been a parliamentarian.

So we support this bill. We support the work that the Hon Nicky Wagner has done, the hard yards to get this law together. We look forward to discussing in select committee some of the nuances of it. There are parts of Nicky Wagner’s bill that haven’t made it into this draft law around things like child protection. Back when I was a teenager and going on to the fields at Howick College and smoking cigarettes, we had these child protection devices on things like lighters, so it seems rational that we ought to actually think about what are the protections that we should put in place to protect the youth of today and tomorrow.

It is far time that we discussed this law—

💬 David Seymour: Far time.

It is beyond the right time to discuss this law. I’m so excited about this law and the fact that it has taken us 2½ years that I’m making slight grammatical errors in my speech. But what I want to say is this: this is fantastic that today we are discussing this law. It is, in fact, sad that we are discussing it today, two years after than we should. So we support this legislation to select committee. We do not support any shortening of the process. We want to hear from the correct and full amount of people that wish to submit. We’ve got to get this right. Good policy-making requires that we hear from everyone that this bill affects until we get it right, until we put in the nuances in this legislation. We support it to select committee.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. There was a lot of second-hand smoke in that speech then. Going around once, twice, three times, I think.

Look, this is a great piece of legislation. It’s timely to move on. There are a lot of unknowns in respect of vaping, and that is one of the gaps. That is why we need some good regulations around it, to empower the Ministry of Health to take the right steps when we get the facts around it.

We know we need limits on advertising. The Attorney-General’s opinion gives us some views on that. I know the select committee will look very carefully at striking the right balance between freedom of speech, use of intellectual property, and ensuring that we don’t have the sale and unfettered advertising of dangerous products. There is work to do. The select committee is well placed to do it. I commend this bill to the House—a great piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to make a contribution on this, the first reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. It’s a much awaited bill, and, as with all bills that come before us in the House, it’s incumbent on us as legislators to make sure that what, I guess, our mission is in terms of the outcomes for this piece of legislation meets the expectations that New Zealanders have on this bill—on vaping.

With regards to vaping, I do support the use of vaping as a tool for smokers to get off smoking. It’s something, actually, that I didn’t know much about, and I was pleased that we had Hāpai te Hauora, who invited MPs to a breakfast session in Parliament last year to discuss this very topic. So I went along, because I didn’t know much about vaping, and was pleased to have a very good session. We had people in the policy area and research, but more memorable for me on that particular session were a couple of women who gave very personal testimonies around their journey with smoking and the challenges they’ve had in trying to quit smoking. So to hear from them their personal experience around how vaping has been a real game-changer for them in getting them off tobacco and into something that is less harmful, but also more cost-effective. So I want to acknowledge Hāpai te Hauora for the work that they are doing in that space.

I also want to say that we are here, ultimately, to make sure that we have got better health outcomes for our communities. The other side of that coin here is that we have had parents and teachers and principals who have been fairly vocal about the lack of any regulations and guidelines on vaping, particularly in terms of our young people and our teenagers. So that, as I say, is pleasing that this bill has finally arrived. So I say mālō ‘aupito to the Minister Jenny Salesa, but I also want to acknowledge—as has also been mentioned by my colleagues here—the work of the Hon Nicky Wagner in this space.

I’d also like to say that even though there has been quite a significant delay in getting this bill to the House, I do urge the Government members that it would be really important that we get the settings right in this bill and that we do allow a full select committee process so that we can hear from the organisations, the families, the teachers, the parents, and men and women like the ones that I heard last year, who talk about how vaping has been an important measure for them.

One of the things I do note is that one of the women talked about flavours. As a parent with children, when we hear “bubble-gum”, that evokes a sense of something that is targeted to children, but this woman spoke about how particular flavours were a key part of vaping for her. So I think that engagement around flavours is an important one. I do note, I think, in Part 4 of this bill that one of provisions there is around generic retailers that are not specialist vaping shops—they would only be able to sell tobacco, menthol, and mint. So I think it’d be good to allow a full discussion around how flavours impact this as well. I’m pleased that this bill is here and I commend it to first reading. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this bill, but there’s one part that ACT could have supported, and that is the restriction on the advertising towards and the sale to minors of vaping products. In the Epsom electorate, principals of our schools are beside themselves at kids getting access, perfectly legally. We have stories about people in the back alleys of Newmarket with suitcases of vaping products that they are selling to kids legally. This Government for two years has done nothing about it. Stunned like possums in the headlights, they haven’t been able to do something as simple as banning the sale of vaping products to children and the advertising targeted at children. If they were to bring forward a bill like that, I’d vote for it and I’d support them rushing it through select committee to get it done as quickly as possible, but that’s not what they’re doing. They’re doing the worst of all worlds.

You see, vaping is one of greatest—in fact, probably the greatest—success story in ending smoking: one of biggest killers in our country. Except, and here’s the problem, vaping has been a private enterprise success story, and this Government can’t handle that. If people doubt that vaping is saving lives, let me recount a conversation on a plane with one of New Zealand’s foremost public health experts from the University of Auckland. I asked him, “Well, honestly, what do you think about vaping? Is it really safe or is it really saving people’s lives?” And he said, “Well, last year in the United States, 400,000 died from tobacco and one person died from vaping, so what do you reckon?” I thought he put it pretty clearly. Of course, he’s backed up by the evidence that vaping is saving lives, because it’s the nicotine that addicts people, but it’s the tar that kills. Because vaping does not have tar in it, it is saving people’s lives when they satisfy their nicotine addiction by vaping instead of tobacco. That’s the right thing to happen.

What does this legislation do? Well, it restricts the advertising and it restricts who can sell flavoured vapes. It makes it harder for people to find out about and access vaping that is safer than the smoking and the tobacco that’s killing them.

I met another man recently—a man from China, originally—who had a job he didn’t like very much, and he thought, “I’m going to promote vaping within the Chinese community.” Well, within a year he had helped 15,000 people convert to vaping. How many bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education have helped 15,000 people in an ethnic minority quit smoking in a year, and do it while making a profit? I think I know the answer to that—not many, if any. This is private enterprise helping people be healthier, and what this Government is doing is banning people from being able to advertise their wares and access people who need help and promote their product. How are they going to do it? How are they going to manage which stores can sell flavours? Presumably the Government is now going to have some sort of taste testing regime or some sort of regime for measuring the amount of flavour in a particular liquid—that’s the only way they can do it. So we see even more bureaucracy that is not going to make people safer.

In actual fact, it’s going to stop people from entering into contracts to buy things to make their lives better. It’s actually going to make people less safe, and people are actually going to die as a result of continuing to smoke, when they might have found out about and accessed vaping, which is safer. All of that occurs after two years of delay and this Government failing to introduce very simple laws and regulations that would have said, “If anyone sells or advertises vaping products to kids, then they will be prosecuted and fined.” The Government should have said, “Don’t be surprised if it uses mystery shoppers to catch them.” That’s what this Government should have done about the problem of children vaping, but, unfortunately, it hasn’t. Instead, it is going to stymie private enterprise efforts to save people’s lives. What a great shame. I’m proud to oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker—

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t want to give him the pleasure of being in the Hansard of my speech or interrupt my flow, but Andrew Little was insinuating—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member knows that points of order are to be raised at the time. They can’t be raised afterwards. Maggie Barry.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Maggie Barry.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak at the first reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. Naturally—and as my colleagues have already said very eloquently—National does support this bill. It was conceived and worked through over many years of hard work by the Hon Nicky Wagner, and this is a piece of legislation that should have been before this House many, many months ago.

In my electorate, Professor Beaglehole lives, and we have had many meetings on the North Shore discussing the merits of vaping, the efficiency of that method to wean people off nicotine and harmful cigarettes. It has been proven to succeed. It is something that I’ve had a lot of discussions about and I can really see that it will help people give up smoking, and it will also help us in our aim, as a country, of achieving smoke-free status by 2025. These are all very good things.

The vaping industry is really big business. The global market for vaping products in 2015 was estimated at around about USD $10 billion. The United States not surprisingly, perhaps, has about 56 percent of that market, and there’s 12 percent by the UK, and in varying degrees through the rest of the world. We don’t know, in New Zealand, how much vaping has taken off and is being used because we don’t have any real estimates or even guesstimates about the size and the value of that New Zealand market. The Ministry of Health has sought information through the consultation process that was held a couple of years ago, but the information still hasn’t given us much of a sense of where the market is at. So I think that the select committee process is the appropriate place to tease that out. It is disappointing that the Government is not going to allow more time for that process because I think that this is an argument that is going to be quite subtly nuanced.

There’s a lot of people who are uneasy about the way that vaping might appeal to young people, in particular—others have spoken of that. In my North Shore electorate, I know that there are a number of shops that are deliberately designed, it would seem to me, to be appealing to young people. They’re brightly lit, convivial atmospheres, people go in there—young people in particular. I’ve had discussions with my school principals at intermediate and primary school level about their unease about having vaping equipment and vaping being used by very young people—this is under the age of 10. So that to me needs to be very carefully controlled, thought about, and, ideally, stopped altogether. This legislation, obviously with its R18 element within it, will go some way towards doing that. The natural appeal of these places and the flavours and the things that we, perhaps, as older people don’t quite understand are triggers for young people, do need to be carefully thought through and talked through at length, I would suggest, at a select committee level.

For the smoke-free in cars legislation—which we were speaking of earlier in this House this morning—we had had some exposure on the Health Committee to discussions from young people about that attraction and the flavours and the colours and the general kind of grooviness that vaping seems to have already established in the hearts and minds of some of our young. We need to be incredibly careful about that, and it will be big business. So the regulations that have been, as I said, carefully thought through, the elements within this bill by the Hon Nicky Wagner, I think, will help. So the R18 element—allowing health professionals, as well, to give guidance to people who come to them for smoking cessation; it is entirely appropriate to have conversations with your GP in the privacy of a consultation to establish, you know, how people can transition out of smoking, and using vaping as a very successful tool in that. So, of course, we support that.

Ensuring that there are appropriate rules around advertising—people have spoken of this before. Again, I think it’s something that will come through very strongly in the select committee process and it’s something that we, as legislators, need to pay particular attention to. We need quality standards. It is not appropriate to have a whole variety of oils with different titrations within them of the nicotine element. I think it needs to be very apparent. Ideally, standardised systems will be less confusing for people who want to transition out of smoking and into vaping.

I think it is really important that the Ministry of Health has a role to approve the products. They are the appropriate place to look at the products, assess them as being fit for purpose and for sale, and also to prohibit vaping in smoke-free areas. Politicians travel a lot on aeroplanes; we are told very clearly not only is it a smoke-free place for cigarettes but also vaping is not allowed. It doesn’t seem to me that we’re too far away, as a nation, from getting people to acknowledge that vaping with—you know, it seems to me, as an observer—a heck of a lot of white smoke is not appropriate to do in confined spaces. The laws that already govern our smoke-free workplaces and restaurants, cafes, and so forth, I think should equally apply to vaping. If there are some exceptions, that will no doubt come out in that select committee process.

I’m not quite clear why some of the other measures that the Hon Nicky Wagner put forward have not been included, including that vaping products be child-resistant. My colleague Dan Bidois in the neighbouring electorate of Northcote has already confessed that when he was a young person and smoking, he did find that the cigarette lighters with the child-proofing on them, you know, were there as a barrier. Of course, being a smart young fellow I’m sure he got around it. But I don’t know quite why we would not use anything that would be child-resistant for a vaping product. Also the refilling without leakage—you know, apparently it’s a fairly messy process. I would have thought as a practicality that something that could be incorporated—and the refillable vaping tanks to a capacity of 2 millilitres; I think restricting it makes some sense. But, again, this is something that would be better discussed at select committee so that we can arrive in the right space on this.

The other element that was in the Hon Nicky Wagner’s bill but not in this one is requiring vaping products to deliver this consistent dose of nicotine under normal conditions of use. Again, I think that consistency, standardisation, all of these matters, would be prudent for us as lawmakers to really get our heads around so that when this piece of legislation, which has taken far too long to get to the House—and in the meantime a lot of people, I believe, have lost the opportunity to give up smoking by using the vaping tool. Again, I think of Professor Beaglehole, who has devoted a lot of his professional life to trying to encourage people to see the health problems with smoking. He is very much a fan of vaping. He feels that it is, as a transition tool, the best he’s seen in his, I think, 45 years or so in this space. I think the Cancer Society have taken on, as you would expect for such an organisation, a really strong educational role. They have talked in moderate language about the need to bring people with them and to transition out of smoking, but not to see vaping as something that’s cool, and, you know, another accessory for the bright young things. So I think that their carefully modulated message is something that we, as members of Parliament, and, certainly in the Health Committee, will take on board.

So this is a piece of legislation whose time has long come, and it should have been here a long time ago. We have offered to work constructively with the Government on this matter before; it is disappointing that they didn’t take us up on that offer and adopt the bill. As I said earlier, I think the political barriers that exist between parties and the lack of cooperation in sensible areas should have resulted in this coming to the House earlier, and for all of the work that was done by the Hon Nicky Wagner to have been available for the good of people’s health in New Zealand. So we support this bill and look forward to it coming to the Health Committee—which is, I’m sure, where it will go—and then to examine it in minute detail. Disappointing, again, that it is a truncated process because I think we have to get the detail of this absolutely right.

We have to refocus and perhaps use this as an opportunity to engage New Zealanders again in the 2025 goal. I think with the potential legalisation of cannabis—a referendum will decide that—and loose leaf being an enabler there, I personally feel it sends a very bad signal, potentially, for this country to legalise cannabis, to smoke it while we are working hard towards trying to get to a smoke-free 2025. This party would not ever support—well, it’ll be a conscience vote, but I would personally never support having loose leaf cannabis legalised. Shame it wasn’t looked at decriminalising it; that might have had a far more effective chance.

I don’t want to digress from the bill; I just cite it as something that has occurred. I feel that with the vaping we have an opportunity, because vaping actually is something—apparently in the United States, for example, cannabis and oils have been used to get high, so I would imagine that that part of the discussion may emerge at select committee. But vaping, as it stands on this bill, is very useful, and I think it will be a great addition to the suite of tools that we need to use, as legislators, to ensure that we are smoke-free by 2025 and that we help and protect the health of New Zealanders who are very keen to give up smoking, and vaping is an excellent tool, which is why I commend this bill to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I in no way wish to trifle with or dispute your earlier ruling. However, I would ask respectfully that you reflect on, particularly, Speaker’s ruling 20/5. There’s a matter that arises when a member is on their feet speaking, is defamed in violation of the Standing Orders, and is required to interrupt their own speech to uphold the Standing Orders and defend themselves. I think it might be reasonable to consider that, as with Speaker’s ruling 20/5, one of the circumstances in which the Speaker might allow a person to raise a point of order at the conclusion of their speech is so that they are not disadvantaged by another member’s actions outside the Standing Orders process.

Speaker’s ruling 20/3 is very clear; 20/5 does not refer to those circumstances at all. They refer to circumstances where, essentially, the Speaker has missed the point. The member should read the report of the select committee, of which I think he was a member when that matter was considered.

💬 David Seymour: Well, speaking to that, Mr Speaker.

No we’re not—

💬 David Seymour: It’s not what 20/3 says.

I have ruled.

💬 David Seymour: Well, it’s not what 20/3 says.

Sorry, you’re not sure what 20/3 says? The member should read—

💬 David Seymour: I’m sure what it says. It refers to absence from the House.

20/3: a point of order must be raised at the time. That’s what it says, and it says it—

💬 David Seymour: And it refers to—

No, no. We’re not having a debate. I’ve read it to the member.

💬 David Seymour: Read the rest of it.

Does the member want to stay in the House for the rest of the day? Well, he’ll stop interjecting. [Interruption] He doesn’t care. Well, if he wants to go, he should.

I stand to commend this bill to the House, to acknowledge the Government and the Minister for bringing what is an important piece of public-good legislation to our Parliament. I want to acknowledge, as well, the National Party for supporting it, for having a brief break from the bonfire of regulations line that they’ve been running the last couple of weeks, which has been called, by Matthew Hooton, a pig ignorant, populist, claptrap piece of politics.

I’m pleased that—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s not relevant. Joining other members’ irrelevancies is not the way of doing things.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Anyway, I want to acknowledge the cross-party support for this piece of legislation and the recognition that public-good regulation of this kind should be supported to support the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. I also want to make the point that the Minister had done a very good job of preparing this piece of legislation in a careful way.

I want to point out that we are dealing in this area with an industry that, as has been pointed out, is highly commercial, is highly cashed up, and that, through the course of the legislative process and in the implementation phase, will do what it can to defend its patch. So it was the right and proper thing for this Minister and this Government to take a bit of time to make sure that the legislation that has been brought to this House is as tight as possible and can be implemented effectively without those kinds of problems being created. That’s what a responsible Minister and Government does. And that’s what we’ve done in this case. This is a good piece of legislation. It gets the balance right, and I’m very happy to commend it to the House.

I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 June, 2020; and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a siting of the House; and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I want to very quickly set out why it is important that we have a shortened time for consideration of this bill at select committee. There are two clear pieces of feedback I’ve had on this bill. The first is that it’s vital that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to provide feedback, to ensure that we’re striking the right balance between protecting our kids, our tamariki, while at the same time helping our smokers who want to use vaping as a quit tool. That’s why the select committee process is so important. The second is that it’s time for New Zealand to have a proper regulatory framework for vaping in place, and that Parliament should work together quickly to get this done.

Let’s not forget that vaping has been in Aotearoa New Zealand since about 2008. This is yet another—

Order! This is a very narrow debate, and the Minister is now going beyond it. It might have been relevant in the first reading debate; it’s not now. The history’s not relevant.

I am going to speak in opposition to this motion. It may be contradictory, or it may appear on the face of it to be contradictory to do so, given my criticism of the Minister and the Government for the time that it has taken to get the bill to this point. But for the purposes of this debate, I’m going to use the Minister’s own words.

There are five reasons why I believe that this motion should not be agreed to by the House. By the Minister’s own admission, she has said that this bill is complex. Even if we put aside the fact that she was handed a gift by the Hon Nicky Wagner, she took 2½ years to get to this point. She is now asking the select committee, the stakeholders, the officials, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and everybody else to do the work that she couldn’t do in 2½ years in three months. I find that highly, highly problematic for the democratic process.

The second reason why there should be opposition to this bill is that there are, despite the fact that there are very strong similarities between this bill and the Hon Nicky Wagner’s draft bill as a Minister and now her member’s bill in the ballot, there are actually significant omissions to it. I will not go through them; I did so in my first reading speech.

But there are things that could be made different in this bill with a robust select committee process that I submit is going to be compromised by the shortened report back. The third reason why this should not be approved actually goes to something that I disagree with the Minister on but agree with Michael Wood on—the lack of involvement in the preparation by the Minister and the Government from other stakeholders. Now, she has acknowledged that the people that assisted her in the preparation of the bill to this point were the Ministry of Health and Action for Smokefree 2025. Now, they are very good, important people to consult with in the preparation of good bills, but it’s very disappointing to note, firstly, that the Minister did not take up the invitation by the National Party to engage early so that we could be wholly over the detail in order that we could expedite the bill. We know this has got to get into law. It’s not about delaying this. It’s about actually getting good legislation, and Michael Wood actually said it all when he described the sophistication of the vaping lobby.

I have no time necessarily for big tobacco and a vaping lobby that’s going to use sophisticated techniques to get their own way. But in a democratic process, it’s absolutely vital that we see and hear from the people with whom we disagree, in order that we can have a robust discussion and make bills better. Now, we’re going to see them and hear from them—I have no doubt. But had the Minister engaged prior to this point, a three-month report back could well have been appropriate.

The fourth reason why I don’t believe this is appropriate is because of the Attorney-General’s advice that this is a breach of the freedoms that are set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that are not justified by the reasons that have been put. And again, I won’t relitigate why the Attorney-General has that. But we’ve got a very difficult job to do now.

If the Government, which was so critical of the Key-English Government for the times when it had New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets that it did not agree with, and then passed legislation in the face of—and I say it wasn’t a unique thing; the Clark Government did that 14 times, by my count, in its years in Government, so it’s not unusual. But it does behove the select committee to listen very carefully, and indeed, the Standing Orders Committee, on this point, has heard submissions, including from the Clerk of the House, that there could perhaps be a different process under the Standing Orders for when a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet is tabled with a bill, in order for a greater level of scrutiny and at least the appearance of not riding roughshod over it—I don’t think that that actually happens, but it does behove us to be seen to be considering, and not only just considering, the Attorney-General’s advice.

That’s going to take some time, and we’re going to need to get some advice about that. It’s a very complicated position and a conundrum in respect of freedom of expression. The vaping industry, the very sophisticated industry that Michael Wood describes, is having its freedoms curtailed, and the Attorney-General is saying that’s not reasonable. We need to give them a fair hearing, lest there be the potential for a judicial review once the process is completed.

The fifth and main reason, I think, is that I get the feeling that the Government has forgotten that it is not the executive that passes laws in this land; it is this Parliament. It does so under a select committee process that is time honoured and very, very well followed, and this should be a business-as-usual process. It’s offensive to the select committee process, in my view, for such an important piece of legislation, that has nearly unanimous support across the House, to be treated so poorly. I’m a member of that committee. I’m looking forward to the discussion, the submissions, and the consideration. We work well as a committee, but we’re really, really busy, and in order to be able to consider this bill in the next three months, we are going to have to set aside other material business. We have something like 33 petitions before us right now. We have other legislation, the water regulatory bill, which was being considered yesterday.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, what about coronavirus—that could mean something?

Exactly. Who knows what the Health Committee might need to deal with in the next three months, and to do it properly and diligently, what’s going to give? Are we going to come back to the Business Committee with a request for an extension, because the Health Committee has actually got itself deeply embedded in the role of protecting New Zealanders from a pandemic? And so the select committee does need to have a great deal more control, I believe, over its workload in the next three months.

This is a significant disruptor to that, and I cannot support it, and my colleagues cannot support it. And we know why we’re doing it. I mean, let’s be honest; there’s another date coming up soon. It’s about 196 days away. The Government does want to clear some important business, but it also wants to be able to go to the electorate and say, “Look what we did.” It doesn’t want other members of this House and new candidates to be saying they promised one thing and didn’t deliver it. So there’s an imperative that’s more than just policy. There’s a great deal of politics behind this motion. I understand it; I cannot agree with it. It is not for this House to allow the executive and the Government to curtail what is a very important process of developing and passing good law just by a vote on the numbers.

I’m disappointed. I know there are times when that’s necessary—this isn’t one of them. If the Minister had moved faster to get the bill before this House last year, we wouldn’t be having this debate. It is wrong and I oppose it.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to have a call in this very narrowly defined debate, which is really about the report-back date for this bill. I rise to take my first ever call in a report-back debate, because I am shocked that in the interests of good policy-making, we are, in fact, shortening the report-back time line to within three months, I would like to remind this House—to 2 June.

As well as echoing the comments of my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, I would like to just raise another point of matter around the industry and the way it’s changing. We’ve heard from the other side of the House how fast this industry is changing and how many products are coming out in the market. There’s research every day done to, you know, bust some of those myths around vaping and shore up exactly what the impacts of this legislation are, and particularly in the US. I just find that we ought to consider having the normal process in place so that we can get a fuller understanding of some of those changes and how they’re actually going to implement and have an impact in New Zealand.

So I think the way the industry changes is actually an argument against shortening this select committee process from six months to within three. Let’s get it right, because we don’t argue over the contents of this bill; we all want to see regulations for the vaping sector. We just want to make sure that it’s done right. I ask this House to reflect on why we have a six-month select committee process. We have that in the law and in our constitutional arrangements for a particular purpose: to make sure that this is a robust and full select committee process, and, Mr Speaker, I know you understand this very, very well.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Don’t bring him into the debate.

Not bringing you into the debate on this matter. But coming back to the point of this, the Hon Nicky Wagner put a member’s bill on the ballot in October 2018.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat when I stand up. The member spent quite a bit of his substantive speech off the topic and commenting on this issue. I’m taking that into account now and I’m going to hold him very tight to the topic. Historical matters are not relevant.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, what I want to say is this. This Government is asking the House to shorten the select committee process from six months to three months when we’ve had 2½ years where we could have put this in place. And I just don’t think—

💬 SPEAKER: Second and last warning.

—that the democratic processes should be curtailed because of the inaction of this Government.

You know, reflecting on the comments from the Minister around why they want to, in fact, shorten the process, those arguments were not clear at all.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What were they? What did she say?

“It’s time”; that is what she said—it’s time.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: There’s always time; that’s why we bring bills in.

That’s right, and if we could wait as long as we have for this law, surely we can wait another three months to get it right. I ask this as a genuine question.

The other argument that was made is that the select committee process is important. Well, if it is important, why are we shortening it to three months? So it’s about the importance of getting this law right, because once we’ve got these regulations in place, it’s difficult to change them. So I would ask this House to reflect on why they’re doing what they’re doing. You know, there’s a quote that I like to say often: it’s not what’s often said that’s important; it’s what’s not said. And what was not said on that side of the House is the true reason they are considering reducing this report—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What’s the true reason?

It’s because there’s an election on 19 September and they want to show that they’ve made progress on this, given that in the last—well, not reflecting on it but given that they haven’t actually made progress at all.

So I oppose this motion to reduce the select committee report-back date from six months to three months, and I would ask the House to reflect on this and to vote accordingly. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want, at the outset, to endorse the five points that the Hon Michael Woodhouse made in opposing this motion. I intended to make three of my own, but I do want to draw the attention of the Government to the interjection that was made at the end of the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s speech, which I think the Government must answer, and I hope that the next Government speaker on his or her feet will do so, and that is: has there been consideration of the huge implications for the Health Committee of the coronavirus outbreak and the potential for an enormous extra workload that that committee will face? As they try to push for a truncated select committee process on this particular bill—

💬 Darroch Ball: It’s not relevant—not relevant.

I think I just heard Mr Ball say it’s not relevant. Is he seriously suggesting to the country—

I apologise to the member for interrupting him. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Thursday)