Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill

When we were last debating this motion, the Hon Tim Macindoe was speaking, and should he wish, he can take the remainder of his time, which is nine minutes and 14 seconds.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and indeed I do. As the saying goes, “And now for something completely different.” I was just getting started as the lunch adjournment was taken on this motion, so if I may just, for the benefit of those who are listening who may not have been listening beforehand—this debate began approximately a quarter of an hour before the lunch adjournment. It is not a debate about the contents of the bill, and I want to assure the Speaker that I understand that. The first reading of the bill has already been passed, and my party has supported it. This is a response to a motion that has been put forward by the Associate Minister of Health, Jenny Salesa, proposing for there to be a truncated select committee process whereby the Health Committee would be required to complete their consideration of submissions in a much shorter space of time and to report back to the House, essentially, by a date before the House rises for the general election. I put that on record because, as I say, there may be people listening who won’t understand that we are debating that motion. We are not debating the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill and its contents; that has already been undertaken.

When I commenced my debate, I was conscious of the fact that an interjection had been made just a couple of moments before, which I think is drawing attention to one of the most important reasons why the House must not agree today to the proposal from the Associate Minister of Health for there to be a truncated select committee process.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Trifling.

That is a particularly silly interjection from the Hon Shane Jones in view of the seriousness of the issue that I’m about to cover. I’d point out he wasn’t in the House at the time that this was even raised, and therefore for him to make such an interjection is most inappropriate.

As we know, the international COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak is developing at a rapid rate, and just in the last couple of hours, the President of the United States has announced a ban on all international travel from Europe to America. That is absolutely relevant to this particular motion because it suggests that the Health Committee may well be dealing with some extraordinarily important issues relating to the continued development of the COVID-19 outbreak over the next few months. Conceivably, they will have a huge extra body of work to consider as a result of this international outbreak as it continues to claim victims internationally and here at home.

Who knows what is to come? That’s why I say to the Hon Shane Jones that his interjection was particularly inappropriate. Who knows what measures the Health Committee may be required to consider as a result of what is going to be proposed, perhaps by the Government, perhaps by the World Health Organization—who knows? As I say, it’s an unfolding situation. Their workload may become overwhelming, and that is directly relevant in this instance because the Government is asking the select committee to truncate a select committee process that would normally be approximately six months from the start to the completion of the bill’s consideration, just at a time when their burdens may become more acute than we can ever remember. They may have to make that work, in responding to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, their absolute priority for the next few months, and I do hope that the Government is listening. I do hope that the next Government speaker on this motion will respond. They may have to make that work an absolute priority.

It is utterly unreasonable, therefore, to ask them to deal with this particular bill, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill, in a truncated fashion. It has a lot of agreement—it doesn’t have complete agreement—and while it’s an important measure, it is nowhere near as important as dealing with the coronavirus outbreak and whatever work that throws on to the committee. So I ask the next speaker from the Government to respond specifically to that point, and it can’t be avoided or trivialised, Mr Jones. I hope you would acknowledge that point.

There are some other points that I would wish to make in the time that is available to me. The first is—and this is the more conventional one, but it needs to be dealt with all the same—truncated select committees should be avoided because it’s poor process. We as a Parliament have a responsibility to give proper consideration to bills. That’s why there’s a very established framework that we operate under, and a truncated process often leads to rushed and imperfect lawmaking. We shouldn’t be prepared to do that, and it’s, frankly, arisen simply because this Government has been a chaotic shambles. They spent two years failing to deal with legislation in a timely fashion, and suddenly, now that they have a deadline of a looming general election and the date that the House will rise for that election, they’ve suddenly realised, “Good lord, we didn’t do anything for two years, and now we can’t get anything done because time doesn’t permit.” Well, their ineptitude doesn’t justify a truncated select committee process.

The next argument is that this is absolutely an affront to democracy. It’s closely aligned to the point that I’ve just made, but it’s an affront to democracy because members of the public have a right to be heard and to make their submissions in a considered fashion. I mentioned that there is broad support for this bill—that is true—but there is not unanimous support for this bill in this House. We know from the fact that the ACT Party is opposed that there may well be members or supporters of the ACT Party who would wish to be heard on the bill—perhaps, more importantly, some of those constitutional experts who frequently appear before select committees to express their concerns on constitutional abuses or the constitutional implications of measures. They too have a right to be heard and should be given the opportunity to do so in a timely fashion. It is not reasonable to say to busy professional people, “Drop everything; do this in a hurry”, just because the Government is out of control and it’s lost all semblance of order and the ability to do things in a timely fashion. They shouldn’t impose that on members of the public who have a legitimate interest.

The third thing that I want to draw attention to—or rather the fourth, if you include the opening point that I made about the burdens on the Health Committee—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.

Making it up? “Making it up,” says Mr Jones. It is really unbelievable that such imbecilic interjections are coming from a senior Cabinet Minister who ought to be taking this matter seriously. I hope that he’s going to respond, but if he does, I hope that his response will be considerably more considered than this nonsense that we’re having to listen to.

The point I was going to make is in my capacity as the shadow Attorney-General, and to draw attention to the fact that one of the things the select committee would have to take into account is the fact that there has been an Attorney-General’s report—and the Attorney-General is in the House at the moment—a section 7 report concluding that the bill is inconsistent with section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and therefore cannot be justified under section 5. Now, I acknowledge that there is precedent for the Attorney-General’s reports, under Governments of both complexions, to be ignored. The Attorney-General has a job to do and he has done that, and I acknowledge that with respect. The point I am making, though, is that the select committee also needs to take that into account. That would be factored into the report that they would send back to the House. It may well be that they would say, “We respect the Attorney-General’s conclusion, but nevertheless we believe that matters of public interest override it and therefore we will continue.” They’ve got to have the opportunity to do that work.

Here we have a Government that is seeking to deny the select committee the opportunity to do their work properly. It would be remiss of me, as the shadow Attorney-General, not to draw attention to the fact that that’s part of the mix here of what has to be considered. So, I implore the Government to think again. This is not sufficiently serious a matter for it to be trivialised and pushed to one side by a Health Committee that may have a much more serious matter to grapple with if measures relating to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak are put before them and dominate their work. Because you can be sure that if they are given that work to do, they’ll have to make that their priority. So I hope that the members of the Government say, “Yes, that’s a reasonable point.” even if they reject the other points that I’ve made, to say, “Yes, that is a reasonable point. We must not do that to this committee at such a serious time of an international outbreak.”

Obviously, the referral motion enjoys the support of the party I belong to, but this debate has become tainted by alarmism. This debate has wandered right off the track. It is a very narrow, well-understood device used by both sides of the House from time to time. But to suggest that we should acquiesce with this merchant of doom from the other side of the House at a time when all parliamentarians should be standing shoulder to shoulder and giving reassurance to New Zealanders rather than plucking inaccurate information out of Google, as he’s just done in terms of America and Europe, without understanding the technicalities of that decision—not only has the member moved us away from a very common parliamentary practice, which we will be voting for, but he is now trying to scare, trying to panic, and trying to taint what is an important piece of legislation which has long since been talked about in this House: a public policy issue to which we are no strangers. So this notion that we’re on the edge of a precipice—worsened and exaggerated by the other members of the House at the very time they should be giving a tone that is calm and reassuring, not dividing New Zealanders in levels of panic and scaremongering, moving along like Cassandras. So for those reasons, under no circumstances whatsoever will we agree with the sentiments of the last speaker, Mr Tim Macindoe, and I encourage us to move very quickly to the end of this rather elongated and fruitless debate.

Could I just remind members before I choose—with a very difficult choice—that this is a very narrow debate. Thank you for your understanding. On the basis of your miming, Chris Penk gets the call.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I didn’t realise that hand gestures were helpful to sort of communicate a message in the House. I’ll bear that in mind in other contexts.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Not always.

Not always—OK, thank you. The member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Shane Jones, said before that the matter was trifling, but I think he would acknowledge that it’s never fruitless to try to avoid a law turning to custard. So, for that reason, the select committee needs as much time as possible, or at least not less time than usual, to be able to consider the matter that will be before it—namely, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. I make that submission for approximately four reasons. By happy coincidence, they all start with the letter “c”: cross-referencing other obligations, certainty, complexity, and the crowded public square.

The first of those is cross-referencing other obligations. Mr Macindoe has already referred to the need to weigh New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report requirements so I won’t go into that in any detail, but I think it’s also worth noting that the other obligations that would need to be weighed against the substance and, indeed, the detail of the law itself include international obligations. For example, the World Health Organization—oh, I beg your pardon; I thought someone called out “Who?”—Framework Convention on Tobacco Control contains New Zealand’s obligations with which this law will need to be consistent. So, it’s important that the select committee turns its mind to that and isn’t unduly rushed in doing so, lest it miss an opportunity to continue New Zealand’s alignment with that international instrument.

The second point was around certainty, more particularly the need to get the law right the first time. This is an area of public life that will be important to those who perhaps don’t necessarily interact much with parliamentary processes and debates, and I would rather not see a situation where the Parliament, as has happened regrettably sometimes in recent years in relation to drug legislation of other types—to sort of go backwards and forth and create some confusion in the community. So, for the sake of certainty, it’s important that the select committee takes all the time that it needs to get this legislative process right the first time. As the saying goes, “Act in haste, repent at leisure.” Well, this would be an Act that will be passed, and it seems that it’s set to be passed in due course, and to do that hastily and only to be required to repeal or replace at leisure later would be a shame and certainly one that’s open to the House to avoid today.

My next point was around complexity, and that really touches on the fact that it is a very technical piece of legislation. If we look, for example, as early as the second line of the explanatory note, the select committee will need to turn its mind to the differences and relative merits of “tobacco smoking products, herbal smoking products, smokeless tobacco products, and vaping products”. To allow them the time that they need to gain expert advice on the differences between those from a health perspective, and I suppose from a justice perspective as well, is very important. I don’t think that we should tie the hands of the select committee any more than would be the case normally in terms of a reporting period in relation to their very important duty to consider those details.

My final point relates to the crowdedness of the public square. Mr Macindoe is ahead of me in referencing the particular demands that he expects—and I think, quite reasonably—will be placed upon the Health Committee in the coming months regarding the coronavirus pandemic as we can now call it despite accusations of scaremongering which are themselves scaremongering and spurious.

But more generally speaking, there will be a crowded public square, such that people who have an interest in this legislation will no doubt also be keenly interested in paying attention to other matters of policy making within this legislative process, but also ahead of the general election. So I think we’d be naive not to think that that will be important in part of the context of lawmaking and submissions that can be expected in relation to this bill.

Again, I think for the members of the Health Committee, to pressure them unduly to have a shorter than usual process in considering this very important legislation would not do justice to them, nor indeed the subject matter of the bill. So for that reason, I, along with colleagues on this side of the House, it seems, reject the notion that there should be a shorter period for the Health Committee to consider the bill before reporting back.

I move, That the question be now put.

Before I call Matt Doocey, could I just say that despite the previous speaker, Mr Chris Penk, indicating that he understood the debate was narrow, there was very little of his contribution that actually referred to the instruction that we are now debating: it doesn’t cover the content of the legislation, it doesn’t cover the prospect of a pandemic in New Zealand and the subsequent Health Committee workload, and it doesn’t cover the American travel ban; it just covers the instruction.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank very much. I want to start by saying that I rise on behalf of not only the National Party but as a member of the Health Committee to oppose this instruction to truncate the report-back time to 2½ months. You know, we’re not here for three months or four; it’s two and a half. I just want to start by saying, in response to that last Government member, the Hon Shane Jones, who took his call, if I said half the rubbish that he does in this House, I’d expect my mum to call me up and tell me to come home. I mean, we are debating a serious matter here. This is the first time this Parliament has had the ability to debate regulation on vaping—the first time. In the words of his own colleague Darroch Ball, who interjected when the Hon Michael Woodhouse was debating, he said, “You’ve got to do it once and do it right.”

Well, in fact, that’s what we’re actually arguing for today in this debate: doing it once and doing it right. New Zealand’s Parliament has not debated regulation on vaping before. And in the words of the Minister herself, when she took the first call of the first reading of this debate around the smoke-free and the regulation of vaping, she said, “The bill is complex.” So you have the Minister responsible for the bill who says it’s complex, which is coded for “I don’t think we’ve got this right.”, yet, on the other hand, the introduction of a 2½ month instruction to go through a submission process.

Add into that mix that the Minister herself admitted that, in fact, there hadn’t been a lot of consultation in the lead-up to this bill. The Government talks about a new style of politics, yet they decline the Opposition’s request to be involved in the formation of this bill. There’s no other consideration of stakeholders in this policy development, so how can we go from the Minister accepting this is a complex bill and the Minister stating that, in fact, there hasn’t been a lot of consultation—which I would probably state means there hasn’t been enough consultation—and now the report-back time has been truncated to 2½ months. The risk is we don’t have that consultation and we don’t have the ability for submitters to have their say.

I know we are to talk about the 2½ months in this debate and not the content of the bill, but I just want to make one quick point because I am going to be brief here. This bill is around the regulation of a harmful substance. We are not making things safe here; we’re introducing vaping to reduce the harm. Yes it reduces harm by 95 percent, but it is a harmful substance. So how can we be in a position in Parliament when we are looking at the regulation of a harmful substance, and we’re saying the bill is complex—so we haven’t got all the answers yet. We’re actually stating we haven’t done much consultation, yet all of a sudden we’re saying, “You’ve only got 2½ months to seek submissions and to hear them.”

The problem is we are going to be forced into a position to return a bill back to the House, after 2½ months, that would not have all the tyres kicked. It will not be fit for purpose. We will be forced to go into the committee of the whole House, and there’ll be a number of Supplementary Order Papers from the Government side, and there will be from the Opposition side, to correct the problems that this bill will come back to in the second reading. And that is why I think we should be opposing the 2½ month—not three, four, or six—report-back date. Thank you, Madam Speaker.