Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just wanted to start my contribution, actually, firstly, by acknowledging the former Minister who had just resumed her seat: the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. When she was in that hot seat of being the health Minister, we did a lot of work on this legislation, and I think the former Minister will be the first to admit that the concerns that the Greens came to her with were about the potential for criminal prohibition and the potential of criminalising, particularly, young people with some of the moves under the headline of “the smoke-free generation”. What the former Minister did was engage wholesale and fulsomely with us to make sure that we addressed all of those potential concerns of criminalisation. That enabled us to get to a place where the Greens were comfortable with supporting evidence-based harm interventions to reduce substance harm in this country. So I just wanted to acknowledge, first and foremost off the bat, that what we had here was not only world leading in terms of its ability to reduce smoking harm but also that it modelled a way to move forward without entailing criminal prohibition.

Turning to the bill in front of us today. There’s been not too much ability to meaningfully canvass the content of it. The reason for that, of course, is that the Government introduced it today, and we started debating it at around 3 or 3.30 p.m. It’s now just getting to 11 p.m., and in the blink of an eye, in nine to 10 hours of debating time in this Chamber, the Government has pushed through, under urgency, world-leading, evidence-based, harm-minimisation legislation for one of the most deadly substances that we know of—a substance that will kill 50 percent of its consumers. “Why?” is the fundamental question. Why is this on the House’s agenda and why is it necessary to go through under urgency without due public scrutiny and the typical convention of this House?

Why? Well, so far we’ve been led round in circles by the Minister, who’s told us in the many back and forths that we attempted to have in the committee of the whole House that the reason this is happening is because of the coalition agreement between the New Zealand First Party and the National Party to form this Government. Well, why is it in that coalition agreement? Well, because it’s in the coalition agreement. Well, why is it in the coalition agreement? It’s because it’s in the coalition agreement. You can see the frustration in that tautology.

💬 Hon Members: The coalition agreement!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I guess I just wanted to say to members of the Government and the governing parties who are heckling me at the minute that I get that this is a game for you guys, at this point. I get that it’s kind of, you know, “We’ll back our team and we’ll rally behind because this is the thing that we’re doing.” But these are people’s lives. Thirteen New Zealanders die every single day from consuming tobacco—

💬 Hon Simeon Brown: We’ve got good policies.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —the Hon Simeon Brown—and they are going to continue to die at a faster rate than they would have otherwise had it not been for this repeal legislation, which your Government is pushing through under urgency tonight, because, Madam Speaker—noting that the Speaker’s just changed—we are confronted with, effectively, the kind of underlying principle or logic here of “Why save more lives? Why move faster? Why have any aspiration to apply the evidence and to move in a direction that would put us at the forefront of the world when it comes to actually meaningfully addressing these issues?”

I think some really salient points have been made, including by my colleague Steve Abel in his final contribution in the committee of the whole House on the title and commencement clauses, where he made the point about how, back in the day, we used to live in far smokier environments. I’d just actually invite members across this House to think about the fact that, only a few decades ago, this Chamber was one of those smoky environments where it was the case that members of Parliament and officers of Parliament and the Speaker could light up their cigarette and do so entirely legally. Because it was recognised that smoking and cigarettes were harmful, we moved towards an environment which was less and less smoky and, actually, fun fact, it wasn’t until 2016—2016—that the entire premises of Parliament finally became entirely smoke-free, including our lawn. That is very recent history and entirely indicative of the reality, as this place bares out time and again, that everything is impossible until it becomes possible, and all it takes in order to get to that place which, once upon a time, was fathomed impossible, is evidence and a little bit of backbone and courage to make it happen.

So not only are we left in this kind of haze as to why the Government’s progressing this through, because the only entities that we saw advocating for the repeal of this smoke-free generation legislation throughout the past year or so were New Zealand First and the tobacco industry, but who benefits? Who benefits from the passage of this law? Well, it’s not the more New Zealanders who are going to be addicted for longer only filling up this Government’s coffers by an approximate $500 million per annum as a result of increased excise in tobacco tax; it’s going to be the tobacco industry. Sure, actually, we could potentially reflect on that point that that half a billion dollars is going to add, in the short term, to the Government’s revenue and therefore make them able to pay for the tax cuts that they promised throughout the election campaign. But to contextualise that in the long run, outside of the three-yearly cycle, we know that this is going to cost us billions of dollars, and therefore it sits in entire contravention to the National Party’s proposals of social investment.

There’s actually no cost-benefit analysis that sits alongside this legislation, I might add, which again leaves us with the question of why this is occurring under the urgency. We heard, again, similarly circular logic from the Minister, to the effect that she was conflating the point that this was simply a part of the coalition agreement, with no information or understanding of where that came from provided to the House—but that was conflated with why this, for some reason, had to be introduced under urgency and couldn’t have a select committee process. Then, we were kind of ushered towards this hypothetical of what might exist into the future, without any meaningful detail as to what that might be or contain.

So we’ve kind of heard all of these weird arguments, which, on the one side, have said that this thing isn’t in effect yet, so therefore it’s not important, but yet we have a piece of repealing legislation that is being pushed through under urgency in order to repeal that thing which apparently is also not going to be effective but is also going to be far too effective. If you’re not following, Madam Speaker, that’s because there is no consistency and there is no rhyme nor reason nor logic to what it is that we have heard from the Government. I think that is perhaps why every single thing that we have heard from the Minister in arguing for this legislation tonight and throughout this afternoon has come from a defensive proposition. It has not been arguing for an aspirational future. It has not been arguing for evidence or where we should be moving to a vision of a healthier Aotearoa New Zealand; in fact, it has been defending a return to the status quo—back on track; or “back on baccie”, as my Green colleague said earlier.

I just really wanted to also drill into that point of the use of urgency, because I think it is a really important and salient one here, and one that has been a point of contention throughout the last few days. We’ve heard, time and again, from members of the Government that the reason that they feel entitled to push this and other legislation through under urgency is because they won an election—they won an election and they formed a Government, so therefore absolutely everything that they want to do, albeit that potentially only coming from one of the three coalition parties, is somehow able to be pushed through without any of the usual convention associated with the parliamentary process. So that kind of begs the question of whether they believe that authoritarian rule is “all g” simply because every three years we have a general election. Again, it simply begs the question of what kind of conventions of Parliament they are going to be upholding if all it takes to undermine those processes and those conventions is the fact that they were able to cobble together a Government subsequent to that election.

That then prompts another point, which is the point that—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Remember 2017?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —they are pushing this under urgency, because, frankly, the Hon Scott Simpson, I think they’re embarrassed. That’s why the Hon Dr Shane Reti is sat in the corner up there—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Remember 2017, the “coalition of the losers”? Remember that?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and not on the front bench, as he should be. That is why, the Hon Scott Simpson, this has been allocated to New Zealand First and not being led by the National Party. They want New Zealanders to forget. They are ripping off the band-aid really, really quickly in the hopes that this is swept under the rug amongst all of the other heinous things that they are doing under urgency and super-quickly with hopes that, into the future, New Zealanders forget it.

The final thing that I think is just really important to put forward to New Zealanders out there who have been following along at home, probably quite devastated, as many who have communicated with us in the Chamber are tonight, is that they need to remember not to leave politics to the politicians, because that’s what happens when you leave it to politicians and lobbyists. We oppose this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If only you could ban misery. We haven’t heard the Opposition give an intelligent reckoning with a second and third order of facts of prohibition of cigarettes on an emerging black market. I recommend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to rise on this third reading. Look, we want to be really clear: we want to continue to bring smoking down in New Zealand. We’ve seen it drop significantly over the past 12 years, from around 16 percent down to 8.6 percent last year, to 6.8 percent this year. On the way we’re going, we will reach our goal of having the average under 5 percent by 2025. This Government is committed to that goal. I’d like to note that Action for Smokefree 2025 has said that the progress we’re making is unprecedented.

We want to build on what has worked. We are not going to take the punitive regulatory approach that the Opposition would like us to do; we’re going to build on what has worked—what has continued to drive down smoking rates.

Look, no regulations or programmes that were in place before the election have been stopped. That is the reality. We’re supporting a package of initiatives to make sure we ensure a smoke-free goal of 2025. I support this bill.

Kia ora. If the House would endure, I have decided to spend our five minutes—actually, four minutes and 52 seconds—on sharing and amplifying the voices of those who would have had the opportunity to have been heard had there been a process that wasn’t so urgent.

So I would like to share some of those voices that were part of the 45,000 submissions that came through to us, and make sure that those who are a part of this petition—those who are out there hoping that the politicians would hear and see them—that we indeed use this platform to use our sphere of influence to bring their voices to the House. I feel very sad that they didn’t get the opportunity, young and old. So, through you, e te Pīka:

“I’m a public health student in Aotearoa. Presumably this is a dead rat New Zealand First and ACT have made National swallow. I expect the action points from the regulations 2021 to be retained somehow, seeing this public pressure.” That was their hope.

“I am a student and I see this as a step backwards. We have a duty of care and responsibility to consider and protect future generations. Let’s not fail them.”

“Halt this disgraceful and wholly cynical move to dismantle an important aspect of public health policy. Because it makes sense: we know smoking kills people and especially those who are most vulnerable. We are an advanced society. We are better than this cheap behaviour.”

“My three moko will be part of the generation who will never smoke. They will live longer and have healthier lives than my generation. This Government intends sacrificing my mokos to make money. Not on my watch.”

“This is retrograde and doesn’t even make any rational economic sense. Alarming for Government posing as so-called competent managers of the economy.”

“Smoking killed my mother at an early age. It is utterly cynical to use addiction as a way of funding tax cuts.”

“A bad decision will destroy New Zealand generations. Please, please don’t do it. This is not what people voted for. It is an unbelievable abuse of power.”

“Because our Government is a cooked, colonised organisation”—their words; not mine—“who only care for money and pleasing the investors, they are greedy and live in the clouds and are clueless as to how this law change will kill future generations and make the poor poorer. It is sick and selfish, what they want to do. Support the smoke-free legislation.”

“This coalition Government has already shown its true colours. Money is more important than the health and wellbeing of our whānau.”

“To share my disgust with the new Government whose first act in power was to shame Aotearoa in the eyes of the progressive world—we made the front page of the BBC online news page.”

“My mum recently died from lung cancer. I don’t want a tax cut at the expense of our population’s health and our world-leading smoke-free plan. The Government are evil people for thinking this was ever an option. Disgusting behaviour from National, ACT, New Zealand First.”

“Us bottom feeders do not need a few cents’ tax cut, but we do need the tobacco industry to disappear from our shores. People over profit, always.”

“What possible reason is there to roll back legislation that stops tobacco companies damaging the people’s health for their own profit? Wouldn’t you be put in jail if you knowingly sold a product that kills people? Can’t believe this petition is even necessary. Embarrassed by the new Government.”

“Absolutely disgusting move to willingly allow people to die by the thousands from a problem that’s already been solved, because this is all about money and the new Government are disgusting and need to be held accountable. The inequity of the decision and the lack of evidence-led decision-making on this issue is shameful.”

“This Government is prioritising tax revenue over human health and it is shameful, because smoking kills, is horribly addictive, and is the number one risk factor in sudden infant death syndrome in babies.”

“Absolutely disgusting move to willingly allow people to die by the thousands from a problem”—again—“that’s already been solved”—sorry. “Watching a loved one escape nicotine addiction looked like trying to escape quicksand. I don’t want my kids having to do that in the future, just to get the rich richer. It is outrageous to put taxes ahead of health.” Kia ora rā. We stand in opposition to this disgusting bill.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. The disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, and now the repeal of our smoke-free legislation, within hours of each other, shows we have a Government that doesn’t care for the existing health disparities between Māori and non-Māori, and those impacted most in low socio-economic communities.

I think about taking from the poor and giving to the rich, because, as we open the floodgates for more tobacco in our communities, it is te iwi Māori and those of low socio-economic backgrounds that will be most impacted. This bill, this legislation, in my mind, is pōhauhau—it is absurd. It makes me pukuriri—makes me angry. It’s just downright pōhēhē—it’s wrong. It’s wrong because we hear from the Government all night that they’re trying to build on the gains that have been made through the generations, because, yes, we have seen reductions. But can I go to the Action on Smoking and Health Year 10 Smokefree Snapshot survey and point out to the Minister that there are unacceptable gaps still between Māori and non-Māori in 14-year-olds who smoke. The Māori stats are 6.2 percent of year 10s across the country; for non-Māori, it is 2 percent. That is a huge gap, still. Of those young people surveyed, 25 percent of them are wāhine Māori. These are taitamariki; these are our future. They are the buffer; they’re the inheritors of this change. It is a dramatic change for our country because we have come so far. The smoke-free generation is now gone. It is in the ashtray.

As a mother of the smoke-free generation, I worry about the future of our young people. I wanted to address the Minister of Māori Development, the Hon Tama Potaka, because we share children of the same age, and appeal to him. For Māori development, we need our engine room to be strong and healthy and thriving. But tobacco impacts te iwi Māori more than any other population in New Zealand; 5,000 people die of smoking-related illnesses, te nuinga ko te iwi Māori [the majority of whom are Māori people].

What engagement has been done with te iwi Māori on the proposal to repeal the smoke-free legislation? Well, there’s been none, because there was never a campaign on it. There’s been none, because there’s been no hui. There will be none, because we’re in urgency, and New Zealanders and te iwi Māori are shut out of the process. So we stand as a small voice to advocate for those who have no voice in this House.

I think about iwi accountability. While I have the Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Health, as Ngātiwai uri, in the House, I’d like to raise the fact that our iwi has invited both Ministers to meet with our people on the marae and talk about their plans to improve Māori health outcomes. E te Minita the Hon Shane Reti and Minita the Hon Casey Costello: Ngātiwai Trust Board posted today reiterating the invitation from 14 December 2023. Nau mai, hoki mai ki te kāinga. [Welcome home.]

Because in te iwi Māori, accountability isn’t every three years when there’s an electoral cycle; in te iwi Māori, it happens every day. In te iwi Māori, it happens on your marae, and, in te iwi Māori, it’s in your direct messages as they harass you to say more—when my 80-year-old auntie’s messaging me saying, “Kōtiro, you’re not saying enough. This is outrageous. Get up!” and I say, “Oh, auntie, there’s a tikanga. I can’t just get up any time. It’s not the marae.” But that’s the passion that’s coming from our kāinga and the worry that our people have for now and into the future as we see the smoke-free generation go down the toilet, into the ashtray, and out into the harbour.

May I invite this Government to consider presenting their plan quickly because the people of New Zealand need to know tomorrow—what is the plan?—not in six months’ time. You’re repealing this now and yet you didn’t need to. Put it through the Health Committee—we’re all here listening, we just had our chair speak—and let the people of New Zealand in for once. Kia ora tātou.

I rise to speak on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. We have traversed the area multiple times today that, before this previous amendment came into power, we had already reduced smoking rates to a point where we have reached or nearly reached our smoke-free targets, which is less than 5 percent.

We will continue to support initiatives to provide people with practical tools and support to help them quit. You can choose to smoke; you don’t choose to be a victim of crime. This bill changes the process, not the goal, and there are better ways to reduce harm. Prohibition approaches do not have the greatest track record. Therefore, I recommend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation this evening. It is a dark day in this Parliament today. We started with the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, and, at that time, I did a passionate speech, a well-prepared speech, because I spend a lot of time with health practitioners, people that are in my ear telling me to do better. I started that speech talking about my marae in the valley of Moawhango, and the Rangitīkei—the person that is talking over my speech at the moment that represents that rohe—and, like Hūhana Lyndon, I appeal to the Minister for Māori Development tonight. And what I didn’t say today is that in this room we have whanaunga connections. We share a tipuna, the Minister for Māori Development and I, in Mōkai Pātea and across to Te Pāti Māori with Takutai Natasha Kemp.

And what I said this morning is that when I go back to my marae in Moawhango, I hope that I can say that I have done better by my service in this House. Māori members of Parliament are held to an additional threshold to everyone else in this Parliament. Yes, we all serve our communities, yes, we serve our constituents, but, at the end of the day, we go back to our marae and we explain to our people. At the start of today, we explained that we’ll be going back to our marae to say that we’ve lost the fight today to take seven years off their life, and, under this one, that we go backwards on addressing health inequities and particularly the rates of smoking for Māori.

The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022 would have reduced tobacco outlets from 6,000—6,000—to 600, denicotinised tobacco, and created a smoke-free generation—a smoke-free generation. But what is important is listening to the voices that we usually hear in this House. And I am saddened that up here in the gallery, just like in the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, people aren’t here hearing the debates ā-kanohi—in person—feeling the wairua of this discussion, because it’s shameful. It is disgraceful—

💬 Cameron Brewer: You had your chance.

—and it is an assault on Māori, Cameron Brewer. These two pieces of legislation impact our people, impact our rangatahi, and impact our tamariki, because, like many, I have grown up intergenerationally with smokers.

The person just before who said it’s a choice to smoke: after generation after generation after generation, do you really think that our rangatahi have a choice not to smoke? Today, you choose not to protect them. You should hang your heads in shame, because not everyone’s on track—not everyone’s on track. If you read Hāpai te Hauora’s comments on this particular kaupapa, Māori will not reach the 5 percent target for a smoke-free 2025. Modelling shows that unless we act with urgency, Māori will be left behind and not reach this goal till 2040.

The smoking rates for Māori remain alarmingly high at 17.1 percent, compared to our non-Māori counterparts at 6.1 percent. Māori continue to face substantial barriers to quitting smoking. Low-income communities have four times more tobacco retailers situated in their communities, hooking more whānau into addiction.

Now, that word “urgency” is important, but not in terms of urgency in this House. It is a failure on our democracy, tonight, that we haven’t taken the time to allow the critical voices of Māori to participate in this debate. Just as importantly, we have not allowed the voices, the expertise, and the evidence from health practitioners to come and contribute to this debate, to hold the Government to account—just like this side of the House is tonight. It is an embarrassment that you have chosen to ram through such legislation through this House in urgency, not allowing those voices to have a say. Not just have a say—but because these are such sensitive kaupapa that affect our indigenous people, therefore they affect everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The question has to be asked: who’s moving who? Who is the boss in this Government? Because Luxon, our Prime Minister, says that he’s serious about the outcomes for Māori, but here we see the first health policy from this Government and all it promotes for Māori is death—is death. That is the reality of what we are talking about tonight.

I am passionate about this topic because, at the start of the year—my whānau are impacted by decisions such as these. It is a difficult journey for any family that has to go through a cancer scare, a cancer diagnosis of those loved ones close to you. And when you sit in that doctor’s room and hear that information come through, you sit and think about “What could have I done?”—what could have I done? So tonight, colleagues, members of Parliament, my whanaunga the Minister of Māori Development, the Minister of Health—a health practitioner that signed up, as a doctor, to do no harm to others; to do no harm to others. To my colleagues on this side of the House who have stood all day, shoulder to shoulder to fight these shocking pieces of legislation—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Most of them weren’t here.

I’ve been here all day.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Most of them haven’t been.

The assault—

💬 Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Madam Speaker. There was an interjection suggesting that members were not here. That’s against parliamentary rules.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There was nobody named in that interjection. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll continue. In my one-minute 30 that I have left, I ask: who’s the boss? Who’s actually making the decisions? How do people come into this Parliament with such motivation that they didn’t campaign on? But, yes, each of you have to go back to your communities and explain what happened, because I know that the whānau in Maraenui do not support this piece of legislation, that they will be impacted the most; that the people in Rongowhakaata down to Tairāwhiti, they will be impacted by this piece of legislation. The people in Massey, one of the most deprived parts of Auckland’s North Shore—they do not support this legislation. And so, each of you, I look at you and ask you to dig deep, because, while this is a political environment, we have an obligation to serve, to do better, to care for our whānau, and to ensure that we protect generations to come. The arrogance that I have seen from that side of the House, in such a sensitive kaupapa this evening, is disgraceful.

We want to make it clear this Government is still committed to the Smokefree 2025 goal. Just because we use a different approach doesn’t mean that we can’t achieve the same outcome. Our policy is to help people quit smoking and to stop young people from starting smoking and vaping. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

I am disgusted that that previous speaker, Carlos Cheung, on this important kaupapa, gave 12 seconds of his care, his life, and his attention to this incredibly important matter. It is not too late for members of the Government to do the right thing, and that is to do the right thing in principle, with a moral compass, and to do the right thing by their constituents, who overwhelmingly do not want this repeal. I can tell you that the latest data from the Health Coalition Aotearoa is 53,000 signatures, not 45,000. Today, there has been a groundswell of signatures from people imploring their MPs, imploring their Government MPs, to do the right thing. It is not too late, as I said previously. They can cross the floor tonight. They can treat this with their conscience and do the right thing and make history and restore faith in our democratic system.

This is a very, very sad day for New Zealand democracy. We have lost the Māori Health Authority under urgency. We are losing this battle. We have got moments to go in which these MPs can do the right thing. We have lost a major news organisation. These are the checks and balances on unfettered power, and what we have seen has been wholly inadequate in the way that this Government has treated this bill. I would like to say that the sniggering and sneering and treating with contempt and the joking kind of approach that we have seen from members opposite says so much about the fact of what they think about this kaupapa and how they feel about the fact that 8,000 lives are at stake—8,000 lives that could’ve been saved. They will have blood on their hands.

What was so appalling tonight was the committee of the whole House stage. We tried to get answers out of the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello, and, to her credit, she is not the one doing the sniggering. She is sitting there, but she did not answer our questions. She went round and round in circles. We asked her about the rationale. We asked her what was so prescient to make this a bill that had to go through urgency and that needed to happen with very scant evidence, if no evidence, because we could not get any evidence of the evidence. We got no answers from her. There was a reference to a coalition agreement; it was a tautology. It was just useless. We are seeing the removal of the smoke-free generation in one fell swoop.

When people put amendments forward to say, “What about just changing the number of retail outlets? Let’s just compromise a little bit.”, this Government was not having a bar of it; the Minister was not having a bar of it. Denicotinisation, that very difficult word that we struggle with—that would’ve made a huge difference, even if we didn’t go the whole hog. The Minister was not prepared to budge on it, and there were no reasons given as to why she was so firmly positioned supporting the tobacco lobbies with this bill.

There were questions about regulation, about normal consumer protections that apply to every other retail sector. We didn’t get any answers. The way this has been done, it has been—pardon the pun—smoke and mirrors. There was no campaign on this. There was no select committee. There has been a shameful abuse of urgency, in my view, and there haven’t really been adequate interviews in the media, the fourth estate, which is one of the last checks and balances—the Minister has refused to engage with them. Then we find out today in question time, oh, there’s going to be revenue gained, revenue that will help to pay for tax cuts.

The members opposite have some time to cross the floor. In the meantime, as they ponder that, whether they will do the right thing, I promise New Zealanders that we on this side of the House will continue to remind them every single week of this shameful piece of legislation, right up till the election. May I implore through you, Madam Speaker, to those outside watching this: do not forget this moment. Do not forget that this Government has thrown our children under the bus, our smoke-free generation. When it comes time to the election, whether that is in 18 months or whether that is in three years, this should be what makes you cast your vote. Don’t you ever forget, because they have blood on their hands.

💬 Todd Stephenson: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That is unparliamentary language. “Blood on their hands” infers that the members of the Government are actually murdering people and that should be a withdraw and apologise.

💬 Shanan Halbert: Speaking to the point of order?

I never actually called the point of order.

💬 Todd Stephenson: Oh well, I’m going to say it again, then. Point of order, Madam Speaker?

💬 Shanan Halbert: Just checking: are you calling the point of order?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No.

I just want to use one of these last closing calls from the National Party to pay tribute to Dame Tariana Turia and the work that she did 14 years ago with the Smokefree 2025 initiative, and the work that she did with Bill English and John Key in that fifth National Government on Smokefree 2025 to halve smoking rates—and we’ve done better than that—the two pieces of landmark legislation in 2011 and 2014 under the National Government. In fact, on 18 October in the New Zealand Herald: “Dame Tariana Turia believes more can be accomplished for Māori health under National”. That was the headline. So I want to pay tribute to Dame Tariana and the work that she did and to tell her that we will reinforce that work, we will reinvigorate that work, we will recharge that work, and we will relaunch that work. We are committed to Smokefree 2025, and we’re on track. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—thank you. It’s not a pleasure, but it is something that I have to do in so far as talking in this third reading of this bill. It’s not a pleasure, because it’s a really sad day. I think that Cameron Brewer’s contribution that he just made possibly sounded a little bit different in his head, because I’m not entirely sure that anybody he referenced in that contribution would be thinking the same things as he just regaled us with.

The Minister has repeatedly said that this isn’t the end position. She wants to see a stop to smoking—sounds good. And further, she is continuing the continuation of her work on strategies that will reach a smoke-free target. Yet throughout this process, she hasn’t been able to give anyone any confidence whatsoever that she has a single idea, let alone a good idea, that will actually work. She had the audacity earlier to say it’s an emotional issue. It’s not an emotional issue; it’s a deadly issue.

Frankly, with the poor judgment that’s been shown to date throughout this debate, which has only taken one day, when it should have gone through a proper process rather than urgency, there has been a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals. A complete lack of understanding of what evidence is, of what empirical evidence is, of what the modelling shows, and all of the work that numerous experts have done in this domain over many years. Does the Minister really think that anyone now trusts her to come up with some magic solutions that no one’s thought of before? Because she’s just hiffed out the universally acknowledged gold standard, and it’s been chucked in the bin in this unceremonious, unruly, ridiculous way in urgency tonight.

When I think about the harm that this causes, it really does make me feel a little bit livid. This change can’t be justified from any health perspective at all. There is no health perspective in this debate. There is no logic or health logic in anything that’s going on in this House tonight. We will see more people suffer, we will see more people be sick, and, therefore, more people clogging up our hospitals with the healthcare costs that are associated with that down the line, with the people that then miss out on the treatments that they need because of that, not to mention the associated costs of just people not being at work—the productivity costs.

The harms that tobacco does in our communities are clear. And the evidence—actual evidence—shows us that the smoke-free legislation that we introduced in 2022 that’s been hiffed out tonight would have saved about 8,000, and that is nothing to sniff at, is it? That’s 8,000 human beings who would be alive if this Government had the fortitude to carry on with a piece of legislation that was delivered to them on a plate, apart from the fact that they have to pander to the tobacco lobby to repeal it. It would have extended Māori life expectancy and it would have saved about $5 billion in healthcare costs, and that’s a real shame.

It’s a particular shame because, when we consider the impetus for this, the reality is that the Government’s simply turning a blind eye to that damage. They’re turning a blind eye and they’re resolutely ignoring everything that’s gone on tonight because they need to fund tax cuts. It’s an indictment on this Government’s priorities that we’re literally here repealing smoke-free laws to fund tax cuts that are disproportionately favourable to our most wealthy.

Now, many people have said, and let me reiterate, the National Party did not campaign on this repeal at the election. New Zealanders, I think, have been quite shocked. I know I’ve certainly run into people who have had some buyers’ remorse. They’ve been shocked by the plans to scrap this legislation, and it’s been described as a dirty deal done behind closed doors. Other people on the other side have interjected to say it’s a coalition arrangement—it’s a coalition agreement. The Minister herself even expanded that to say it wasn’t just the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement; it was the National-ACT coalition agreement as well, as if that somehow made it better. As I said: dirty deal done behind closed doors.

National has cherry-picked details to misrepresent and deliberately mislead the public, and you could see this happening as they tippytoed up to this issue before they dropped the bomb. They said things like there would be only one store in Northland retailing tobacco, when there would actually be 35. They were sowing the seeds of all that misinformation just to prepare the public for this.

Two more points. The other main impetus cited for the scrapping is the black market. We’ve talked about it earlier on tonight. Historically, we know—we know—there is little evidence that these measures significantly increase illicit tobacco trade in New Zealand or anywhere else in the world. I think it’s a real shame when things like that are brought into the debate and used to scare people. It’s the bogeyman, isn’t it? The black market! It doesn’t exist. Past tobacco control measures, despite claims from the tobacco industry—

💬 Tim Costley: What?

It does exist on the websites of the tobacco industries. It does exist in the minds of some economists who are very motivated to do that. But it hasn’t been shown to empirically exist in any meaningful way to warrant this scrapping.

The other thing that is the impetus behind this, which does not balance out 8,000 lives lost and does not balance out $5 billion wasted, is that the data used to justify this wasn’t accurate because it was as current as 2019. Again, that’s another example of a Minister who doesn’t understand statistics completely misunderstanding the use of whole numbers versus trends, modelling, and all the other expertise that go into making those accounts.

The public response is something that I want to finish my contribution on. Health professionals and groups all across the country, I think, have been quite loud and quite clear when they have said that they don’t want to see this repeal. We absolutely, on this side of the House, are completely united when we share those concerns, and we worry about those vocalisations about these health groups, because we know that they’re the experts. We know that they know what they’re talking about.

Polling commissioned by Health Coalition Aotearoa showed that 67 percent of New Zealanders supported our smoke-free legislation. Hundreds of health groups have signed open letters opposing this repeal. We saw rallies and demonstrations organised throughout the country in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, organised by the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and organised by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, where we literally saw health professionals—mainly health professionals—carrying posters of “Dr Shane Cigareti”. They had health posters showing Hamish Campbell, sitting over there, and Dr Vanessa Weenink. They were holding posters because they were so shocked that people from the medical professions would be part of this.

I want to reiterate my colleague Ingrid Leary’s plea prior: it is not too late. You can cross the House, and you can do the right thing. I know that you’ve been under pressure. I know that the people who work in health, in particular, have been under a huge amount of pressure. But it’s not too late.

Actually, speaking of the Hon Dr Reti, he can’t escape and he can’t run from his responsibilities for this decision. Just because the first thing he did was to callously delegate this to a brand new Minister, who is clearly out of her depth, who clearly does not understand the legislation, does not take away from the part that he’s played in turning this legislation backwards. He campaigned on a health system being in crisis, and the first thing he does is actually repeal a piece of legislation that would properly do something to address that.

This repeal helps nobody but the tobacco industry, and that has been said on numerous occasions, even with some warning about not going too far. I don’t know if we can go too far with this. This repeal helps nobody but the tobacco industry. In fact, the Government’s talking points have literally been cribbed from their websites. You could make a table. We have made a table: what the Government’s saying; what they’re saying on their website—it’s deplorable.

Yet we also have the mystery of that document—that mysterious document proposing tax cuts, written by goodness knows who—magically appearing in the Minister’s office, which she passed on to officials. All of that adds up to the fact that this stinks. It’s a sad day. I feel embarrassed for all of the people on that side of the House.

I’m not sure what kind of world we’re living in these days. It seems to be that we’re now in the ultimate nanny State. That’s what they want. They believe that the Government can just legislate and all the problems will go away. There’s no responsibility on the individual! There’s no personal responsibility! “We’ll just rule it out and turn on the blinkers. There’s no black market”—clearly wasn’t listening to her colleagues being emphatic the other day, where Customs said the biggest issue they have on the black market is tobacco. They’re asking for consistency and they want to have a smoke-free generation, but the Green Party also want to introduce new drugs to smoke.

I’ll tell you what I believe in. It’s not just in mucking around with supply. It’s about killing the demand. It’s about giving people the tools to actually tackle this. That’s how we’ll do it. That’s what we’re focused on. I commend the bill to the House.