Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. Members, we now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 24, “Amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

I want to ask a set of questions around section 3A, “Purposes of this Act”, in clause 5. I want to ask the Minister a series of questions about changes to the purpose of the Act and I want to understand why she has taken the approach she has. I want to understand better the direction she is seeking to chart in terms of tobacco control and the outcome she has said she is pursuing in terms of reducing the number of smokers.

I want to first ask why the purpose has changed, and in particular why the following provisions are removed from the purpose section of the Act. Why is it that the purpose statement that read “to prevent the harmful effect of other people’s smoking on the health of others, and especially on young people and children;” is now removed from the purpose of the Act? Second-hand smoke is a serious health issue. People can die from second-hand smoking. Tragically, babies die from second-hand smoking through sudden, unexpected death in infancy (SUDI). Second-hand smoke affects young people in their homes, in their cars—which has been regulated against—and we also regulate smoking at schools.

If I am to understand the Minister correctly, she has stated she does not intend to change other elements of tobacco control away from what she said was working in the past. Yet we see in the purpose clause of this bill a removal of the idea that we should be preventing tobacco control impacting others when it does so as second-hand smoke. So I want to understand from the Minister why she is making this change.

Secondly, I want to understand why there is a change in the language with respect to marketing. As far as I have known up until this point—and we’re working under urgency, so we don’t get the bill long in advance—I didn’t understand that the Minister intended to bring changes around the laws for tobacco marketing. Yet in section 3A(e) we see that she has changed the language. It now reads “(e) to regulate and control the marketing,”. In 2022 the amendment Act said, “to restrict” marketing. And, indeed, that is the point. We don’t allow tobacco marketing in public places. We also have plain packaging—a change proudly brought in by a National Government, as we heard during the second reading. So why has this language changed? Is there actually an intention to change how the marketing of tobacco or vaping products occurs in New Zealand? I think these are very important questions that have not been surfaced by our debate so far. And I do hope that we’ll be able to get answers for those because, of course, as we’ve heard, we have not been able to have a select committee on this bill. So we must get as clear answers as we can at this stage.

The third area of changes in this purpose statement occur in multiple places in section 3A(e). We see that the emphasis is on “(e)(i) discouraging people, especially children and young people, from taking up smoking; and (ii) discouraging non-smokers, especially children and young people, from taking up vaping or using smokeless tobacco products; and (iii) encouraging people to stop smoking, vaping, or otherwise using regulated products; and (iv) discouraging people who have stopped smoking, vaping, or otherwise using regulated products from resuming smoking, vaping, or using regulated products;”, and so on.

The language in the previous Act said “preventing”. That is much stronger language, and so when we hear about the Minister’s other plans, which we’re told will be the subject of a future Cabinet paper—and we recognise that we do have to wait to hear what these initiatives will be, uncomfortable though that is—it does seem that there are rather large policy changes afoot here. So I’d like to understand that from the Minister.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity—which is very welcome—to ask some incredibly important questions of the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello, and just to remind this committee that this is an urgency process and we’ve had a Minister who has not been very forthcoming to the fourth estate, the media, or I might say we are not satisfied with the answers given in question time. So it’s really important that we get some good-faith responses to the questions that we’re about to ask, particularly in relation to the legislative process.

So if I look at the section under the general policy statement and departmental disclosure statement and refer—I went to look on the House website to try and get a handle on the robustness of the process that has been gone through in order to inform this bill. I’d really like to hear answers from the Minister, because, when I look at the legislative disclosures, there are questions in here, which the Government are required to answer, around “publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that are informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect”—the answer is no.

The same applies to the regulatory impact statement. A regulatory impact statement was not prepared for the bill, as this was part of the Government’s 100-day plan. This is something that doesn’t sit easy, clearly, with many members, and so we’d like to understand the checks and balances of that, given that this was not campaigned on. So where exactly does the mandate come from, that the Government is saying that it has? To say that it’s just from the general election is not satisfactory when there are no checks and balances and where there has not been transparency of the policy that is being implemented. “Extent of impact analysis available”—no. Any analysis, like cost-benefit analysis—no—or “potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?” No. And that’s a really interesting point that I would like to understand, because all the evidence would show that those who are affected by smoking-related illness, many of them will suffer a huge loss of income or wealth that would be avoidable should they not have taken up smoking.

The purpose of the original Act, the one that is being repealed, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022, is to stop people taking up smoking in the first place. When we look at testing of legislative content, the Treaty of Waitangi—we have a bit of a blurb about the urgent Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, and yet we have the timing of this bill being introduced prior to the outcome of that. So that’s another question that I would really like to hear from the Minister.

We also have external consultation. And this one really gets me, because the following agencies were consulted—there’s a yes on that one, and then there’s a whole list of Government agencies, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Customs Service; Police; Oranga Tamariki—that is what is purporting to be “external consultation”. Well, I would ask the Minister: what is her definition of “external consultation”, given that we have 9,000 doctors who were begging for this repeal not to happen and who wrote to the Prime Minister? Does her definition include Te Hā—Waitaha smokefree support; Oranga Hā—Tai Poutini: Stop Smoking West Coast; Quitline New Zealand; Quit Strong, Te Whatu Ora; Smokefree; National Public Health Service; Action for Smokefree 2025; the fono students’ groups? What about Te Hā Aukati Kaipaipa Stop Smoking Services? What about the iwi groups? Are they external? Do they fit into the Minister’s definition? What about hapū groups? What about individuals?

What about the chap that came up to me on a street corner in Taieri and absolutely begged me to get smoke-free laws that were workable and that would stop the next generation from smoking? Because he had been addicted all his life and he had spent vast amounts of money both on cigarettes and trying to quit and just couldn’t.

So these questions for the Minister speak to the type of process. We really do need answers, because, when I look at all the sections that say, “No, there is no paperwork.”, and then the two parts that say, “yes”—one of them says “yes” to external consultation. I’m really struggling with the idea that going to Government agencies is considered external consultation. So I’d really like to know what the Minister’s definition of “external” is, and whether those other groups that I have referred to fit the definition.

Madam Chair, thank you for the ability to talk in this committee of the whole House stage. As other speakers have addressed, this is the first and only time that we will have to meaningfully chew through the substance and the content of this legislation. So I would really like to have a meaningful, genuine, and authentic engagement with the Minister on the substance of this legislation, given that this is the only meaningful ability that we will have as the House to scrutinise this in lieu of having a select committee stage.

So I guess, to that effect, I intend here to start a little bit broader, in drilling down into the purpose and the drivers behind this legislation, and then also to address some of the really important points about why this is occurring under urgency. Then we’ll get to some specifics. But I would really appreciate it if the Minister would meaningfully engage with these points, because they’re not just matters of political rhetoric. They are indeed questions that I believe the public deserves to have meaningful answers to, and, if I might add, it feels as though—as other speakers have alluded to—there is a sense of obfuscation and not a whole lot of clarity that the public and definitely members of Parliament have on why it is that we’re doing what we’re doing today, under urgency, no less.

So my first question for the Minister is a really clear one, and it is: where has this come from? I understand the technical point that this is contained within the New Zealand First and National coalition agreement, but what was the driving force behind that? I understand that at question time we’ve had a bit of a back and forth about the potential engagement of industry or otherwise. But, as I said in my second reading speech, the only entities or organisations that we can meaningfully identify in the public realm who were opposed to the Government in the last term passing the legislation were the likes of New Zealand First—the only party, I might add, of Government to propose that the legislation should be repealed—and the tobacco industry. Notably, the tobacco industry was backing a campaign that was fronted by those dairy owners. So my first question for the Minister is a really salient and important one and goes the heart of this bill: where did this come from, who asked for it, and who was asking New Zealand First to take this into Government and to put it on the 100-day plan?

The next question flows quite logically from that, and that is: why is this going through under urgency? Why is it necessary, because we’ve had other pieces of legislation introduced in the first 100 days, but they’re going through select committee processes. This bill doesn’t, from what I can ascertain, need to go through this urgency process where we’re going to pass it in the blink of an eye, and—as I’ve said before—therefore, this provides us right here and now with the only opportunity to have that meaningful input with the Minister and, through the Minister, with her officials. All of us here, I think, on the Opposition benches really would have benefited from a meaningful opportunity to engage with officials on the intention, the evidence, and the purpose behind this legislation at that select committee stage. But in lieu of that, this is all we’ve got. So the second question for the Minister is: why is this occurring under urgency?

Just to unpack that a little bit more, we have heard from the Minister in many question times and also in her first and second reading speech that this is very much part and parcel of the Government’s broader process and agenda here. They’re taking pieces of legislation that the former Government passed, they’re shredding them, and they tell us, “Well, wait and see.” In a few months’ time, there’ll be a Cabinet paper containing God knows what and we might end up with some form of replacement, but we have no meaningful ability to scrutinise what that replacement might actually be, so we revert to the status quo in the meantime.

So why is it necessary for this to go through under urgency? As previous speakers have alluded to, in the departmental disclosure statement, we have here at paragraph 2.5 a point from departmental officials saying that there has not been any analysis on potential costs and benefit, yet we have it—to be read contemporaneously with Official Information Act requests from Treasury and officials advising the Government—that there is going to be an approximate $500 million increase in revenue. So why is it that the Minister is not allowing these changes to bed in and then—I don’t know—potentially reviewing their efficacy, as would typically be the case? Actually, I’d point the Minister to one of the clauses that we got in the legislation, which is presently being repealed, which required the Ministry of Health to review the efficacy of the legislation, which is something that I managed to get in through the Health Committee process, because these were novel, world-first measures.

So my two questions to the Minister—and I’m really appealing to her here to engage with members of Parliament on this—are: where has this come from and what was it that meant that New Zealand First picked this up and ran with it and had it so fundamentally important to them that it was not only in the coalition agreement with National for a foundation pillar of this Government but was included in the 100-day plan? More so than that, why is it that every stage of this is going through under urgency—what is she afraid of?

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak during the committee of the whole House on this particular bill. A number of my colleagues have already canvassed, or, at least, with a light touch, something that I wish to delve into with respect to my particular contribution. That is clause 7, which repeals section 3AB(a) to (c) of the principal Act. Wow; where do I start? On the other side of the House, over the past 24 hours, we’ve heard that there is going to be this great big empowerment of iwi-Māori partnership boards so that they can have a determination over the health outcomes and aspirations of their local regions, their rohe, their papa kāinga—all of those places. Yet in this one fell swoop—and I’ll get to the question very shortly for the Minister—that opportunity to be able to contribute to those health aspirations and the goals that your community might have is being stripped instantly.

But not only is it being stripped, my challenge to the Minister is that it’s being stripped from a particular group of people with this, and that is Māori. It is the iwi-Māori partnership boards, which for the past 24 hours I’ve heard from that side of the House are going to be this great big saviour of Māori health, because this Government is empowering them to do that. Yet in this particular bill, it’s being taken away instantly, without explanation.

That’s the question I have to the Minister: does the Minister realise that this particular move is contradictory to the bill that has just been passed in this House, ushered in by her colleague Minister Reti? Does the Minister realise that? And without the proper consultation—and my colleagues have already canvassed that particular challenge to the Minister—it’s being taken away under urgency here in the House, without the ability for the community to speak to this.

Well, in the absence of that community voice, all of the people on this side had the same question: when did the Minister meet with that particular community—in this case the Māori community, in this case any of the iwi-Māori partnership boards—to discuss this particular matter, to advise them that regarding their rights, their ability to speak up, their ability to discuss with the Director-General of Health where tobacco can be sold within the region, etc?

My question to the Minister is: did she meet with iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPB)? I’m not going to buy one of the arguments that I’ve heard in the past 24 hours that they’re yet to be established—that’s simply not true. Under my time as the Minister, we established 11 of them, and there were a couple more still in the pipeline.

So my challenge to the Minister is: has she met with an IMPB? We’re going to go a step further here and ask if she has met directly with the iwi to discuss the matters with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Hon Simeon Brown: Which clause?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Now, Mr Simeon Brown might chirp away on that side of the Chamber in arrogant bliss of what’s taking place here, but the fact of the matter is that in his electorate, Ngāi Tai, or the iwi there, I’m pretty sure they haven’t spoken to Minister Costello about this particular bill, and that’s the point that I want to make. Not only is it stripping the voices of those Māori and the Māori leadership on these matters, it does something far more fundamental than that. What it does is it actually continues, despite the words of the Prime Minister, saying that they won’t support a Treaty principles bill by the ACT Party past the second reading, but the National Party are going to do it by subterfuge anyway.

Andy Foster: What’s this got to do with smoking?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The Treaty of Waitangi, my friend; have a read. It’s clause 7. It’s repealing Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the bill, and if that member wants to get up and take a call, I encourage him to, because at the moment from that side of the Chamber it’s silence. It’s nothing. It’s an embarrassment—in fact, it’s her own colleague. So the member might want to get up and help her, might want to get up and assist her to push through what we regard as a terrible bill in the House.

So just to recap, in the last 50 seconds, I want to know whether or not the Minister has met with any IMPBs—iwi-Māori partnership boards. Her Government has already applauded IMPBs, that they’re going to be the answer to Māori health aspirations. So I want to hear it: has the Minister met with an IMPB? Stretch that further into iwi: when the Minister went and met with the iwi chairs up in Waitangi, did the Minister raise this matter with the iwi chairs not three weeks ago, and if she did, what did they say? What was their reply? Simple questions to the Minister, and we want to hear answers to enable us to interrogate this bill properly, otherwise it’s going to seem like more cover-up, and that’s not what we want on something so important to our community. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’ll just respond to the first questions that were received around why second-hand smoking is changed and the change in the language with regard to the amendment bill replacing the overarching purpose section of the Act. The clauses have been drafted to remove the purposes that reflected the previous Government policies regarding retail reduction, low nicotine, and smoke-free. That is the reason why that language has changed.

I will note that the matter for urgency arises from both New Zealand First and ACT’s coalition agreement with National, which placed this into the 100-day plan, which is why the urgency is required.

Finally, in terms of the amendments around the Treaty clause, this was required to be changed as a result of—the section that existed was to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi relating specifically to the retail reduction scheme, but we have retained the requirement for the Minister for Regulation relating to requirements for smoked tobacco products to consider the risks and benefits for Māori of regulating a constituent. So we have retained the requirement to consult, and we will continue to do so.

I want to thank the Minister for making an attempt to engage in some of those questions, but with complete and full respect—because I genuinely would like to meaningfully dig into this—I don’t quite feel as though we got a very clear answer.

What we had there was an outlining of the reason that this is being introduced to the House—it’s because it’s in the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party—and this is, in philosophy, known as a tautology, where we are hearing that something is occurring because it’s in the plan, because it’s in the plan, because it’s in the plan, because it’s in the plan. So I really want to lift the lid on that, and if the Minister can actually meaningfully address that question and explain to us why—why is it in the plan? Not “It’s in the plan, because it’s in the plan.” Why is it in the plan?

Because, as I said in my second reading speech, the only identifiable organisations that we can see that are supportive of this—aside from now, obviously, the coalition Government. But, you know, when we had this going through the House supported by experts as world-leading and incredibly important as far as evidence-based policy goes, the only opposition that we heard was from the tobacco industry—granted, with the astroturf sometimes of those involved in the dairy sector—but also from the likes of New Zealand First.

So where is it that New Zealand First got this idea from, if not from—and, again, this is not me imputing anything; the only other identifiable organisation that was in support of repealing this legislation being the tobacco industry. Where has this come from, if not from the tobacco industry? Because that’s where logic takes us. So where has this come from? That answer is still not being addressed. You cannot simply refer, in a cyclical manner, to the Government’s coalition agreements.

The second question also was not addressed. We heard that the reason that this is being introduced under urgency and being passed through all stages under urgency is because it’s in the coalition agreement and the Government’s hundred-day plan. Once again, we’re back in the cyclical logic, and I really, really put it to the Minister: why is it not the case—

Hon Simeon Brown: It’s called an election.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that we could have had the opportunity for a select committee process, Mr Simeon Brown? Because if we had a select committee process, we could have heard from the experts. We could have chewed through the evidence that members of the Government are saying that they care about yet are unwilling to look at in the face.

Hon Simeon Brown: It’s our resident expert.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Because the evidence tells us, Mr Simeon Brown, based on the only advice that we’ve been able to get hold of—which had to be obtained through an Official Information Act request because the Government wasn’t particularly forthright about that—is that this will increase, or rather result in a reduction in the amount of people who are smoking.

So we are ending up with, instead of being on the track for a reduced number of people as a result of the plan that this Government is now repealing, more people going to be smoking than otherwise would. So perhaps that’s the third question for the Minister. Is it the case that, as a result of repealing this legislation today, under urgency, more people are going to smoke than otherwise would? Because that is the logical and evidential consequence that we come to looking at all of the advice that the Minister has had in front of her.

I come back to that key point again. There are two key questions for the Minister here. Where did this come from and why has it been put in the coalition agreement? Who is behind it? What is the driving force? And, secondly, what’s the Government scared of as far as a select committee process is concerned—and due procedure and Parliament going for that scrutiny, and those experts and community leaders coming forward to tell us what matters to them and whether things will meaningfully work?

Because, again, I take the Minister to the section within the legislation which she is repealing, which requires there to be a review of the efficacy of the regulations, which is something that I pushed for at the Health Committee and got across the line at the Health Committee when we were putting these regulations through in the first place—was that evidence-based review. So, if I may, I just really want to labour this point because we haven’t got answers to it and this is the only opportunity that we’ve got to have this scrutiny.

So I really, really implore the Minister to answer these questions. Firstly, where has this come from? Why did New Zealand First pick this up as a hobby horse that got included in the coalition agreement? Secondly, why could we not have a select committee stage? Why could we not unpack this issue in greater detail—which actually could have potentially provided all the more information, data, evidence, and community input for whatever regulatory regime is going to replace this? Thirdly, are more people going to be smoking as a result of the repeal of this legislation?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo the concerns of my colleague, Chlöe Swarbrick, in the fact that this legislation is going through under urgency before coming to some specific questions.

The New Zealand people are done a disservice by this bill being passed under urgency. We understand that sometimes urgency is needed, but certainly not in the passage of this bill where it is only seeking to deprive us of the opportunity to hear from those who might have a contrary view to the Government. One of the challenges is, without the opportunity to go into this in depth at select committee, really this is all we get in terms of hearing about what is intended by the bill.

I asked the Minister earlier a series of questions about the purpose, and I don’t believe she has adequately answered them because what her amendment bill is changing is effectively repealing the 2022 amendment. And yet there are changes to the purpose statement that alter the interpretation of other parts of the original Act from 1990. That includes the marketing—because the statement about marketing has changed—and it includes the statement about smoke-free environments because of the change in language and the weakened language around second-hand smoke.

This question has not been answered, because that is hugely important. We take at face value the Minister’s comments about wanting to keep the regime that was in place and was making such good progress. But how can we take those statements as true if the purpose of the bill, of all the other things, which—like marketing and environments—are being changed? This is very, very confusing and I believe she needs to set the record straight on whether this is a narrow repeal of what was done in 2022 or if a much wider change to New Zealand smoke-free legislation is actually what is intended here.

I want to go to the matter of the illicit market. Those of us who are in the Health Committee have been discussing the issues of illicit markets when it comes to pseudoephedrine, and no doubt these issues will be coming up when we talk about firearms reform in this House as well. What I want to know from the Minister is: what advice did she receive about the size of the illicit market in New Zealand? Because New Zealand has particular characteristics. The excise tax increases in New Zealand that have been successful at bringing down smoking rates means that we have some of the highest priced cigarettes in the world, and therefore you’d think we would have the biggest illicit market in the world. I have heard multiple claims during this debate about the illicit market, about how the 2022 amendment would support the gangs. I want to know what reasons the Minister has for believing that they are true and what advice she received about the illicit market.

I’m also interested to know about how she assesses efforts to reduce the illicit market done through the hard-working people in the New Zealand Customs Service, and if she has any views on whether or not their initiatives, funded through Budget 2022, to reduce the import of tobacco—about the effectiveness of those initiatives.

So, to summarise, before I resume my seat, I believe there are still outstanding questions relating to the purpose of this bill when it comes to marketing and smoke-free environments. And secondly, I have questions about the advice the Minister has received on illicit markets.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate the West Coast loyalty.

I’m going to table an amendment to Part 1—it’s to clause 5—and the purpose is, actually, to follow through on what is a philosophical approach from this coalition Government, and that’s freedom of choice. But I’ll step back a little bit and give you and some of my colleagues a little a history lesson, because section 3A(i), in clause 5, refers to “the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, done at Geneva on 21 May 2003.” I was there. I was the Associate Minister of Health and I was advised by one Ashley Bloomfield. So we were in Geneva at that time working with the World Health Organization (WHO) to make progress on the very challenge that we’re talking about in the committee today. I’m proud of the progress that we had made, and I have to acknowledge in this Chamber Dr Rob Beaglehole who had worked at the WHO for quite some time, who was a passionate advocate—and indeed still is today, along with his son—on reducing the harm from tobacco use across the globe, and I have to say that a lot of their good work followed through into what we passed in 2003.

So it is mentioned here: the obligations to give effect to that framework. But my amendment goes one step further and adds on paragraph (j), to say, “to support personal choice by removing the addictive component of smoked tobacco products.”

We have, as I say, a Government that’s all for freedom of choice, and we, on numerous occasions, through legislation, including this bit here, are trying to—and the Government claims it’s trying to—reduce the use of tobacco. The uptake—I’m not sure I buy into their views on the uptake because, actually, we know, and it’s been shown, that more outlets promote more uptake and utilisation. Then the issue of addiction is the one that we grapple with across our society and indeed across the globe.

So you can smoke, and indeed people have smoked through the centuries, in fact, different weeds and different products. But what we have in modern products, of course, is nicotine, which is in lower concentrations in many natural products but has been concentrated up to drive addiction. Indeed, it’s said that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. That is, people who use it find it harder to break away from that than they do from heroin. That’s a fact. And if the Government is indeed based on evidence and facts and they say they want to reduce the rate of smoking in this country because smoking kills—that’s a fact. If this Government does have a conscience, if the Government does indeed want to reduce rates of smoking, then it will accept my amendment, which adds on to or builds on the 2003 conventions from the World Health Organisation, which says we want to reduce harm from tobacco smoking. And if we want to go into this further, we would then take away the addictive component of tobacco. You can do that now. You couldn’t probably do that a couple of hundred years ago when people were chewing or smoking tobacco with smaller amounts of nicotine. You can do that now.

So I call on the Government, I call on coalition parties in the Government, to honour the statements that they are making in this House to reduce rates of smoking and to take my amendment and to just add on “to support personal choice”. Well, we hear a lot about that—personal choice—whether you own a gun, whether you want to smoke, or whether you want to drink. It comes flooding at us from the coalition Government time and time again. Well, give people personal choice, free them from addiction, and let them smoke if they want to. But the minute you have nicotine—which is more addictive than heroin—in tobacco that is sold to people across this country, then you have a problem.

So let’s try and reduce the issues here—of addiction. So I call on the Government to support my amendment in this piece of legislation, and I ask the Minister to respond.

I would first just respond to the question that’s already been answered about why we’re in a state of urgency.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Not answered very well!

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I can accept that the question might not be acceptable, but the fact is it is in the 100-day plan, and we are working through to meet those obligations. And I would create clarity around the fact that this was in both ACT and New Zealand First’s coalition—so it has come from two parties in the three coalition Government and that’s why we are moving it through.

I think the final question, “Is it the case more people will smoke?”, I would refer to the purpose of the legislation which is in the clause summary as to what our objectives are and the purpose of this legislation.

I’m not sure where it fits within Part 1, but in terms of the illicit market and what advice we have received, the member has clarified the position around the investment that was made in driving down the illicit tobacco market, which was the $10 million introduced in 2022. The advice I’ve received around the illicit market is from Customs, and it continues to be a concern and that money is continuing to be invested. But I’d note that this illicit market existed at a time when none of these measures that we’re talking about were in place, and, therefore, it would be hard to quantify what the illicit market would look like if these measures, which we were now repealing, had been implemented. And finally, just in terms of the final comment from the member, “We know more outlets create greater uptake”, I would suggest that that is contrary to our evidence we’re sitting with at the moment given that we have seen a massive reduction with the same amount of outlets that we’ve got currently.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m acknowledging that I’m going to ask a series of questions that would have been canvassed at the select committee stage.

I want to start by first of all asking if a child impact assessment was done on this bill, particularly because we know that there is concern around the harm tobacco can cause in children, and particularly if people start smoking at a younger age, those harms can compound. So I’m interested to know whether a child impact assessment report was done as part of the process of this bill, and, if not, I’m really interested to understand why that wasn’t the case, because that is a tool that exists to further assess the impacts of policy on children. It is a tool that the Greens, at least, encourage legislators to use when it comes to the production of bills. So if the Associate Minister didn’t think that that was worth doing, I’m keen to get a sense as to why.

The other one is in relationship to looking at the departmental disclosure statement, the list of agencies that were consulted. It’s pretty extensive, but I’m really keen to get a sense of the feedback and actually would invite the Minister to potentially table some of those papers in relationship to the external consultation.

But I’m interested particularly in what feedback was given from the Ministry of Social Development in terms of the impacts that the greater harm that could come from tobacco use would mean for people who are already on low incomes. I’m interested to get a sense of feedback around the Ministry of Education. So what feedback was given in that external consultation in relationship to potential changes of tobacco use in schools?

Also, I’ve noted that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities was consulted, and that ministry can provide a really important second opinion on a range of policy issues. I’m keen to get a sense of if there was feedback given around how the policy could impact different ethnic groups, because we know that substance use can manifest in different ways in different communities and therefore the interventions for harm minimisation could look quite different, depending on the different groups. Equally, I did note that Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People was consulted and keen again to get that intersectional lens around what feedback was given in terms of the impact on disabled people.

The reason why I’m asking for those agencies in particular is that we know that the harm of tobacco, again, compounds when it comes to communities who are already living week to week. The health impacts of tobacco mean that people who already have the least may struggle to access the health services that they need to address some of that harm, and so that’s why I’m focusing on those agencies.

But if the Minister would like to illustrate more broadly or to table documents around the feedback that was given by those agencies, that would help inform the debate—right?—because if the feedback from those agencies was encouraging and positive as to what she wants to do, then I think the public deserves to know that. If there were concerns from those agencies, actually we would invite a more robust debate, because that doesn’t even have anything to do with the use of urgency, which we oppose.

But I think we deserve and the public deserves to get a good robust understanding of the feedback that was given as part of that external consultation, because we know it happened, even with the use of urgency, and so we are keen to get an analysis as to not just the feedback but, I guess, the extent of the process to which that feedback happened. Again, I think this is something that we would have been able to canvass within a select committee process, but otherwise I think it’s pretty fair to ask whether a child impact assessment was done and for the feedback that was given as part of that consultation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister some follow-up questions on the statement that she made about the number of outlets that are in an area and the proposal to scrap Subpart 1 of Part 1B, in clause 9.

I have an amendment which relates to this on the Table where I am suggesting that that doesn’t happen, because my understanding is that those outlets that are there and the number of them is actually a temptation, is causing an issue, and that the Minister needs to work on an evidence basis on this. What I’ve heard from her today is she simply doesn’t consider that is an issue because this hasn’t happened yet, so how would we tell?

Now, my understanding is that there will be psychological expertise around the nature of this kind of availability. I remember that when we passed a law many years ago now in New Zealand to stop people having the availability of tobacco and smoking in our restaurants and our cafes, there was a lot of scepticism, and then we saw the effect of that not only in those places but on our culture. We saw a dramatic difference in our culture from here and in somewhere like Paris, and, quite frankly, less people died.

I changed my attitude to smoking at that point and I saw a harm I hadn’t seen before. So when we have 6,000 outlets which are unregulated, selling these products, they are very likely having an effect on our psychology at the very least—and the psychology of our children who are walking past those outlets all the time, because we had normalised that behaviour. So I wanted to know whether the Minister had sought advice, or would seek advice, over the impact of the number and availability of those outlets and would consider, while she waits for that advice, not changing the law here, because this itself could be an experiment. This could be a chance to see what happens when you reduce the number of outlets.

Now, one of the things that Part 1B does very effectively—and I’ve heard the former Minister who brought in this legislation talk about her rationale at a public meeting in my electorate recently—is it regulates who has that product to sell for the first time. Now, I am concerned about the availability to children in those places where people are selling. We know very little about how many people and who are selling these things, and there is no regulation of who is selling those products, so how could we possibly expect that everybody is complying with the requirements of the law in this regard.

So this Part 1B is actually all about regulating that industry. It has things like a fine if you apply and you are misleading and deceiving. It’s a whole thoughtful, mindful process about who is selling, as well as a reduction in the numbers of those who are selling. I would like the Minister to tell me how she can be so confident that those people are not breaking the rules and whether she has asked anybody about that, because I have an area in my electorate, which is Point Chevallier, and it has several schools in it. It has issues. There is alcohol, there is vaping, and people are really concerned.

These are genuine concerns of genuine communities. We already have major concerns about vaping, and now what we seem to be doing is regulating vaping a little bit more with regard to those things—maybe too tentatively—but we are not regulating cigarettes in the same way. So I’m also concerned, Minister, whether you have considered or had any advice about what the effect might be on strengthening your regulation around vaping while actually liberalising the access to selling and the access to cigarettes in your community, because that, it seems, is what we’re doing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that smile as well. I want to traverse—hopefully I’ll get to three points in this contribution; three questions that I’ll get to: one about urgency, one about the purpose and the changes to the purpose from various different versions of the principal Act, and one about a tabled amendment in my name.

Firstly, on the urgency, I know the Minister says that she has answered this question a number of times and it is because of an election and a 100-day plan. But that is not good enough. Because what we are doing here is we’re not just using urgency to have a bill introduced and then go to first reading and then maybe even a quick select committee process. No, no, no. What we are having here is a bill that we only saw yesterday and that we are now debating in all-stages urgency.

An all-stages urgency is very different from using a bit of urgency here and there to progress a bill at pace. Obviously, there are a lot of sitting days in that 100 days and there would have been ample opportunity for the Government to be true to all their policy decisions—which, of course, I think are terrible but I’m commenting here on the process. Their terrible policy decisions around environment, around labour laws, around health could all have been introduced, had a first reading, gone off to select committees, and come back for the second reading and committee stage and not be using this all-stages urgency process. This is just the worst lawmaking process that is possible really anywhere in the world.

Hon Member: No, you took that prize.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: So I would like the Minister to make all stages—and now the members on the other side are saying, “Oh, you did it.” I note, again, that the use of urgency is different from the use of all-stages urgency. There’s an important difference there because there is no time for scrutiny.

Now I’m going to move on to one of these issues about scrutiny, and this is in clause 5, which says that section 3A is replaced. Section 3A is the purpose of the Act or the purposes of the Act. We’ve heard the Minister say that what we’re doing in this piece of legislation is going back to exactly what was in place before the last Government’s amendments in 2022. But, in fact, there are some differences. If you look at section 3A, the purposes, in clause 5, the new purposes of this Act compared with a version before those 2022 amendments, there are some changes. Maybe they are small, but I don’t know why they are there.

So, for instance, the numbering is different, and at paragraphs (c) and (d) there’s the new (c)—I think from my looking at it—“to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people; and, (d) to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people;” and so it goes. Then the rest is the same, but then there is a difference in wording at (g), which is “to regulate the safety of regulated products;”. Previously, it was to regulate the safety of vaping products and smokeless tobacco products. I don’t know the reason for that change—the Minister could comment on that. At (h), there is “to monitor and regulate the presence of the constituents of regulated products and their emissions;”. So the word “harmful” was there after the “presence”. So it did read “the presence of harmful constituents of regulated products and their emissions”.

There may be a great policy reason for this change, but I don’t know it and this is the only time we get to scrutinise this bill. That takes quite a little bit of time, going back and forward between different versions of the of the bills and of the Act quickly. But I would like to spend more time on those changes of the purposes, and I just note the additions of “to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people;” and “to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people;”. These are both similar to what the wording was in the 2022 change, but is different from the primary legislation before that 2022 change. Related to that is my tabled amendment and that asks—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Chair. So going to my tabled amendment—noting that these parts of the purpose relate to children and young people, and I think that seems to be a good policy decision; I’m sure nobody in the committee would question it.

So what this amendment does is to introduce, after clause 9, a new clause 9A and insert a new section 20OA into the legislation. That part of the legislation is around the regulation of tobacco. So what this is is to add in section 20OA, “Proximity of tobacco retailers to schools”, and that is that the director-general must ensure, when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer, that any premises is not within 1 kilometre of a school. Obviously, the intention of that amendment is to support what we have in the purposes of the Act as amended by this bill and, as in fact, the purposes of the Act and the amendments from 2022, but not, as I said before, in the original piece of legislation pre its 2022 amendments.

So I’m very interested if the Minister can tell us about why she’s kept in those two—paragraphs (c) and (d) in the bill—provisions around children in the purpose, and, hopefully, we will all be in agreement about why she’s doing that. But then also could she comment on why it would be useful to have my tabled amendment—there’s probably some other similar tabled amendments as well—about actually giving effect to that purpose, which is to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people and to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people. Obviously, if you cannot have premises near a school, that is a good way of achieving that purpose. Thank you.

I think it’s important just to reiterate here that the bill we’re discussing is not undoing anything that’s currently in place. So we are looking to change the legislation, but none of these measures are actually implemented as of yet, so I think we need to work forward from that position. So that refers to the driving down demand, I think, question that was raised. I think that that’s why we keep going back to the statistics: we have driven down demand significantly with what’s in place and our young smokers have been a significant reduction—down to just 19,000 young smokers now—so we will continue to work on those aspects that are working.

I think I’ll just respond to the clarifying about exactly the purpose being exactly the same as previously. I think, just to clarify, the previous purpose statement reflected the previous Government’s policies regarding the regulation of smoked tobacco. This included a purpose that was intended to reflect the equity focus of those policies. Because these policies have been removed from the Act, the purpose statement was revised to reflect the substance of what remains in the Act. For this reason, the new purpose statement largely reflects the purpose statement that was in the Act before the previous amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some focus questions and I’m wanting to examine, with the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello, clause 5, amending the purpose of the Act, noting that there’s a removal of the purpose to reduce disparities in smoking rates and illness between the New Zealand population and the Māori population. And it really perplexes me, as a Māori who is heavily impacted by smoking, why we remove a piece of the legislation that actually provides focus—it provides focus for our policy makers and then for those who will procure services to meet these new legislative guidelines. So I want to unpack that a little bit, and query with the Minister: did she consider the 2011 Māori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry and the impacts of tobacco on Māori? Did she consider that, in preparing this legislation? And did she have any other evidence or reports, in terms of the Māori health impact, that informed what the Minister has put forward to the committee tonight?

Further, wanting to dig into Te Tiriti compliance, were there any Te Tiriti audits conducted on this repeal, or have you had any advice, whether it’s from Crown officials or legal advisers, in terms of whether this repeal is Te Tiriti compliant? And who prepared that advice for you? So I’m really keen to understand the “who”.

In progressing some of what my colleague Peeni Henare has shared in the House, I’m interested to understand any consultation that the Minister has undertaken with te iwi Māori on the repeal of this legislation, of our smoke-free environments legislation. In particular, just considering, you know, the diverse expertise that exists within the Māori health sector and Māori organisations, on top of te iwi Māori, was there any advice taken or received? Sometimes you may not have taken the advice, but it was received by your office. Can you share with the committee any concerns that you may have received from Māori health experts, advocates, or others through your office?

In closing, thinking about, you know, iwi Māori engagement, as members of te Iwi o Ngātiwai, Minister, I noted on Facebook today that te Poari o Ngātiwai, our Iwi Trust Board, made a post to remind the Minister of Health, Dr Shane Reti, that on 14 December a letter was furnished to the Minister outlining concerns around the smoke-free environments repeal to come. There’s been no response received. But I believe another invitation is being extended to both Minister Reti and Minister Costello to attend a hui-ā-iwi with the people of Ngātiwai to discuss your plans and how you intend to protect Māori health outcomes and improve those outcomes for te Iwi o Ngātiwai and Māori people in general. I look forward to your responses, kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I want to take this opportunity, as the first time being able to kōrero about such a sad day for Māori, for te ao Māori, today—knowing that we are in urgency and it’s the only opportunity that we get to have to ask questions to the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello and to the Government. I want to let the Minister know that our people are weeping today—that we haven’t had the opportunity to kōrero, to wānanga, to share time, to be able to reflect on the impact that these amendments to the legislation will have on our people. And our people want to ensure that their voices are being heard. And here, those of us in Te Pāti Māori and Te Pāti Kākāriki and in Labour are those voices for our people. So it’s only right that we get the opportunity to have a kōrero about the bill in its entirety.

I want to provide some background. I was part of the—it was called MEEG, the Māori Expert Advisory Group, that actually wrote the alternative paper for the establishment of the Māori Health Authority, which was then named Te Aka Whai Ora. I want to mihi to the experts that were on that panel—in particular, Sharon Shea, who was the chair who fought hard to ensure that we did establish the Māori Health Authority and Te Aka Whai Ora. Today, I mihi to the panel and to that rōpū that fought hard for that. Why are we talking about that? Because it’s all interrelated. The falling of Te Aka Whai Ora, the amendments to the legislation—it’s all impacting on Māori.

I also want to share that when I was the CEO for Te Kaha o te Rangatahi in Manurewa, we held a smoke-free contract. So I managed a smoke-free team. We fought very, very hard to ensure that we reduced outlets that were selling cigarettes, tobacco, and vapes in our community. Why? Because it was about our mokopuna. It was the best decision for our tamariki. They were walking past outlets, like, all the way that they were going to school. If you don’t know Manurewa well, Manurewa has—on Great South Road, it’s a strip of shops like 250 metres long. Every second shop sold cigarettes. As a Māori health provider, working alongside Hāpai te Hauora, working alongside the Cancer Society, we fought hard to ensure that those outlets reduced the selling of cigarettes—by closing down or they made different choices.

Can I say, there was a product—I don’t know what you’d call it, but it was called a “killer combo”. Our kids were going to school every morning, stopping at the local dairy to buy a killer combo. A killer combo was a pie, a coke, and a cigarette—all for $5. And we wanted to stop that. But this bill will ensure that outlets can continue to do that. You know, in our communities, they’re not just selling packets of cigarettes; they’re selling single cigarettes—alongside vaping mechanisms. That is the truth and the reality of the community that we’re in. Our providers, Māori health providers, work hard to reduce that. We want our mokopuna to live. We want a better generation and a better future for our whānau, for our mokopuna. So we have to stand up and continue to fight and to raise our voices.

I have a question for you. Both bills that we’ve had for Māori over the last two days all talk about the iwi Māori partnership boards. What we never heard in that kōrero was an urban Māori voice. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, there are 250,000 Māori, 80 percent of them do not belong to the iwi in Tāmaki-makau-rau. We are an urban population and their voice is missing. My question is: how will the Minister ensure that the urban Māori voice will be heard and will be at the decision-making table alongside iwi Māori? My other question is: how will the—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa o tēnei taha e whawhai ana mō te tika o ngā tāngata i roto i tēnei āhuatanga.

[Greetings to us all on this side who are fighting for the welfare of all peoples in this situation.]

I have an amendment to be inserted after clause 9, and that is new clause 9C which inserts new section 20OC and that is that “The Director-General must ensure, when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer, that any premises is not within one km of a marae”, a kaupapa that follows on quite nicely from the previous speaker, Takutai Tarsh Kemp.

I am proud to be a marae girl, born and raised, and I’m definitely more proud to say that while smoking, of course, was present, it is not what defines my memories of being raised on a marae. I also love that when you ask someone, “Got a light?”, the answer is usually “No.” these days, and that can be largely attributed to the fact that marae, of their own volition, made their premises smoke-free to protect their whakapapa and our mokopuna. Marae are a physical depiction of the tinana—of the person, of the body—te mana, te tapu o te tangata, an argument which, sadly, I have not heard coming from that side of the House. We’ve not heard the value of mana tangata, the value of life. Another reason for this proposed amendment is, obviously, the common-sense one, that our tamariki, mokopuna are not exposed and do not easily have access to tobacco.

As a culture, we’re still recovering from so much. We’re still recovering our reo, and, as such, our marae are already vulnerable. Our paepae are struggling. We’re very limited with speakers who have the oratory capacity. This bill makes us even more vulnerable, not only culturally but physically. We all know the impacts of smoking on our health, and it’s such a shame that in a time that we know better, we’re not doing better.

Speaking of our paepae, I think of all the people we have lost. This morning, I did an interview on Radio Ngati Porou, and I couldn’t help but reflect back to a wahine whose daughter I went to school with, July Minnell. July Minnell was cut down in her prime and is a loss not only to Ngati Porou but to her daughter, who I had to watch go through school without her mother. July’s legacy was one that certainly influenced my decision not to take up cigarette smoking, but she had to die to leave that legacy, and we know that. People over there are acknowledging it, and yet here we are today still promoting this kaupapa. How many more people have to die before we are all influenced by their legacy?

Now, marae have made their decision to protect whakapapa on their land, in their buildings. The least we can do is respect that by guaranteeing that retailers will not be allowed to sell this paitini, to peddle this poison, to our tamariki, to our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi in such close proximity to an already vulnerable institution of te ao Māori. Therefore, I ask the question: can you guarantee that when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer that any premises is not within 1 kilometre of a marae?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to take the opportunity to actually make a submission today on behalf of a local group of young anti-smoking activists who are incredibly disappointed that there is no select committee process to enable them to come and have their voices heard. This young group are known as the Hashtags, and they reside in Wainuiōmata. They have seen firsthand the harm that smoking does to their community, and they have taken action and they have been incredibly powerful and successful in their past actions. The Hashtags were the core group that had a petition and lobbied Government to ban smoking in cars, and they were successful in that legislation being passed. But they did not stop there. They continued by making sure that there would be further restrictions placed on vaping, because they saw the harms within their community. They have been strong, staunch advocates who have repeatedly come to Parliament and submitted to our select committees, and it is a travesty that young people who are directly impacted by this legislation—these young people would have grown up in a smoke-free New Zealand. This bill stops them from growing up in a smoke-free New Zealand, and this House stops them from having their voice heard when it directly impacts upon their wellbeing and their livelihoods, and I find that despicable.

I’d like to read out their submission; it’s come in tonight, so I would like to share that with you tonight. I’d like the Associate Minister of Health to hear this, and maybe the Minister might like to answer some of the questions that the Hashtags have asked. So, “Smokefree 2025 is the National Government goal that Labour Government helped lead by listening to the voices of their communities, particularly the rangatahi led by the Hashtags. The Hashtag acronym explains their eternal health goal for whānau, which is Holistic Action Sustainable Health Through All Generations”. Under the smokefree amendment Act, this is one of the multiple Acts that ensures the health and wellbeing of our future. Our question is: how can the Government justify your actions by repealing your own goal? As stated by Pōtatau Clarke, choose the right. Wrong decisions can never be right, and right decisions can never be wrong. On behalf of the Hashtags and rangatahi, we now urgently challenge the Government to stop smoke-free legislation repeal. This Government has disempowered all the smoke-free advocacy that has taken years of hard work from hundreds of people. Aotearoa led the world in tobacco legislation and policies, which is all about saving lives and protecting our future generations. The Hashtags now plead for the Government to do what they must, do the right thing, and not replace the dollars for the health and wellbeing of our future.” Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just think it’s worth going back again to reiterate that we are talking about Part 1 and we’re talking about the range of repeals that remove the retail reduction, so the refocus on that is the target here. I would remind and reiterate that we are retaining the requirement to consider the impact on Māori in regulating a constituent, including to both users and non-users of smoked tobacco products, so we are continuing to ensure that that is addressed. I think that we are needing to kind of consider that when you talk about single cigarette sales etc., those are the unfortunate flags of the black market, which are imported as single cigarette quantities, and that’s what we’re hoping to ensure that we can control moving forward. We are going to be focusing on building on the great work that has been highlighted, and we will continue to do so as we move forward, as I’ve previously noted in the recommendations of the next steps.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As it’s my first opportunity to take this call, I appreciate the opportunity, because we don’t have the benefit of the select committee process. I’ve been appreciating the depth of discussion and/or questioning that’s come from this side of the Chamber, and I’ve been equally frustrated by the lack of response that’s come from the Minister.

I would particularly like to ask the Minister in relation to clause 12, the repeal of nicotine limits. Clause 12 repeals section 57I of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. That section limited the content of nicotine in tobacco products to 0.8 milligrams. As the member over here mentioned, we know—the evidence is clear—that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. So what we’re seeing in this change is a reduction of the limits on nicotine in cigarettes, which is just beyond belief that anyone could consider doing such a thing. We know what nicotine does: it kills people.

Now, this is something that I think everyone in this committee knows about. I know, when I was a young person, way, way, way, way back in the 1970s, we had candy cigarettes, which encouraged people to think about smoking. With my friends, we often used to pinch cigarettes from—well, my friend used to pinch cigarettes from his parents, because they smoked packets a day and they didn’t notice them. Of course, we tried to smoke, but, fortunately, it didn’t take with me.

But my best friend’s mother and father both smoked. Their father died of cancer. It began on his lips and went further. That was a horrible death, but what was worse was his mother, who wanted to stay at home. She was looked after by their youngest daughter—also a friend of mine—and that was a really painful experience in our village, because she was in a great deal of pain and she wouldn’t take any medicine for it, and her last days were heard by people all around the village. She died a horrible death because of cancer, caused by smoking cigarettes.

So we’ve seen what can happen—we know this stuff. This is not new to anyone. It’s not new, and yet, here we are, removing any controls. So I’ve got a couple of questions, and I would like to come back later for some more. But I’ve got a couple of questions here for the Minister that I would really like an authentic and deep response to, rather than a once over, just fly past. What impact is the removal of nicotine limits expected to have on rates of quitting smoking? What other options did officials provide to her? And why did she choose this option? Has she received any data or evidence on the impacts that removing this nicotine limit will have on the addictiveness of cigarettes or the length of time people will spend smoking? I’ve got a very close relative who has smoked since he was a teenager. He’s now in his mid-60s and he keeps on trying to give up, and he can’t.

Clause 12 repeals section 57I, which provides limits on nicotine for smoked tobacco products. Did she receive any specific advice or modelling about the impact of repealing this clause on the uptake of smoking? And if so, what was the nature of this advice?

Now, I must say, I am an optimist. As an optimist, I frequently deal with disappointment, but I do not want the Minister to disappoint me. I would like some answers, please.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. I want to thank my colleague Scott Willis for his contribution on a very important part of the 2022 amendment that is now proposed for repeal, which relates to denicotinisation of cigarettes. Denicotinisation takes that most addictive product known to man—nicotine—out of cigarettes, so that people can take control of the effect that this product has on them, and many, many people successfully quit when cigarettes are denicotinised.

The evidence presented at select committee in the hearings for the 2022 amendment on this were compelling. New Zealand is lucky to have one of the lead clinical trialists of denicotinised cigarettes at the University of Auckland, so compelling presentations were made on that. Being a man of science, one of the people who was most influenced by those presentations was the now health Minister, Dr Shane Reti, and he made a number of contributions in this House on the importance of the proposals around denicotinisation. In fact, he moved amendments that the bill should remove the retail components but focus on denicotinisation because it was so impactful. Indeed, there’s widespread support from other members of the Government, including, I believe, a Christchurch GP on the National backbench, who expressed support for that proposal on social media.

So I think understanding the Minister’s advice on denicotinisation is particularly important. In particular, I’d like to know what conversations she’s had with Dr Reti about denicotinisation, because I am aware of his comments on radio that he sees his role as not making the decisions on smoke-free but supporting the Minister—his Associate Minister—with advice. So I’m very interested to know about those conversations. What did Dr Reti say to the Minister about denicotinisation? Were any avenues for preserving denicotinisation in the Act explored between the two Ministers?

You’ll note that there is an amendment on the Table that brings back the denicotinisation proposals into the bill. I hope all members of the House—given the previously expressed support of the now health Minister Shane Reti for this initiative—will consider it. It would be very strange indeed if a party that supported that approach immediately before the election was now voting that approach down. That would be quite shameful and show a lack of respect for their health Minister, Dr Reti. So I’m very interested to hear about what advice Dr Reti has given the Minister on these proposals, including those about denicotinisation.

I just think, to quickly, again, reiterate—and I’m sorry to harp on—but the whole purpose of this legislation is to repeal the reduced retailers and the denicotinisation and the removal of the ban on persons born after 1 January 2009, so we’re revisiting these components. I would like to comment on and reinforce that we fully understand the issues of harm and, therefore, we are going to continue to work on those initiatives, as I’ve repeatedly said. The denicotinisation is a tool. As we’ve referenced previously, those tools will be looked at as quit-smoking options, which is what we are going to be looking into as the next phase after this bill is replaced.

Members, the time has come for the dinner break. We will resume again at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The House is resumed. Just before I start, once again I’ll remind members the way that the House has agreed to run the committee of the whole House is that if a member indicates that he or she has a series of questions, then the Chair will give that preference to exhaust two or three questions. It does require the Minister, of course, to be in a position to answer those questions one after the other. It’s not always possible, and members are welcome to go their five minutes. However, it is designed to ensure that as we go through the process, we are doing what we’re here to do: extract the answers from the Minister in the chair.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. There’s one question I have here: who wrote this bill? I want to refer to the second part of the amendment that I have tabled here. The second part refers to clause 12. Previous speakers have rightfully pointed to what I believe is probably close to the most harmful provision in this piece of legislation, and that is removing the limits on nicotine for smoked tobacco products. My amendment proposes to change the bill to put back in place a limit on nicotine.

I was Associate Minister of Health, and, indeed, I was the Minister at the time we took smoking out of bars. I’m proud of doing that, and I’m proud of the fact that there are no bars where smoking takes place now. That, I’m sure, has contributed to the reduction in smoking. I contest the Minister’s view that the number of outlets does not affect the uptake of tobacco.

Can I move forward—because I know I’ve had a speech on that particular issue. This is at the heart: in every area of alcohol, we have limits and we have different steps. In gambling, we have limits on the time that poker machines can return to zero. That is, that the cycle time affects the addiction of all of these things. The higher the nicotine level, the more addiction. As was said, nicotine is more addictive than heroin, so it is critical that we reinsert a maximum level of nicotine. Otherwise, we will have health and addiction problems.

Then a question I have of the Minister—as well as who wrote it—is: why is there no limit, given that we have limits in pretty much every other area of food consumption, of human consumption, and of anything and there should be one here?

The health issues have been well traversed, but there are economic issues here that play out in a way that people haven’t considered. In Farmers Weekly last week, there was a story on the value of soft power. In fact, what it said was “Exporters urged to go hard on soft power.” We are an exporting nation. The coalition Government makes a lot of noise about trying to double exports, they say—that’s the old hat approach—and grow the wealth of this country. What exporters are being told in a farming magazine is that they have to focus on soft power.

What is soft power? Well, the presenter of this to that thing said that New Zealand is “being perceived as a collectivist and progressive country that acts on behalf of the greater good when leadership is called for.” We know that with this retraction of the legislation—this progressive legislation that had been passed by the previous Government—already around the world, people are shocked at what we are doing. The question I have is: has the Minister done an assessment of the effect on our international reputation, à la soft power, from changing this legislation?

In fact, the provisions under clause 12—which my amendment refers to—remove any measurement, assessment, or limitation on the level of nicotine in tobacco. I’m sure that doesn’t occur in any country—other than the developing countries perhaps, but probably even there they would have a limit on it. That has been taken away.

There’s a picture in people’s minds “thinking that we have humanity, a collectivist approach, are creative and kind, values that are kind of lacking in the rest of the world at the moment.” We had, through a number of unfortunate incidents but strong leadership, built up a reputation for being progressive, for taking on board the values and the aspirations of humanity. This bill that will kill more people is a reversal of that direction.

The farmers and the other exporters who are thinking, “This is just about health, because I don’t smoke.”, this will affect them as well. Our ability to sell and our reputation at the international markets will be degraded by passing this legislation that will increase the number of people smoking and taking up tobacco and will have unlimited levels of nicotine and products that will drive addiction.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a series of questions. Just looking at one of them—well, a series that relates to reputational damage; the other one is consistency with the coalition agreement, and then just around the Treaty.

I wanted to pick up on a journalistic piece by Guyon Espiner from RNZ, who talked about Ministry of Health documents that were sent to the Associate Minister of Health, in which those papers talked about the risk to reputational damage that we could potentially face, particularly because of legislation that the UK and the US are pursuing. So I’m really interested, first, in—because I note that in the departmental disclosure statement, one of the other entities that was consulted—and I did ask about the Ministry of Social Development, education, and Whaikaha, particularly in reputational damage, which I haven’t asked yet.

I’m keen to understand if, in the external consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or any other entity, there had been feedback about the risk of reputational damage to New Zealand—or even trade impacts, for example—as a result of this piece of legislation. I’m particularly, as I’ve indicated in my previous contributions, keen to see if the Minister would be willing to table some of that advice or, for example, to table the papers that were obtained by RNZ. Again, normally we would have access to those papers as a result of select committee processes. While I don’t agree, I can accept that urgency works in the way that it does, in the sense of the time frames that we’re working with. But I don’t see the need for the Minister to lower the robustness of the evidence and information that we have available to carry on this debate. So I would invite the Minister to table those papers from Health New Zealand.

Now, I’m interested as well in picking up the consistency with other agreements in the coalition. The reason for that is that the reason that the Minister has given us, constantly, and the members of the Government side have alluded to, when we ask the Minister why is this bill going forward, is that it’s in the coalition agreement. But in the coalition agreement, there’s also stuff in relationship to using the best available data and evidence. The best available data and evidence that we have actually suggest that there will be harm that will come as a result of this bill, and so I’m keen to understand whether there has been any work done around making sure that this bill is actually compliant with the coalition agreement, because if this Government is taking this coalition agreement seriously, and it’s using it as an excuse to pass bills under legislation, I would hope that the bit about data and evidence isn’t just lip service and that actually robust work is being done with this piece of legislation, to ensure that it actually matches this.

In the article from RNZ, from Guyon Espiner, the Minister talked about—well, sent a statement, basically, just disagreeing with the—she said, “I do not accept what Health officials have said about our Treaty of Waitangi obligations, but it’s not appropriate to talk further about that while the claim is before the [Waitangi] Tribunal.” I mean, sure, she may not agree with that, but I’m keen to get a sense of the engagement she would have had in relationship to the Waitangi Tribunal. In that RNZ statement, she didn’t really speak in response to what the Health New Zealand documents showed, particularly in relationship to reputational damage and, more than anything, about the harm it would have—disproportionate harm that this legislation would have, according to Health New Zealand papers—in relationship to Te Whatu Ora papers around the harm to Māori women, which the piece on RNZ specifically alludes to.

So I’m asking the Minister that if she’s not going to engage in substance when put those questions by the media, I would hope that at least she would honour the feedback that she’s been given by enriching us in this debate about what her response is to those papers that raise concern around reputation damage. To surmise and collate, I’m keen to get a sense around whether reputational damage was raised in any of the other agencies that there was external consultation with, and, if so, whether she agrees with that, and just to illuminate us, as I asked previously, on other external consultation feedback that would have been given by other agencies.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It is my first call in this debate, so I’m grateful to have the opportunity to begin a line of questioning. The area I want to focus on is retail outlets, and, in particular, clause 9 of the bill, which repeals Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act. I want to learn from the Minister what advice she received around the dangers of repealing that subpart of the original Act.

I think most members will know that it is a fairly logical connection between the availability of a product and how much product will be used. It is quite a simple kind of connection to make. I’m wanting to find out from the Minister what advice she did receive around risks, in terms of repealing the number of retail outlets—in particular, whether any evidence was presented to her that a higher density of retail outlets would, in fact, lead to increased smoking rates; then, within that question, whether there was any advice to her about any distinctions between youth and adult smoking rates when there is a higher density of outlets.

As I say, as a person to whom this is not my area of expertise, there is a logical connection between more places to buy and more tobacco products being purchased. My question to the Minister is: what advice did she get? If she didn’t get advice on that question, does she have a concern that retaining the number of outlets that we do now is going to lead to a greater level of smoking, particularly among our young in our smoking rates? I’ve seen the Minister has been getting some advice, so I will carry on with one more question, and then perhaps come back with a couple more in order to fulfil your earlier ruling.

The other point is whether or not the Minister has received any advice on availability having an impact—is there a certain number of outlets, or a certain density of outlets that is a threshold when it comes to making a difference, because I can imagine that if you have to drive 500 metres, you’ll be all right and you’ll probably go and do that; if you have to drive 3 kilometres, you may well not be so inclined to do that. So my second question for the Minister is around—has she been given any advice on a particular threshold that would need to be reached for that type of approach to make a difference?

This is important, because this is the information that Opposition members would have received, and would have been seeking during a select committee process. The kinds of people who do research and studies into whether the density of outlets matters, or whether the distance between outlets, the number of outlets in a particular area matters; we would have had experts come into the select committee, and we’d actually be standing here right now, in a committee of the whole House part of the debate being able to assess that advice. So they are my first two questions. I will come back, but I’ll give the Minister the opportunity to answer those.

I appreciate that, Mr Chair. So I have asked a number of questions to the Minister, particularly about where this piece of legislation comes from. And that is a particularly pertinent point because, of course, this is occurring under urgency, and this is the only opportunity that we have for meaningful scrutiny of this legislation.

Now, the Minister, in response to my ongoing questioning on this point, has referred us successively to the coalition agreement. This is a point that is really important for us to have borne out here, because what we have is, effectively, a Government saying that the reason that they are doing something—under urgency, no less, and, therefore, bypassing typical parliamentary and public scrutiny—is because it is in the coalition agreement. Why is it in the coalition agreement? Well, because it’s in the coalition agreement. But why is it in the coalition agreement? Because it’s in the coalition agreement. That is, as I alluded to before, known as, logically, a tautology. Effectively, what the Government’s saying is the reason that this is here is, “Cos we said so.” In the Greens, and us here on the Opposition benches, we simply do not believe that is anywhere near good enough. Simply being in the position of Government does not give you a carte blanche right to do whatever it is that you would like off the back of that election result.

So some specific questions that I have again for the Minister, given that she has outlined that she’s not particularly interested in answering where that came from in the coalition agreement, are particularly about consultation. So what we have in this legislation, is clause 5, which repeals section 3A(1)(a)(i), which states that the purpose is to reduce disparities in smoking rates and illnesses between the New Zealand population and the Māori population. This is a really important point, because we know, based on the facts, the data, and evidence that this Government has told us that they ostensibly care about, the daily smoking rates for non-Māori are approximately 6 percent. It is around triple that for Māori at around 17 percent.

Therefore, are we to take it from the bill as tabled today and that amendment of the purpose clause, to remove any consideration or spotlight on those disparities between Māori or non-Māori, as a hint to what consultation the Minister and this Government may or may not undertake with affected communities when it comes to the potential hypothetical regulation that may, potentially, at some point, come out of a future Cabinet document, which we have no idea about, to replace this legislation.

That is my first really core point to the Minister: who will the Minister seek to engage with? And, in doing so, will she seek to uphold the partnership, as borne out in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or is this clause 5 removal of section 3A(1)(a)(i) a hint that the Government is deprioritising Māori and, therefore, tangata whenua and the relationship within Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

My next question for the Minister in the chair—and I, again, would really appreciate some meaningful answers to this, because we haven’t so far really received much—is whether these concerns that she has outlined, which, you know, somehow are related to the prominence of the black market when it comes to tobacco, is an approach that she will take consistently, logically, and evidentially in Cabinet when it comes to all substances.

Because this is the really, really important point—and we had members of the Government benches heckling me before on this, because we all know, if we are to look at the data and evidence, which, again, this Government has promised us that we would do—that if you are to look at an approach that you can take to substances, you have a spectrum of regulatory approaches. At one end of the extreme, you have complete criminal prohibition. At the other end of the extreme, you have a complete legal free market, which is largely unregulated. At both ends of those extremes, you get the maximisation of harm, because whether it is players like criminal organisations or commercial organisations that are those in control of the supply chain, with that profit motive, you have the maximisation of harm. So to get away from those extremities, we need to get into a space of sensible regulation and do what we can to reduce that profit motive.

So far, I haven’t heard the advocacy for a consistent approach to substances, whether they be tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, or otherwise. And that is the second question that I have for the Minister: will she take and will New Zealand First advocate for a consistent approach to substances—that is, to remove the profit motive both from the commercial market and from criminal prohibition through sensible regulation? Because, logically, that would take us to the conclusion that New Zealand First will be advocating for repeal and replacement of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

I’ll just run through a few points. I can assure the member to my left that the bill was drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office, so I can’t take credit for that.

The number of outlets—I just wanted to clarify that I wasn’t saying that there is no impact on the number of outlets; I’m saying that we have achieved significant reductions in smoking with the current number of outlets. So I’m not sure where that position came from, but I can assure you that I wasn’t saying there is no impact.

And why there are no limits, I would reiterate that what we’re talking about here is repealing the denicotinisation—which, I’ve said before, we’re repealing the denicotinisation, we’re repealing the number of retailers, and we’re repealing the prohibition of those born after January 2009 to buy cigarettes.

Again, we’d go back to the position about reputation by national markets, and I can only observe that even from Action on Smoking and Health, in December 2023, they reported that New Zealand had one of the lowest smoking populations in the world and we had achieved unprecedented success. Again, I would reiterate that we’re seeking to build on that success, which is why we’re going down the path of repealing.

I think that answers, again, the question that was asked by the next member about reputational position. We have sought a range of advice and we will continue to seek advice, as I previously stated, to continue to drive the smoking rates down and reduce smoking harm. I can only acknowledge that I can accept that this answer isn’t being accepted, but it is a fact that it is part of our coalition agreement. It is in our 100-day plan, and that’s where the urgency has come from to drive this piece of legislation.

I can’t comment—and I don’t see it as relevant to comment—about what was or wasn’t said in a media outlet interview, as it doesn’t relate to the parts that we’re debating at the moment.

And the legislation passed reducing the retail outlets, which formed this legislation that we’re repealing—I’m sure there was extensive discussion about the thresholds and what would work and not work, which is where I assume the 600 retailers was achieved. That is what we’re repealing, and we’ll keep working on that.

We said repeatedly before about how we’re focused on achieving the outcomes and we will continue to visit the actions that will work, and we will consult extensively with smokers and what tools they need in order to quit smoking. That is the objective of this next stage.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about iwi Māori?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We are focused on exactly that: driving solutions that meet the target audience of those who are most affected, and that includes Māori and Pasifika, to drive the positive solutions that we are seeing already and build on them. That’s why we’re appealing the blanket legislation so that we can focus on targeted solutions.

The Hon Grant Robertson—but I will challenge Mr Robertson to say that sharp questions don’t generally tend to go into four minutes. So if that was what you’re attempting to do, you might like to—

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. Just seeking your guidance: I’d like to seek leave to request the Associate Minister of Health to table the advice that she just referred to in the previous answer. Is that something that would be possible to do within the process that we have available?

Well, the member can seek leave. The member seeks leave for the Minister to table the advice. Is there any objection? I’ve just taken advice that no other member can seek that. If the Minister was quoting from a document that she has with her, that can be tabled, but otherwise the member is not in a position to actually seek that leave.

Can I confirm, when she referred to that advice, whether she was reading from it? She talked about seeking a range of advice in relation to my question, so if she was reading it—I can’t see whether she was reading it.

So, Minister, I’ll let you speak to this.

I’ll seek leave to table this. It is a media article. It’s not advice; it’s a media release that was circulated by ASH. I’m happy to table that.

Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Thank you, Mr Chair. With respect to the Minister, she didn’t answer the question that I asked, so I will repeat it. I want to know whether she got advice around whether or not higher retail density has been associated with increasing smoking rates, particularly for adults and young people. Just stating that it’s been done is not actually an answer to the question—and just stating that you weren’t saying that. I want to know whether the Minister has been informed by advice, including by experts, on whether or not the thing that is being repealed under clause 9 of this bill actually is evidentially based to mean that it would help to lower smoking rates.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I think we know the answer.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, we do, Chlöe Swarbrick—we do know the answer. What I want to know is whether the Minister was informed by that advice in putting this in front of us now.

The second question, which, similarly, I don’t believe was answered sufficiently, was whether or not there is a threshold for the density of tobacco retailers that would have a particular impact on smoking rates. You know, it could be 50 percent, it could be 60, it could be 80, it could be 90. Is there a threshold that is reached where we have evidence that it leads to a decline in smoking rates? I would expect the Minister to have been informed by that advice in taking a decision to entirely remove that subpart from the Act, because that is what clause 9 of the bill does.

So I’m just repeating those questions because they were not answered. I want to move on then to another part of clause 9 and the repeal of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the overall Act, and that is the questions of whether or not there should be minimum entry requirements to enter a market. They can be things like security requirements, training for staff, those sorts of things. I want to ask the Minister if by removing the entirety of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act, what happens to the minimum requirements that have been in place, because, again, and I acknowledge I’m no expert in this area here, but the whole point of the parliamentary process is to be able to get evidence from experts. We were denied that without a select committee process. I have to say that my simplistic reading of Subpart 1 of Part 1B of the original Act is that it does get rid of the minimum requirements; it certainly gets rid of the new minimum requirements—as far as I can see—for involvement.

So that would be my additional question: what advice has the Minister had and is that, in fact, what she is doing with clause 9, and, if she did get advice on other options that could have been considered, what was that advice?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come back to clause 12 that we looked at before, and I think it’s deeply ironic that today we have not just dealt one blow for Māori health but we’re aiming to do yet another at the same time as we have the rare disorders meeting in Parliament.

I was looking at an article that is in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, and in there there’s a paper entitled, “The Multidimensional Impacts of Inequities for Tāngata Whaikaha Māori (Indigenous Māori with Lived Experience of Disability) in Aotearoa, New Zealand”, and it says, “People with lived experience of disability have poorer health and socio-economic outcomes than people without it. However, within this population, certain social groups are more likely to experience poorer outcomes due to the impacts of multiple intersecting forms of oppression including colonisation, coloniality and racism.” And I have to look at this bill and wonder what parts meet the criteria of racism and I see quite a few, actually, because this will impact the people who are already the most disadvantaged. This requirement or this desire to remove the limit of nicotine will impact those who are most at risk now.

So I would like to know if the coalition Government has a commitment to investigate using regulatory powers to reduce the risk of additives in nicotine levels, what other policy options were explored on nicotine limits rather than removing them altogether? This is a really important question: have you considered other options? Or if not, perhaps the member over to my right—Damien O’Connor—who earlier proposed an amendment to reinstate the limit, perhaps this is a sensible way to go. Because if the Minister and if the Government have not thought about how they are going to reduce risk to our most vulnerable, how they are going to make sure that we can safeguard future generations, then they should take good advice when it’s available to them. They should be willing to accept that some things are done poorly.

I’m reminded of a book by George Orwell that said, “Ignorance is strength.” Well, boy, you guys are looking pretty strong at the moment. I really hope that you want to move out of a place of ignorance and come into the light and make a good decision and support nicotine restrictions and do good for our most vulnerable. Kia ora.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. I would like to take up your offer to have some back and forth with the Minister on topics that relate to the area of the regulation of retail outlets.

Firstly, I’d like to ask the Minister if she considered keeping the approved retailer components of the Act without reducing the number of retail outlets, and, if not, why did she reject that approach?

Helen White: Mr Chair?

I’m conscious that it does take two to tango. But Dr Ayesha Verrall.

So, Mr Chair—

Mr Chair, can I take a call? I’ll just go back around the higher retail density advice. There has been a range of advice received and that’s what we’ve worked through to achieve the repeal legislation that we’ve got before us. The threshold for entry into the market—there were no minimum requirements previously, before this legislation was put in place, to reduce the retailers. That’s why there are no minimum requirements remaining as we’re repealing that component of this legislation.

I will acknowledge the poorer health outcomes, and we are committed to smoke-free targets. This bill is repealing a process; it does not change the target.

Finally, in terms of the retail outlets question that was just asked, I’d just clarify that, again, we are repealing the minimum threshold. This is not an end position, as I’ve said repeatedly; we’re looking at a range of tools moving forward, to ensure that we are targeting the demographics that we know are most adversely affected and we will continue to work on those targets. As opposed to a blanket approach, we are focused on a targeted approach to achieve the end goal.

Yeah, thank you, Mr Chair. Perhaps in the time I’m on my feet, if the way in which these back and forths are intended to work could be repeated, that would be very helpful, I think, to the type of interaction that the Standing Orders allow us to have here.

Look, the question was not “Why are you not reducing the number of outlets?”; the question to the Minister was “Did she consider retaining an approved retailer scheme?” Not necessarily reducing the number of outlets, but did she think that there could be any other benefits to having an approved retailer scheme? How did she come to the decision not only to remove the number of outlets but to remove the approved retailer scheme?

Yeah, in the spirit of back and forth: as I said before, this isn’t an end position. We’re removing this legislation because we’re repealing the legislation that’s in there. As I said, it’s not an end position. We’re continuing to work on strategies that will achieve the smoke-free targets.

In light of that, then I think it could be useful to have a discussion about the pros and cons of that regulatory approach, because an approved retailer scheme is similar to a licensing scheme. So I want to ask the Minister: does she think it’s right that tobacco retailers don’t need to be licensed to sell tobacco or approved to sell tobacco, and yet for the much less harmful product of alcohol, retailers of alcohol do have to be licensed? I’d like to understand what she thinks about that.

Thank you. I’d like to take the lead of my colleague and ask you to answer this question and be able to just put a simple question to you. I am really concerned about the part of the bill where you get rid of any requirement to limit the amount of nicotine. This is a very, very addictive drug, and, for some reason, you’ve decided to remove that part of the Act which stops the nicotine being at high levels. I simply, for the life of me—good faith—honestly want to know why anyone would do that. The only reason I can see for doing it is to sell a highly addictive substance and to hook people on to something that is highly addictive. They can’t escape from it.

We’ve heard from some of the other speakers about that tonight, including National Party speakers, about how hard it is to kick such a habit. So why—why—are you doing that? I honestly would just love to know the answer.

I’d just reiterate again about the tobacco retailers proposition and what’s been discussed. I will say yet again that we are looking at a range of options as we move forward to achieve the smoke-free targets. In terms of why we are taking the action to remove the denicotinisation aspect, that is what we have positioned in our coalition agreement, and that is what we’re delivering.

Could I just say to members that the debate has been going for two hours. A new member coming in and asking a question does not represent new information or a new thing. Just be aware—particularly members who are coming in later—that we are looking for new material. So those that have been here a little longer will probably know a little bit more about what’s been going on in the House.

Mr Chair, well, thank you, and I would like again to take that opportunity to go back and forth over the course of my time on this. We’re talking about the approved retailer scheme in the Act, and what I want to understand is not that it’s being repealed, because it’s being repealed; what I want to understand is: why is it appropriate, in the Associate Minister of Health’s view—why is it risk proportionate that tobacco, that kills half the people that use it, does not need a retail premise to be licensed, but for a less harmful product like alcohol, it is appropriate that it be licensed?

I move that debate on this motion now close.

Tēnā koe. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question will relate directly to clause 23 of this bill, the repeal of section 105 of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. I want to use the Associate Minister of Health’s words, which were about “revisit, review, make sure the settings are right moving forward”. Those were the words of the Minister in a recent contribution not 20 minutes, maybe, perhaps 30 minutes ago. “Revisit, review” to make sure the settings are right, so that they can get the desired outcome into the future.

So directly to clause 23, the repeal of section 105, then. I can accept that the Government’s going to push forward with respect to the generation aspect of the smoke-free legislation that this Government passed. I can accept that. But given the Minister’s words around “revisit, review, make sure the settings are right”, good policy development tells me that a review must take place. So then my question to the Minister is: why wouldn’t there be a review? And not understanding the reckless behaviour that the review, in the original part of the bill, would actually be able to substantiate and explain to the Minister or any future Minister or a Government or anyone reading the particular review—the kind of reckless behaviour around retailers and the way that they sell to younger generations. I can accept that there’s a generational aspect here. Oh, it looked like the Minister was about—so if it’s all right, if she’s prepared to, then I’m prepared, Mr Chair, to have the back and forth you’ve indicated.

I just go back to the retailer licensing and reconfirm that the repeal here is because the licensing framework that sat in here related to the reduced retailer numbers and that’s why it’s being repealed. In regard to the review aspect, this review aspect related specifically to the reduced retailers. What I’ve been talking about is ensuring that, through the statistics that we see and the measures that we’re trying to achieve, we’re reviewing that we’re doing the right thing to achieve those targets. This review related to the repeal within—the legislation that we’re repealing.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for confirming the need for good information, for strong review to be able to inform decision making moving forward. I have already mentioned that I accept that the Minister and this Government are looking to repeal this particular—through clause 23, the repeal of section 105 of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act, and that relates directly to sections 40A and 40B in the legislation. I accept the generational matter, but this goes back to the point around—and my question of and understanding that, in the licensing of retailers, making sure that we understand the behaviour of retailers, not just in general wholesale of cigarette or tobacco products but, in fact, to a younger generation. And I know there’s an age being set here.

However, we want to understand (1) those who are reckless in the sale of tobacco products. We heard in the House, from members on the other side of the Chamber earlier today, that, you know, this is important that we get it right for retailers. I accept that. So, therefore, we need to understand who of the retailers are actually reckless, or who are those who are skirting around the laws here. And the only way to do that, I put to the Minister, is through a review. How can the Minister give me and the general public more confidence that the kind of review that she’s referring to—to ensure that she makes the right decisions moving forward? How can she give us confidence that there will be a review to make sure that those retailers, not simply through their licensing arrangements, aren’t flouting the laws here, despite there being a set age for those who can purchase tobacco products?

Point of order. Mr Chair, I seek leave for the next call to be a five-minute call that consists of an exchange between Dr Ayesha Verrall and the Minister in the chair.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

Mr Chair, thank you very much for that. I think, notwithstanding the rather circular logic, where it feels like we’ve fallen down the rabbit hole and we’re being told that the changes are made because the changes are being made, I think it’s important that it’s clear for the record what the approved retailer scheme is, because it may be that not everyone in this committee, including those in positions of responsibility for this bill, understand it.

So let’s go over what the approved retailer scheme actually is. It is a scheme that is equivalent to a licensing scheme. It means that the Director-General of Health will use specified criteria to approve a retailer. Yes, in the bill that we passed in 2022, it included a markedly reduced number of outlets because it is clear that the number of outlets is correlated with increased numbers of people smoking, including young people smoking. But that is not all it does—that is not all the approved retailer scheme does. I would like the Minister to answer whether or not she has been given any advice to make this clear to her. Has anyone told her that the approved retailer scheme could operate at any level of retail outlets? She could make it 8,000, which is the upper estimate of what it is now.

I heard from contributions from some members on the other side that this bill is being passed out of concerns for small business. Well, in that case, those concerns could be met, and no one would go out of business if the approved retailer scheme was kept in place. The approved retailer scheme would allow for there to be specifications about the security in the store, and that would mean that concerns that the other side of the House purport to have about ram raids could be addressed.

The approved retailer scheme required that responsible people were the only people able to be an approved retailer, and that would enable enforcement. Once people had been shown to be selling to under-age people, they could be deemed no longer responsible persons, and then they would lose their licence. It would help greatly with enforcement because we would know where the approved retailers are. We currently have no idea where they are and, therefore, when our public health people go out to do the visits and controlled purchase operations where they send young people to see if people will sell to them when they’re too young, those operations can’t be as well-targeted as it would if there was an approved retailer scheme and all the retail outlets were known about.

So there are multiple things that the approved retailer scheme would be good for which have nothing to do with reducing the number of outlets. So my question to the Minister is whether this passed her by, or was she actually given advice on this, and, if so, why did she make the decision to drop the approved retailer scheme, no matter what her view on the number of retail outlets is?

I can assure the member that I have been fully cognisant of what was in this legislation, and what we’re repealing and the approval process for the retailers as it linked to an evaluation of suitability for retailers, it also linked to the number of retailers. I will say again, despite sounding a bit repetitive, that this is not an end position. We are repealing these three aspects of the legislation and will continue to work on initiatives to achieve our smoke-free targets. I would remind the House that despite having no idea where these retailers are or whether they’re compliant, we have achieved outstanding success in reducing smoking rates. So let’s retain perspective that these steps that we are repealing are not currently in place, and yet we have achieved the success we have.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call, Mr Chair. I just note that this is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call, and I do want to bring in a couple of new matters. I just want to reiterate again that we haven’t had the opportunity to have that select committee process, and, as some members have so aptly pointed out, this is the opportunity that we would normally have to seek some further information from officials. So I’m not going to use my full call, but I do want to be able to ask some specific questions.

The first is I think my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall has actually put in place a very sensible amendment where it would insert new section 20OD which would prevent smoking in national parks. Now, this may seem to some members who live in urban areas—why would this be an important matter to raise? But in my area, which I know, Mr Chair, you know well, we have a number of national parks. We currently have significant fire restrictions, and I’d be interested to know if the Associate Minister of Health would consider making such an amendment, because we are at serious risk of a fire if there were to be somebody using a cigarette in close proximity to a national park. So I thought that was a very interesting amendment, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s comments.

But what I want to come back to is some comments that the Minister made in some of her responses, because they were very interesting to me. These are specific comments that the Minister has put forward in her responses, and I would like just to dig into them a little bit more. In an earlier response, the Minister said that the goal was to reduce smoking rates, which is why we are repealing this, and I can’t quite understand that, because, actually, the evidence that I’ve seen is that repealing this won’t lead to reducing smoking rates to the extent that we need to in order to achieve the goals. So I’m specifically interested in any advice that the Minister has seen to specifically look at reaching the goals that we need to reach under the legislation, that were put in place, may I remind members, by members of the National Party in the past. The logic doesn’t seem to apply to this. I can’t see the logic when the Minister said we want to reduce smoking rates, which is why we are repealing this.

The other matter—and my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall has tried to elicit answers from the Minister on this and has not actually had the answers about what advice has been received. We’ve heard the Minister’s arguments as to why she thinks this is a good idea, but we’re specifically asking around advice. The Minister has made comments that we’re not amending the target, just the process, but we have not had any information into what process that is. Sure, we can have a target, but we can’t reach that target without a mechanism or without a process. So, just, I’m responding specifically to these comments from the Minister, and my colleague who has tried to seek further information about the advice that the Minister has received in order for us to reach the target.

This is why I want to dig in further to some of the responses the Minister has made, and I will continue to seek the call until we have actually received those answers. Thank you, Mr Chair.

As I think I’ve reiterated, I have received a range of advice, extensive advice, and I’d love to list it here.

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s not the point of this stage. You get to do that in questions; you don’t get to do that in committee of the whole House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: OK. So when I talked about how this is the process, I’m talking about, specifically, we are repealing the systems that were put in place as part of the amendment that was passed, which is the denicotinisation, the reduced retailers, and the ban on young people buying cigarettes who were born from January 2009. Those are the systems we’re repealing, and that is the process that was being applied to achieve the smoke-free targets that were being propositioned. But as I’ve said repeatedly, this level that we were at in terms of our smoking targets is significantly higher than when that legislation was put in place. So we are committed to achieving the less than 5 percent smoke-free targets across all populations, and we will continue to drive those initiatives.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is—

Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, point of order. In fact, I’ve just begun the process of voting, so the point of order—I’ll take the point of order.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m raising this point—and it’s relevant to exactly what’s just occurred—under Speaker’s ruling 68/1, I believe it is. It’s a ruling of Speaker Mallard—

Dan Bidois: Ha!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —around the closure motion. Is there a problem, Mr Bidois?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bidois, points of order are heard in silence.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaker’s ruling 68/1, and also Speakers’ ruling 79/4, I believe it is—and this is partly a point of order to explain the interjection that it’s clear the Minister didn’t understand. There is a purpose to the change to the way that the committee of the whole House process is run—and, Mr Chair, I know this places you in a difficult position and I’m coming to the end part of my point of order in a moment. But to simply repeat a series of political lines in answer to a series of technical questions is, I believe, a breach of the Speakers’ rulings around the committee of the whole House stage.

I’ve listened to this debate upstairs, I came down, I’ve participated in it, and throughout the debate, questions have not been answered. So I know that you will make the final ruling that you will make, Mr Chair, but it places us in a very, very difficult position when the committee of the whole House process fails to work and when we’ve had urgency that takes the select committee process out. So I just ask you to consider those Speakers’ rulings that are relevant to the engagement of the Minister in the debate, and I invite you to consider that in any future actions you may be about to take.

Thank you. I will address the point of order—we’ll call it a point of order. It is that all those things you have brought up are legitimate, and that’s why we are still on this question at this stage. My decision will take all of those things into account. But it’s nice to have them articulately laid out, because I’m going to now put the question that the debate on this matter now be closed.

The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9 be agreed to.

The tabled amendments to Part 1 from the Hon Rachel Brooking, Tangi Utikere, Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb are out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to Part 1 is out of order as outside the scope of the bill.