Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clause 1 to 3: “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

I’d really like to ask the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello just about the title, Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022; just the rationale for saying “Regulated Products”, because everything that I’ve heard in the House tonight would suggest that there is a great deal of un-regulation. We’ve heard contributions from members about the difference between alcohol products and nicotine products; we’ve heard about the lack of regulation relating to consumer safety concerns; and, basically, the tone of the debate has actually been a sense of a deregulation of the market—or, certainly, of what was going to happen under the principal Act.

So I’m really curious as to the words “Regulated Products”. I’m wondering if the Minister shares my concern that that is, I would say, a misleading word in the context of this bill because the effect of the bill is not really to regulate; the effect of the bill is to broaden the scope of the way the sector is able to work—certainly what was going to come into effect when the principal Act came into effect. So that’s my first question.

My second question is around the words “Smokefree Environments”, because the suggestion is that this bill somehow contributes to making environments smoke-free or more smoke-free, and, again, all the evidence would suggest that the opposite is true; that we’ve, for example, seen tabled amendments that would say perhaps there could be carve-outs to some of the provisions for national parks. We’ve heard about environmental concerns in the environment of what happens with tobacco stubbed-out cigarettes; we’ve heard about the fact that there may not be a new generation of smoke-free New Zealanders. So the question is: is the word “Smokefree” correct and also “Smokefree Environments”?

So that, for me, makes, actually, the whole title of this bill really problematic because it seems to me that it does the opposite of what has been said that it’s supposed to be doing in the House. That, combined with the purpose, also gives a bit of a misleading impression of what is going to be achieved by this bill, because anybody who just picked this up or read it or perhaps wasn’t a lawyer might think, “Great, this is something that is going to help us to get to our smoke-free targets more quickly.” But all of the evidence that we have heard—and the evidence has come from this side of the House, because I have not heard any evidence from the Minister tonight; I have only heard circular arguments, as have my colleagues, which is why we are continuing this interrogation to say, “What is her scale of ambition?”

Why does the title seem to belie what the impact—the true impact—of this legislation is? It does raise the question of whether this bill and the Minister’s statements around it about wanting to reduce smoking at a fast pace are actually sincere because the only evidence that we’ve heard for her to say that she’s intending to reach smoke-free targets is the fact that the track record has already been good. We haven’t heard anything about advancing or accelerating or getting to a whole new generation of smoke-free New Zealanders.

So those two questions for the Minister: why are the words “Regulated Products” even in the title; and why are the words “Smokefree Environments”? Bearing in mind that nothing that she has said has reassured us that this is going to make anything free of smoke and/or protect our environment from smoke and from the residue of what happens when people smoke, which is cigarette butts going into the environment—things that certainly don’t make for a smoke-free environment. So those are my two questions to the Minister, please.

Just to reassure the member: it’s the title of the existing Act, and the bill will not change the title of the existing Act.

Madam Chair, thank you. I’d like to take an opportunity in this portion of the debate to speak to my colleague Rachel Boyack’s amendment to the title. I think it’s a very astute one. Her amendment is: after clause 1, where it says “Products”, to insert “Increasing Health Expenditure” to the title of this bill, because that is exactly what this bill will do.

We know very well from the detailed research that was done when the 2022 Act was brought in that the underlying bill, the bill that’s being repealed, would have saved $5.25 billion in health expenditure over the period studied. I had the privilege of being the Minister of Health and I am aware that many of the members in this House would have campaigned on the pressures that our health system face, and they are considerable—$5.25 billion would go an awful long way in our health system. Also, it’s not only important for saving our health system money to be able to take care of people but it is very important to the workers in our health system, because they want to see that the resources are being used to their absolute maximum possibility.

If I just put into context some of the way in which funds are spent in the health system: spending on general practice is approximately $2 billion a year. So $5.25 billion goes an awful way—of course, general practice is partly privately funded as well—to delivering more care for people. When we increased operations that were done in public hospitals, those sorts of commitments were in the hundreds of millions. So taking $5.25 billion out of the health system, making that unavailable to fund our workers in our hospitals, our workers in the community, the resources and consumables that we need—

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the title and commencement piece is a very narrow debate around the title specifically, and a potential new alternative. Speakers’ ruling 130/2 is clear that any amendment must be a serious or objective description of the bill, rather than an attempt to criticise its contents. The last two minutes have been nothing but a criticism of the contents of the bill, as put forward by this member in her contribution so far.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: To the point of order, Madam Chair. Of course, the financial implications—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just one moment. Yeah, so one of the things that we’ve done throughout these urgency sessions is said that because there’s no select committee, we’ve allowed a bit more debate and a bit more scope. But I also would like the member to just bring it back more closely to the title, without expanding too much on that topic. Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the generosity of the ruling. So the amendment that my colleague Rachel Boyack is proposing is that the title is amended to say “Increasing Health Expenditure”. I think it’s important because legislation should do what it says on the tin. The bill that is being repealed was the subject of a long period of study. We were advised that it would save $5 billion of health expenditure; it is now being repealed.

It seems to me that the people at home have the right to understand in plain English what is being done. One of the major consequences on a health system that is cash-strapped is that this bill will increase health expenditure. So why shouldn’t it say that? That is the impact. The Minister has told us it’s not going to have any impact on the number of smokers, but we know—and, in fact, the finance Minister was in the media confirming—that it’s going to have massive financial impacts so important that they’ll be able to save her reckless tax cuts.

So I think there is a lot to commend this amendment made by my friend Rachel Boyack, because indeed this bill will increase health expenditure.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Kieran McAnulty—just to prove that I can see you over there.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I appreciate that a lot. I intend to speak to an amendment in my name, including in clause 1, after “Products”, inserting “(Removing Restrictions)”, because that is actually what it’s doing, among other things. As we all know, those of us who have been here a while, when there is an amendment bill, it’s quite common to have in brackets the intent of the bill included. It is very clear—it’s an indisputable fact; it’s not even a political point—that this bill removes restrictions that are currently in place. I propose this not making any commentary on that; I just simply feel that it is entirely appropriate that the title reflects the contents.

Now, what do I mean by “removing restrictions”? One example, of course, is that the Act as it stands, that this bill is amending, restricts the level of nicotine in tobacco products. Now, if the bill’s title did include “removing restrictions”, that would be appropriate. What about the limit on the age of people able to purchase cigarettes in the Act that this bill is proposing to amend? The Act has restrictions. It says that people of a certain age cannot purchase cigarettes, moving forward; this bill here removes the restriction that is in the Act. There are many examples where this bill removes a restriction that is currently in place in the Act, and simply including “(Removing Restrictions)” after “Products” is an appropriate proposal for the title.

It’s very clear that there has been a detailed debate on this bill. Not many detailed responses in the committee of the whole House stage, but nevertheless, the Minister has made it clear that it is her intention to continue to see the reduction in tobacco use. We dispute that, obviously, because what the bill is doing is removing restrictions that would have achieved that. Nevertheless, the Minister also hasn’t disputed the fact that those restrictions are being removed. So I think that this amendment would be an appropriate change to the title.

This is going to be a very rare occasion where I disagree with my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty—who’s distracted, which is a good thing because he didn’t hear me say that—because, while I think his amendment to clause 1 is a good amendment, I think I’ve got a better one. So the tabled amendment in my name—that is here—is also to clause 1. Rather than after the word “Products”—to insert Mr McAnulty’s idea—I am suggesting including the words “Raising Tax Revenue”.

I am serious about this, because, again, a bill should describe the purpose of the bill in its title. The former Minister Mr McAnulty went to some of the operational activities of the bill, but not the purpose of the bill. We are absolutely clear, on this side of the Chamber, what the purpose of the bill is, because the Government’s told us. The Government has told us—in the form of the finance Minister, Nicola Willis—that this legislation will raise revenue for the Government. I don’t have it in front of me, but I believe it was an interview on—today of all days to even mention this—Newshub’s Newshub Nation show in November when the then about-to-be Minister of Finance was asked about what she would be doing to make up for the revenue that was lost from the foreign-buyer ban no longer being available to fund the Government’s tax cuts. She said, “Well, we have to bear in mind the amount of revenue that the Government was going to forego as a result of the changes that Dr Verrall brought through in the smoke-free legislation.” So that’s why I think a more appropriate title for this bill is my amendment to insert the words “Raising Tax Revenue”.

Now, it has become clearer to members in this House exactly how much tax revenue that is, which is another justification for why we should change the title—and that is in the form of an Official Information Act request that my colleague Barbara Edmonds tabled in the House today. That was information from the Treasury, which actually quantified exactly how much money the Treasury thought would be raised in additional tax revenue from the amendments that are in this piece of legislation. That is an estimate of around about $500 million a year, or $1.5 billion because it rises up over the forecast period.

Now, that’s a significant amount of money. It’s a significant amount of money that would otherwise not have been in the Government’s coffers. I might add, in square brackets, “not enough to make up for the foreign-buyer ban disappearing”. So the numbers still don’t add up, but it does indeed raise tax revenue, as I say in the title of my bill.

While I say that, I’m fully aware that the costs to New Zealand are, of course, much, much higher in terms of lives lost and in terms of the damage that it will do to New Zealand’s health system. But I do believe inserting in clause 1, after the word “Products”, the words “Raising Tax Revenue” would actually make the title of this bill representative of the real purpose of it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Whilst I’ve just listened to my colleague Grant Robertson give what I thought was an excellent suggestion for the title of this bill—nothing against my colleague Kieran McAnulty’s also very excellent suggestion, and my colleague Rachel Boyack’s excellent suggestion as well, I wonder if Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello would consider—I don’t have a tabled amendment, so I’m just putting this out there for her to consider. We’ve talked about the fact that the bill should do what it says on the tin: it should describe the intent of the bill. Whilst I agree with Hon Grant Robertson that the purpose of the bill clearly is to raise revenue—and I won’t repeat all of the reasons that he gave for that and all of the evidence that he provided to show that that is very true indeed—I was interested with what my colleague Kieran McAnulty said about the more operational nature of it. I wondered if the Minister was interested in looking at outcomes, because I’ve often heard that the Government is all about outcome—measuring outcomes, striving for outcomes; all sorts of things to do with outcomes. And I wondered if we could perhaps consider the “Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Extending Smokefree Targets to 2061)”. Because that’s an outcome; that is what is actually going to be achieved. Again, like I said, I didn’t have the foresight to table an amendment, but I’m asking the Minister, now, whether that’s something she would like to consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought that I was going to miss out on my opportunity, and I do have a number of new points to raise in relation to, actually, all three of the operative parts of these clauses that we’re debating at the moment: the title, commencement, and, indeed, the amendment of the principal Act. I might do it in reverse order for a change. So in terms of clause 3: clause 3 states, it appears, quite simply, that the Act amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990. Well, we know that this is true. The first part of the bill does amend that principal Act. However, half of the bill is focused on amendments to other enactments and regulations. So I want to ask the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello whether she would consider a more accurate description, in clause 3, which actually reflects the contents of the bill.

You’ll be aware of the debates that we had in relation to Part 1 of the bill and Part 2 of the bill. Part 2 of the bill has the schedules, it has the new forms—it’s a substantive part. It’s not reflected in clause 3, although, of course, except that it’s a principal Act, but it doesn’t only amend that section.

Tim van de Molen: No—that’s why it’s “Principal Act”, not “All Acts”.

CAMILLA BELICH: So that’s my first point. Second point—I do understand what the principal Act says.

Tim van de Molen: Ah, well, it doesn’t sound it like from the member’s contribution.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, I’m happy to have a debate with you on that. So it does say “Principal Act”, but then, underneath the title, clause 3 “Principal Act” states, “This Act amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990.” Well, it does, but that’s not the only thing it does. Half of the Act—

Tim van de Molen: Correct—that’s why it’s the “principal” Act.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, I just responded to that point, in fact, that it says “Principal Act”—anyway, I seem to not be able to get through to my colleague, unfortunately. So that is my first question.

The second question that I have is in relation to commencement, and I actually have an amendment in my name on this point. So my amendment, with respect to my colleague Tracey McLellan’s amendment, is probably a bit more of a compromise, and I wondered if the Minister wanted to consider it—and that is, to amend clause 2 to replace “on the day [of] Royal assent” with “1 January 2027”. That is because we haven’t had a select committee process, and a number of the things that are being repealed in the Act are not yet enforced.

If we were to draw it out until 2027, we would actually see whether the things that are proposed to be amended in the primary piece of legislation—what they actually do. It would give us a much better time frame to consult. As I’ve said, this is a complex piece of legislation, and it repeals a number of things that are not currently in force, which makes commenting on them quite difficult because they don’t appear in the primary piece of legislation until they’re in force, which is quite difficult for members and also for the public when looking at it. So I wondered if the Minister would consider that much smaller extension of time, compared with my colleague Tracey McLellan.

This is another point in relation to Royal assent. I favour certainty when it comes to legislation. I think the principles of legislative drafting mean that we should have certainty in relation to the effect. The day of Royal assent is very difficult to ascertain when you’re reading back on a piece of legislation, because it’s sometimes difficult to know, without reading the exact movements and passage of legislation through the office of the Governor-General, exactly when Royal assent took place. So there are, in my view, many advantages with having a specific date. The date I proposed under my amendment, D, is in the future.

Another alternative open to the Minister would be to, in fact, put another date which was even closer to today, or the day of Royal assent, to provide that certainty. So two points there, really. The first is an extension of time, which may allow for better lawmaking and allow for more commentary around the impact of the bill, and the second point is more certainty around the Royal assent.

So I haven’t even got to my third point around the title, but I do think it’s important to reflect that this isn’t really a smoke-free environments bill; this is actually about increasing, or de-regulating, the smoking market.

Because we’ve had so many Acts—and I’ve mentioned that, in the complexity of the repeal that we’re looking at—that have constantly made steps towards a more smoke-free country, I think it inconsistent that this uses that word.

A very short contribution from me because I do think it’s important that the title reflect what this bill actually does. And I think the clearest, most succinct way to put that would be to call this bill the “Smokefree Halt Initiatives Tobacco Bill”, so if you think about that, I think those four words very clearly tell us what this bill is. It’s halting initiatives. It’s not going forward; it’s going backwards. “Smokefree Halt Initiatives Tobacco Bill”—four words say it all.

I do want to make some remarks relating to the commencement of this bill because I studied, with some interest, the coalition agreement, and I note that from the outset there was a plan to have this repeal done by March. And as the House has learnt tonight, I don’t doubt that’s because parts of the provisions on the reduction of retail outlets would have started to come into force.

I do want to make clear this evening my view that there was another option open to this Government that would have met their policy objectives and been consistent with good lawmaking, allowed the people of New Zealand to submit to a select committee process, and allowed proper scrutiny of the bill. That relates to the point that the policy objectives of the Minister could have been met while retaining the approved retailer section. That would mean that tobacco would be no more—in fact, still less—regulated than products like alcohol, that is licensed. And those retailers would have standards to meet in terms of whether the person was a responsible person or not. It would be easier to enforce all of those policies. Elements of the policy could stay, and the Minister could choose to have as many retail outlets as she wanted and remove the limits that our previous Government had put in place. All of that could be achieved and you wouldn’t need to rush the bill, because all you could do would have the approved retailer programme stay in place and not have the same limit.

So my comment in relation to the commencement of this bill is that it could have been different. We could have achieved the Minister’s policy objectives with a proper process. We could have had time to study it as a select committee. The Minister herself could have been better prepared for the questions—quite reasonable questions about the operation of this bill—that she has been unable to answer. Instead, we’ve had a process with a highly technical bill where there is an underlying Act, an amendment to that Act, and then an amendment to that amendment. We’ve had a process where we have had to understand that Act on the fly—and I’m grateful to all the colleagues in the House who have pitched in on that effort tonight. I’ve found the contributions of my colleagues extremely illuminating in that respect, often more illuminating than those comments coming from the Minister.

So my disappointment is about the fact that we’re doing this under urgency, that this is one of a programme of bills done under urgency, that such important policy for the lives and health of New Zealanders is being done under urgency, and it could have been different. We could have done a process not different to what we went through.

You know, the ironic thing is that we went through proper process to give retailers the time to have their say. We gave industry the chance to have their say. It all seems incredibly asymmetrical, really, that we on the left, in seeking to achieve progressive health policies, have given those forces that have sought to undermine the health of New Zealanders an opportunity to do so. Meanwhile, when they get the opportunity to have laws that favour them made, there is no opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have proper input to their laws.

And so the commencement of this bill could have been delayed considerably, the Minister’s policy objectives would still be met, and we would have a chance to properly go through the legislative process.

[Facing Rachel Boyack] Rachel Brooking.

Rachel Boyack: Which Rachel?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Rachel Brooking. There was a 50:50 chance.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just going to take a tiny moment to deviate from the title of this bill and note that I was on campus recently in the beautiful electorate of Dunedin, and some students came up to me and said, “Is the House full of Rachels? Is every MP called Rachel?” But there’s only been two, and both are Rachel Bs—both in the Labour Party.

But I want to talk about the title and respond to the Minister’s response—and I thank her for that response—to my colleague, also from the great city and environment of Dunedin, Ingrid Leary, where she made a contribution, the first contribution on these clauses, on the title and commencement, and made some suggestions around the name.

Then the Minister responded and said, “Well, I can’t”—I apologise for not being word-perfect with my summary, but basically: “It has to be called the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act because”—inferring here—“it’s related to the primary legislation, so it can only be called that name in reference to the primary legislation.” When, of course, we know that there are many examples where that is not the case, and that amendment Acts can, in fact, include things like brackets with other words. We heard Mr McAnulty—he touched on this topic as well.

But I just want to go to Part 1 of this very bill, where of course the bill itself amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products—bracket—Smoked Tobacco—bracket—Amendment Act 2022. There’s another one just like that about vaping, which I don’t happen to have in front of me. But that is a perfectly normal drafting technique: to use brackets to explain the type of amendment that you are doing.

We’ve heard many speeches on different suggestions on what should be included in those brackets—very good ones relating to finances and also timing. My one is also related to timing in that I’m suggesting that it should be that the Act is the “Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Not Meeting 2025 Target) Amendment Act 2024”. I’m suggesting this because we’ve heard through the policy debates that we’ve had in the House today—and, of course, that we had in the House in 2022—that the point of the legislation that has been repealed was to make us achieve those targets and that the impact of this repeal will be that those targets will not be met. So that is my suggestion.

Also, I would like to speak briefly in support of my colleague Camilla Belich’s suggestion of the commencement being at a later date. I think she suggested 1 January 2027. That would seem an appropriate date for this legislation to go through a proper process. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair—proud to be one of the members of the “Rachel B caucus”. Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call. I have two amendments on the Table tonight, and my colleague the former Minister of Health, my good friend Dr Ayesha Verrall, has already spoken to one of those amendments in detail, so I won’t take up time doing that. I’ll speak to the particular amendment I have about the commencement date. Now, we’ve had a bit of debate on our side of the Chamber about what could be the best amendment to the title. I’m going to bring in a little bit of debate about what could be the best date, in terms of the commencement date, because we have got a few ideas here, and so I’ll just put forward my argument. I’m proposing that we replace the words “the day after Royal assent.” in clause 2 with the words “1 June 2025”. Now, I’ve picked this date for a very specific reason, and the reason is that on 31 May 2025, Winston Peters will stop being the Deputy Prime Minister. One of the reasons I thought that this could be a good date is that perhaps that might be the day that the tail stops wagging the dog. As a dog lover and a dog owner and the spokesperson for animal welfare, that’s probably a bit unfair on dogs.

But the reason I thought that would be a good idea was that perhaps, at that point, the influence, I guess, of New Zealand First in putting forward a policy here that wasn’t campaigned on by the National Party, I don’t believe—in fact, the National Party thought two of the parts of this bill that are being repealed were good things, things they supported—the undue influence, where we’ve got a very small representation in the House having a very large influence over a piece of legislation that is going to have an enormous impact on the population of New Zealand. Perhaps we might actually get a rethink from the National Party at that point. Perhaps that might be the day when we finally hear from the Government that they will no longer just respond to everything that the Rt Hon Winston Peters asks them to do, that he says, “Jump.” and they say, “How high?”, because it seems like they’ve said, “Jump.” and, you know, Mr Luxon has said, “How high?”

So my hope is that things might change in this House on that date. Things might change. Although, I mean, I believe the ACT Party possibly may also try to make sure this one survives the change of Deputy Prime Minister. But I was just thinking to myself, you know, let’s live in hope—you know, let’s keep hope alive that on that date things might change just a wee bit. So I specifically picked out 1 June 2025 for a very specific reason. I thought maybe that might be the point in this coalition, this very interesting three-headed coalition, where one head kind of gets removed and another one rises. Maybe, I don’t know—I know that, you know, we’ve been talking a bit about Mr Seymour’s very interesting Canadian accent lately—he might have a change of heart about that. Maybe he might have a change of heart about this when he becomes Deputy Prime Minister. So it’s this particular date that I’ve set this date for.

But just coming back to my other amendment, I just wanted to briefly mention around the increased expenditure. The reason why I’ve put that specific amendment on the Table tonight is that there are so many cost pressures on our health system, and we know from the evidence and we’ve seen from the evidence that repealing this bill will put more pressure on our health system. We already have struggling wait-lists. We already have struggling GP practices. We have nurses that need to be paid more. We have health practitioners that need to be paid more. We have a hospital to build in Nelson—a hospital to build in Nelson.

Ingrid Leary: And Dunedin.

RACHEL BOYACK: Well, Dunedin’s on the way and, you know, doing very well, but Nelson, you know, I want to make sure. And Whangārei needs to be built. So I’d quite like that money to stay in the health system, not being used unnecessarily. I’d quite like that money to be used to build my hospital.

Hon Grant Robertson: Your hospital?

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, it will be my hospital, Mr Robertson. That, I think, is a much better use of Government expenditure in health, which is why I’ve put that particular amendment up tonight. This bill will increase the pressure on the health system in terms of expenditure, so I think we need to be very accurate with the title in terms of the impact it will have on the New Zealand health system. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Now, I’m just going to remind people that the relevance, repetition, and participation of the Minister are three of the factors that are taken into account.

Thank you, Mr Chair; I appreciate it. I’m wishing to speak to the title of the bill, and accuracy is an important component of the title. For context, like many people in this Chamber, I have a personal context here in that both my parents were smokers and, raised in the 1970s and the 1980s, people smoked in all environments. People smoked in my house, in every room in the house, and it was a very smoky world. Escaping cigarette smoke was something that people didn’t even really consider. I remember being driven to school at five years old in the white Austin Nomad and standing on the bench seat in the back because there were no seatbelts, and my mother smoking as she drove the car. That was perfectly normal. That was the reality.

What has happened in the ensuing decades is that the culture has changed through an understanding of the harm caused by smoking and then an intervention at the regulatory, legislative level to restrict access to tobacco products. The most obvious instance of that was when we forbid there to be smoking in bars and clubs and pubs and so forth. And that has thereby restricted, through concerted regulatory and legislative effort, the smokiness of our environments.

Now, the benefits of that are far-reaching. My own father suffered arteriosclerosis. Both of my parents died of cancer, and the effect of him—

Tim Costley: Point of order. Sir, you gave us a very, I thought, astute and clear direction on the focus of this debate. We’re not hearing anything on the title or commencement, and I’d just ask for your guidance.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, that is a matter for the Chair. I also could have added the fact that there hasn’t been a select committee is also a factor in how much space is given from the Chair as well, but that is a matter for the Chair.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. The advantage of us reducing the smokiness of our environments has been a marked decrease in the health burden of the country, not just the personal health burden of those of us who have lost relatives to the effects of smoking but on the actual monetary cost of taking care of people because of the effects of smoking. My father had angioplasties, he had bypasses, he spent 10 years suffering from cancer before the end of his life, and the cost to the public health service was extensive.

So my proposal, because I think it is an accurate reflection of what this amendment bill actually does, in all authentic honesty: it does not make a smoke-free environment; it makes, in a practical sense, a smokier environment for our society, and a less regulated products environment. This is a reduction in the regulatory framework that protects the wider community from the impacts of tobacco and nicotine, and this will mean smokier environments. It takes us away from the trajectory that we have had basic agreement on across this House over some years now of the advantages in reducing the smokiness of our environments, and we’re going away from smoke-free environments to smokier environments. It’s a back-to-the-past piece of legislation, and that is what I seriously propose to the Minister that this should be correctly called, if there is going to be honesty as to what this amendment bill does. The impact on our society, on our people, on the health of people will be utterly detrimental. It does not serve the interests of our society and our country, and certainly not people’s health. That is what I propose.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this. Before I do, I just want to signal that my friend and colleague the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti intends to speak in regards to the Waitangi Tribunal case there, which is a point that has yet to be made in relation to the commencement date. But the reason I felt compelled to stand and make a contribution is because on two occasions it has been suggested that the amendment in my name is not as effective a proposal to amend the title as that which is in Tracey McLellan’s name, but also Grant Robertson’s. And I have to concede, in regards to the amendment in the Hon Grant Robertson’s name, I agree. I agree, so I encourage the committee not to vote for my amendment and let the record show that when it doesn’t pass, that’s because I’ve asked it not to! But the amendment that I’m speaking in favour of is the Hon Grant Robertson’s proposal that after “Products” in clause 1, “(Raising Tax Revenue)” be included.

The reason I’m speaking in favour of this, as opposed to my proposal, is because upon reflection—which if we take a step back and take into account the point of a committee of the whole House stage, it is to reflect on proposals made by members and consider the validity of them.

Rachel Boyack: What about my one?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No, I didn’t like yours. And so the original proposal that I put forward, proposing that “Removals of Restrictions” was accurate, but after listening to the contribution of the Hon Grant Robertson, I actually agree that his is more accurate. Because we have a situation here that the finance Minister herself has conceded, that the National Party’s support for this—keeping in mind that they did not campaign on this and, in fact, as a proportion of the current Government the vote share in favour of this is actually quite small, but the finance Minister has said, herself, that the reason they support it is because it will assist her in paying for tax cuts.

Now, if that is the case, it’s important that the title reflects the National Party’s motivation for supporting this New Zealand First proposal. Now, if the Minister disagrees with this amendment, she only needs to stand up and speak. I don’t believe, apart from the opening remarks, that she has actually contributed to this debate on title and commencement, and it would be useful for the committee if she did because we have had some proposals to change the title, such as this one. We’ve had some proposals to change the commencement date, and, as I’ve indicated, the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti has a contribution to make in regards to that. All of them valid, but how do we know where we stand if the Minister doesn’t contribute?

So I would implore the committee to consider not my amendment, but that in the name of the Hon Grant Robertson, to reflect the true nature—

Hon Grant Robertson: He’s a better man than me.

Hon Members: Aw!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: They’re so surprised because this is what happens when you actually get on with your mates.

Hon Member: Not used to it over there.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Not used to it over there; bickering, yelling, arguing, carrying on.

Hon Member: We’re just not used to seeing it over there!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, I see what he did there. He said what I said and threw it at us. I haven’t heard that since I was at school when I was six. So thank you for reminding me of back then: “I know you are, but what am I?” Just remember that one, keep that one up your sleeve.

It is true, when you consider the make-up of this Government—three parties, one of which is considerably larger than the other two, and the National Party did not campaign on this; they only support it because New Zealand First want it. New Zealand First, as my colleague Rachel Boyack said, is “the tail wagging the dog”. Let’s reflect the actual motivation of the Government as to why they’re supporting it, and that’s why I speak in favour of the Hon Grant Robertson’s amendment.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, otirā tēnā anō koutou katoa. Ahakoa te pōuri rawa atu o te ngākau, kei te kōrero mātou i runga i tēnei kaupapa whakahē, whakaiti, patu i te oranga hauora o ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa. Ehara ko ngā Māori anake.

Ko tēnei te wāhanga tuarua i tēnei rā tonu kei te kōrero mātou mō tētahi take e whakaiti ana i te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Ko te āhua nei, ko te whakaaro o tēnei Kāwanatanga hei aha te whakaaro Māori, hei aha te mana Māori, hei aha te oranga Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, indeed greetings to you all. Despite the deep sadness of my heart, we are speaking about this action that condemns, that insults, that attacks the health and wellbeing of all people of New Zealand. Not just the Māori.]

This is the second section today where we are talking about an issue that denigrates the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal. It appears that the opinion of this Government is don’t bother with Māori perspectives, don’t bother with mana Māori, and Māori health doesn’t matter.]

I’m saddened to be here on a day where two times in one day we are discussing items which have not been heard by the Waitangi Tribunal though there are claims before them—in particular, a claim by a group such Te Rōpū Tupeka Kore o Aotearoa, which holds so much authority in this kaupapa in Aotearoa, is not being given the chance to be heard. Kei te hārapa haere tēnei hoiho. Parahutihuti ana te haere o tēnei hoiho. [This horse is galloping away. This horse is really flying.]

Why is this important kaupapa being rushed? Don’t get me wrong, the word “urgency”—the irony is not wasted on me. The sad part is that the urgency on this side of the House is the urgency to save lives and to prevent us going back and making mistakes that we know we’ve already lived. I have several questions, but number one: why, once again, is this process being rushed and Te Rōpū Tupeka’s claim before the Waitangi Tribunal not given the opportunity to be heard before this bill is passed? And tuarua, why not wait for that determination? Kei hea rā te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi i tēnei rā? [Where is the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal today?]

It’s sad—you know, already, the precedent is being set by this Government that the tribunal is a “nice-to-have” but when we feel like it. He whakaiti tērā. He whakaiti i te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, he whakaiti i te mana Māori, he whakaiti i te hauora o ngā tāngata katoa. [That is an insult. It is an insult to the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal, it is an insult to Māori authority, it is an insult to the wellbeing of all people.] 

When I talk about urgency and the desire not to take a giant leap backwards, let’s be clear that it’s not just for Māori. Although there’s been a lot of kōrero about how Māori feature highly in the negative statistics, as do Pasifika, it’s not just Māori; we all know that tobacco is harmful to everybody in this beautiful country of ours. Thank you for the reminder, Mr Chair.

Ko taku pātai—what is the rush? And why can we not wait until this has been heard by Taraipiunara o Waitangi? Tēnā koe, Mr Chair.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I haven’t had an opportunity to take a call on what is a discrete—

Hon Member: You don’t need one.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, members opposite might suggest that we don’t need one over here—that was the interjection that was made by the member opposite. I know that they haven’t been here that long, but this is how it works, particularly when it comes to urgency. And how it also works is usually, as Chairs have consistently indicated this evening, Ministers in the chair tend to take calls to address the issues that have been raised by members. We have only had one contribution from the Minister at the start. There have been plenty of other opportunities. Mr Chair, I want to acknowledge you and the direction and guidance that you have given to this committee, in that repetition is one aspect, but also the role in which the Minister is taking in terms of responding to the issues—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What role?

TANGI UTIKERE: Exactly. What role? Because currently there is none. Until the Minister seeks a call, it is likely that members opposite will continue to raise the issues because they have not been answered, they have not been addressed. If that is the courtesy with which the Minister wishes to treat this process, then that is one of disdain.

So the issue that I wish to raise for the Minister—and I do hope that the Minister does take a call on this, because many of us here are actually none the wiser as to what her position is right now on many issues. We have had a number of members of this House who have raised views or points of view around what some potential amendments to the title might be. What we have heard from the Minister to date is there is, perhaps, no need. Well, we don’t know, because she hasn’t clarified that.

But her suggestion is that the title of the bill is simply as it is because it’s amending the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. So what we have on the Table at the moment, Minister, are a number of suggestions that are in brackets, which is not an uncommon approach, actually, when it comes to the names of bills. Because, for the benefit of those at home tuning in at 10.30, long night, all by themselves—they’ve gone silent over there because maybe they’re listening. They’re actually learning something over there, for once. But the point of putting definitions or descriptors, adjectives, into brackets is so that some people could take a very cursory look and understand what the actual intent of this amendment or this change is. So we have yet to hear from the Minister what her views are. It’s very simple. I mean, she can rule them out; she can rule them in. At the moment, she is choosing not to take a particular position on any of the amendments that members of this House have put—

Tim Costley: Well, let’s vote on them, then.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, there we have it. So we hear from members over there, “Let’s just vote on it.” Well, the fact that members opposite have put this House into urgency—and I’m sure that members opposite would quite like to actually just go straight to the vote. Well, let’s give a lesson on 101, and that is this is the House of Representatives, where we are here to represent the numerous number of people that are not having an opportunity on this very bill because it is not subject to the scrutiny of a select committee process. Members over there might wish to be arrogant and ignorant of the process, but over here, we are standing up for the rights of individuals, for the rights of communities for whom this piece of legislation will have a significant impact.

Now, while members opposite and the Minister may want to just sit there and not take this seriously, that is an absolute abomination—a disgrace. It is unfortunate, it is unsatisfactory—all of these sorts of adjectives. We could put them in a bracket. We’d like to hear what the Minister would like to say about that. But, I tell you what, she probably won’t take a call because she has failed to do so since many of these issues have been raised.

So, Minister, if you are serious about this piece of legislation, then you owe it to this committee to address the issues that we have raised as members of this Parliament on behalf of the very communities that have not actually had an opportunity to have their voices heard. Many members of this House have talked already today about the fact that the committee is in urgency. If there is ever a time when Ministers or members of the Government need to place on record what their perspective is on these matters, it’s now—it is now.

Now, I implore the Minister to take just one call to respond to the issues that we have raised opposite, because failure to do so is simply indicating, “Well, we don’t care about what other people think about things. We just believe that we should just go from A to B without any consideration for the impact that this will have on communities.” So, Minister, I invite you to take a call to address the numerous questions that have been put to you, which is the whole purpose of this committee of the whole House stage. I implore you to do exactly that.

Given the fact that that member is the chief whip, I’ll treat that as a very long point of order. Thank you.

I just wish to address the discussion around title and commencement. I can assure you I did not state that we could not change the title. I was merely clarifying that we had not made any change to the title in this bill, and this title had not been changed when the regulations and legislation was changed to insert denicotinisation and the reduced retailers and the abolition of those who could purchase cigarettes who were born from January 2009. So we haven’t amended it, it wasn’t amended previously, and that’s why we haven’t looked at making an amendment at this point.

I acknowledge the comments regarding the commencement date. I would emphasise the fact that this coalition agreement was not only between National and New Zealand First but it was also between National and ACT, and that was consistent across both parties around this amendment.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The tabled amendments to clause 1 in the names of the Hon Grant Robertson and Rachel Boyack are out of order as not an objective description of the bill.

The question is that—[Interruption] Votes are heard in silence. The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

The question is that—if that was a serious call for a personal vote, the member is well aware that the only time that there is any doubt about the vote, that that will be called. I am in no doubt about the vote.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading