Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Personal Explanations—Repetition of Allegations

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice in anticipation of some answers to questions that I may raise later today. It concerns the repetition of an allegation that has been refuted or clarified by a personal statement. On 20 April, Mr Speaker, in relation to questions concerning a conflict of interest, you ruled that as the Minister in question had made a personal statement clarifying the issue, that clarification could not be further disputed. You reiterated that point, saying that as the Minister had made a personal explanation in the House, that matter could no longer be disputed in the House. I am in a similar position to that, so I seek your advice on this matter, Mr Speaker. In response to questions on mining, Minister Brownlee, the Prime Minister, and others have alleged that I have supported mining operations, deliberately misquoting a press release of mine.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just check this with the member. It sounds as though the member is seeking to make a personal explanation, and she needs the leave of the House to do that. I am not clear on the issue of order. Could she quickly establish it, because if she wishes to make an explanation about anything to do with her own statements she needs the leave of the House in order to do that.

METIRIA TUREI: I understand that, Mr Speaker; I have made a personal explanation. I am describing the situation to you so that you can compare it with your previous ruling, to see whether that ruling now applies to my situation. Unless I explain it, you will not be able to compare the two sets of circumstances. It will take only a minute. It is not a personal explanation. I have made a personal explanation to clarify the deliberate misquoting of me by Ministers in the House. According to your ruling of last week, Mr Speaker, it appears to me that Ministers and members in this House may no longer make that allegation against me, because of that personal explanation. I just seek your advice on that. If that is the case, I seek your protection in the House, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. I understand what the member is saying. Indeed, where a member has made a personal explanation on a matter, that is the end of the matter and the House must respect that. So if a situation occurs where that is not happening, the member is welcome to draw that to my attention.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Certainly matters of personal explanation are dealt with with respect by the House, and are considered in that way. If there is a quote of something that someone has said, does the giving of a personal explanation mean that that quote can never be used in the House again? Surely the member is concerned about the issue of interpretation. The words in the quote had some meaning at some point.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that we should take more time on this matter right now. The dilemma we have with regard to quotations, of course, is that sometimes they can be wrong, because they are reported quotations—that is, unless they are in Hansard, of course. If a member is quoting Hansard, then that cannot be disputed. But if the quotation is from a media outlet, members often say they have been misquoted. But once a member has given his or her word, that word cannot be contested further; it has to be accepted by the House. That does not mean, of course, that the subject matter cannot be talked about. But where the member has made a personal explanation, we have to accept what the member has said, even if there is an apparent quotation that appears on the face of it to be contrary to that. Presumably the member, in the personal explanation, has told this House that the quotation is incorrect, and that is what we have to accept. If the member has not said that in the personal explanation, then that is another matter again. I do not know the particular personal explanation that was put to the House, so without checking back on the record I cannot really assist the member further. But we do have to accept the word of members where they make a personal explanation to the House. If they are proved to have misled the House, that is a very serious matter.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is pretty important that we get this right. I state now that I know which quote the member is concerned about, and I give an undertaking that it will not be used in the House today. We have plenty of other stuff to discuss, as it happens. But we have to be careful about this matter, because a personal explanation should not be used, effectively, to withdraw something that has been said. That is not how it works.

Previous Speakers have dealt with this matter. Interestingly, we saw an ongoing battle a few years back between the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Keith Locke MP over a disputed interpretation of something that one of those two gentlemen had said. I think, Mr Speaker, that if we undo it to the point where giving a personal explanation can effectively mean that something that someone has said, or a position that he or she took, is withdrawn from parliamentary debate, then that is quite a constraint upon the House. Where an allegation comes out of an interpretation of what someone has said and a misrepresentation of a motive, it is fine for the House to deal with that by way of a personal statement. But it is not fine to have, outright, the statement withdrawn from debate.

We do not need to take much more time on the issue now—I have given an undertaking that that particular comment will not be part of today’s transcript—but I think it would be worth looking back at the previous case that I have cited. It is a pretty important sort of position for the House to continue to uphold—that a personal explanation is about an activity or a circumstance, and does not necessarily provide an opportunity for a member to withdraw a statement that has been made.

Metiria Turei: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to take more time of the House on this right now, because members are talking about something and I do not even know what the personal explanation is. We do not want to take the time of the House on that today. I draw members’ attention to Speakers’ rulings. There have been numerous Speakers’ rulings about this issue; it is not a new issue. A particularly relevant ruling is Speaker’s ruling 132/2: “A member’s denial of the accuracy of a statement attributed to the member by a newspaper must be accepted without question … but the House is not precluded from discussing in a later debate what the member actually said.” The member’s denial that he or she has been quoted correctly must be accepted, but that does not mean to say that the issue is no longer able to be talked about in the House at all. I think that that is where we need to leave the matter for today, because we have no further concrete information for me on which to base any ruling.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is difficult now to know how to proceed. I am not clear about the position now, on whether my use of a personal explanation to dispute an allegation—which is what it was—is now considered to be a protected statement, if you like, in some form by you, Mr Speaker. The allegation can no longer be used in this House—is that currently the state of your ruling?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): If a member makes a statement outside the House about a particular issue, and then someone comes into the House and uses that quote in debate, it becomes part of the debate, and the interpretation of what was meant is a debatable matter. The fact that a member has taken a position cannot be withdrawn by way of a personal statement. If, however, a member alleges that someone did something, as was the case recently where the Green Party made allegations against a member, that member has every right to put right, or to correct, the interpretation being put on the matter, because the material facts will not support it. But where a member makes a statement outside the House, for the member to use the personal explanation process to effectively withdraw that statement from debate is quite wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: We are not going to spend any more time on this. I suggest that members look at the Speakers’ rulings on page 132. That will give members guidance on how this matter is handled in this House. If a member has been misquoted, the member by way of a personal explanation can correct that, and the House must accept that correction. I suggest that members look at the Speakers’ rulings on the matter. They are well-established. We do not need to take further time on the matter today.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Mining in Conservation Areas—Prime Minister’s Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What did he mean by his statement that the Government will make significant changes to schedule 4 to allow mining “notwithstanding the public consultation process”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I think the member should read the full quote. I said it is my expectation that the Government will act on at least some of the recommendations in the discussion document, because new mining on Crown land had the potential to increase economic growth and create jobs. Presumably, that is why the previous Labour Government approved 118 new permits for mining on Crown land, including the Paparoa National Park.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister confirm that none of the land that was approved for mining under Labour was in fact protected land under schedule 4, and can he confirm that the public can have no confidence in the consultation process, because he said he was going to go ahead regardless and because the public know that long before they were brought into this discussion National had made a secret deal with the mining interests to mine in protected areas, even before the election?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition is desperate to get on television if he wants to make things up.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did that answer in any way address anything I asked the Prime Minister about? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I warn Government front-benchers on this occasion that while a point of order was being heard, they were interjecting loudly, which they know is totally unacceptable. I think, on reflection, that the Leader of the Opposition would realise that his question was fairly provocative, and it provoked a fairly strong response. If the member wants a serious answer, he has to be a bit more constrained in his questions.

Hon Phil Goff: How happy is the Prime Minister with the process for mining in protected areas when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has been absolutely scathing about the inadequacy of that process, and said, for example, that the Government document is “vague and rudimentary”, and fails to provide “a coherent argument” for mining protected land?

Hon JOHN KEY: It strikes me that the commissioner was making a very circular argument. The commissioner was saying that we should remove land only where the mineral value outweighs the conservation values. Actually we cannot determine that unless we do remove things from schedule 4.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the criticism by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that National, in watering down the powers of the Minister of Conservation, has both compromised her role and unfairly privileged mining interests?

Hon JOHN KEY: I would reject them.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister intend to open up for mining currently protected land beyond the 7,000 hectares already announced; if so, does that mean that the proposal concerning 467,000 hectares that Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson took to Cabinet on 10 February this year are also vulnerable to mining?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, and I think that the documents the Government released showed how conservative the Government has been, because the officials actually proposed 467,000 hectares. The Government agreed on 7,000 hectares and it is adding a further 12,000. If anything, that shows what a conservative Government we are.

Hon Phil Goff: In light of that answer, who signed the paper? Was it Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson, or some anonymous official?

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I guess the one difference between this Government and the previous administration is that we—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question: who signed the paper? That answer does not address the question. It goes off on an irrelevant tangent. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Again, it was Government members interjecting on a point of order. The issues are strongly debated; I accept that absolutely. But the House must treat these matters with some dignity. Government backbenchers will not interject while a point of order is being heard. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked a question that it would be reasonable to answer. I ask the Prime Minister to do that.

Hon JOHN KEY: The Ministers signed the papers. The difference between this Government and the previous Government is that we take things to Cabinet and have a genuine conversation. Under the previous Government, those members were all a bunch of muppets who just agreed with what the Prime Minister thought. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Chris Tremain: The Muppet Show!

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I say to the senior Government whip that when the Speaker is on his feet, there will not be any interjection. That kind of comment will not lead to good order in the House, and I think the Prime Minister knows that. I ask him not to go over the top like that. It is unfair. Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Hon Phil Goff: Well, he has not answered any of the five so far. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: This time it was both front benches. I ask members to please be a little more reasonable and respect the House a little more.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave for the Conservation (Requirement for Special Approval for Changes to Schedule 4) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for its first reading on 5 May.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Economic Growth—Role of Public Sector

2. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What role can the State sector play in lifting economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): State services represent about 25 percent of the New Zealand economy, so the sector has a significant influence over our economic performance. The Government is focused on increasing State sector productivity, because it is beneficial to the wider economy, and because it means that we can deliver more and better public services and provide better value for taxpayers. It is both desirable and necessary as the Government prepares Budget 2010 under difficult fiscal conditions due to the ongoing effects of the global recession and Labour’s reckless spending.

Aaron Gilmore: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that State services remuneration practices reflect the goal of increased productivity?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s expectations require State sector pay and conditions to be fiscally sustainable within existing baselines, to demonstrate value for money, and to drive productivity improvements. This follows several years of State sector pay rises that outstripped those in the private sector without a matching increase in productivity. For instance, the most recent labour cost index, for the December quarter of 2009, showed that wages increased by 0.3 percent in that quarter. Against that backdrop, it is not reasonable for some State sector groups to attempt to claim pay rises of up to 4 percent per year, when most taxpayers would be getting either no pay rises or much lower pay rises than that.

Aaron Gilmore: What reports has the Minister seen on State sector pay?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports that, by and large, pay negotiations within the State sector have been reasonable, constructive, and forward-looking. However, some groups received pay rises of 4 percent or more last year, at the height of the global economic crisis. For example, teachers have had a 4 percent pay rise in each of the last 3 years, including last year. Teachers’ overall pay has increased by 50 percent since March 2000. Groups that have experienced increases way beyond those of ordinary New Zealanders in recent years should not expect, for instance, to have a ready reception from the public to another claim for a 4 percent pay rise.

Debt as Percentage of GDP—Current and Past Levels

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What was net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP as at 30 June 2008, and what is the most recent forecast of current levels?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): At 30 June 2008, when the New Zealand economy had already been in recession for 6 months, net core Crown debt was 5.7 percent of GDP, but the signs were very worrying. By the time of the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update in October 2008, before Labour left office, forecasts showed net debt jumping to 26 percent of GDP by 2018-19, plus a decade of deficits. This was before the global financial crisis. By the time of the December 2008 update, the forecast had deteriorated further, with net debt soaring to about 50 percent of GDP, and never falling, as well as permanent deficits. Within a few weeks of taking office, this Government had to deal with a sharply deteriorating fiscal outlook, in the first place because of reckless Labour mismanagement, and, secondly, because of the global recession.

Mr SPEAKER: The member put down a question on notice that asked for the comparison between net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP at 30 June 2008 and the most recent forecast of current levels. I let the Minister go on to explain the change in forecasts towards the end of 2008, because it was of relevance to the question. However, he failed to provide the most recent forecast of net core Crown debt, and instead went on to attack the Opposition. That was not in order, but I ask the Minister though to complete answering the question. Since it is a question on notice, I ask him to provide the House with an answer to the second part of the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It was 13 percent of GDP.

Hon David Cunliffe: Having inherited close to zero net Crown debt on taking office, and having cancelled two rounds of personal tax cuts in Budget 2009, why does the Minister now believe it is fiscally prudent to borrow further to fund tax cuts in Budget 2010?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is just wrong about the situation the Government inherited. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update in October 2008 showed net debt jumping to 26 percent of GDP, and 2 months later the forecast showed an increase to 50 percent of GDP.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your assistance so far in this debate. As you pointed out earlier, this is a question on notice and the Opposition worked hard to make it entirely factual and unembellished. The Minister earlier said that net core Crown debt, by his reckoning, was 5 percent, or thereabouts, at the first date specified. The Minister cannot now, in reply to a supplementary question, extrapolate from that to a number in the 20s and be within the bounds of the primary answer. I ask you to draw him back to his original answer to the question on notice.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that on this occasion the member is drawing quite a fine bow. In terms of the nearly zero net Crown debt inherited, he asked why the Government is doing certain things, and the Minister has challenged that claim of near zero net Crown debt. The Minister has pointed out that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update established that was not the situation. I think it is within the Minister’s rights to use that relevant information in answering the question. To stop him from using relevant information in answering the question would be unreasonable.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister explain how New Zealanders will be better off when they have to pick up the tab for high-income tax cuts at the same time that he is increasing GST and making all the basics more expensive?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have pointed out to the member, he should wait for the Budget to look at the balance of any proposed increase in GST and any proposed reduction in income tax. The Government has always said the package will be broadly fiscally neutral because we need to correct the mismanagement of his previous Labour Government where property speculation and borrowing got out of control, along with Government spending. This Government is focused on earning the money before we spend it.

David Bennett: What would have happened if the current Government had made no changes to the economic policies it inherited?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: By the time this Government took office it was clear that debt and deficits were spiralling out of control. As I noted in the Budget last year, if there had been no policy change, net Crown debt would have hit 62 percent of GDP, and climbing, by 2023. This would have been disastrous for the economy, resulting in a credit ratings downgrade, higher interest rates for households, businesses, and taxpayers, and would have cost thousands of jobs. So when the Opposition spokesman on finance looks at himself in the mirror every morning, as I am sure he does, how can he honestly claim his party left the economy in good order?

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Course Endorsements

4. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: What improvements will be made to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement from next year?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): From next year, course endorsements will be available for all National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) levels. Course endorsements will mean that students can aim for Excellence or Merit endorsements in individual courses, if they obtain at least 14 credits at these levels. When we signalled the introduction of course endorsements last year, we said that there would be a staggered roll-out, with the endorsements being available for NCEA level 1 next year, and for higher levels in subsequent years. I am very pleased to say that officials have progressed the work quickly, and that all students at all NCEA levels will be able to obtain course endorsements from next year.

Allan Peachey: Why did the Government provide funding to make these improvements?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We know from principals and teachers that overall certificate endorsement has motivated students to have their certificates endorsed with Merit or Excellence. This Government also wants to motivate students to obtain Merit or Excellence results in individual courses. We want to give students recognition for great results. That is why we put $2.4 million towards developing this measure in Budget 2009.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did she set NCEA level 2 as the benchmark against which her national standards are calibrated?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is the minimum qualification that students need to gain Modern Apprenticeships.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When the New Zealand Qualifications Authority this month proposed new literacy and numeracy standards, which NCEA level did it identify as being required for someone to fully participate in work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have those details in front of me. I am happy to provide them to the member.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Given that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has said that the literacy and numeracy standards needed for someone to fully participate in work are level 1 standards, why has she said national standards based on NCEA level 2, on the grounds that research showed that NCEA level 2 was what—she said—was required to succeed in work? She said she was backed by research; what is that research?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The evidence is very clear that students leaving school to enter the modern world today need level 2 NCEA as a minimum qualification. That is the entry level required for Modern Apprenticeships. There is much evidence, and I am happy to make it available to the member.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

5. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that the changes that that member regularly raises are clearly not the result of this Government reducing its funding of health. We have provided the district health boards with $536 million in extra funding this year, and we will provide a solid increase in the next financial year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will he guarantee to the people of Taranaki that not one patient-centred, front-line health service will be cut as their district health board goes through a cost-cutting process, or will he break his election promise again?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am concerned about the financial state of several district health boards, including Taranaki District Health Board. Let us be clear that the Government has increased the funding of the Taranaki District Health Board by $11 million in the last Budget and there will be more of an increase in this year’s Budget. None of the changes that the board may be considering can be attributed to a funding cut.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When the Minister of Finance, Bill English, said the Government was cutting low-value spending, which services in health was he referring to: home help for 3,000 Otago and Southland citizens, mental health services in Nelson, 12 nursing positions at Palmerston North Hospital, or the 198 Youth Health Centre in Christchurch, which is closing this week? Which of those services, all of which are being cut, does he say are of low value?

Hon TONY RYALL: I expect that the Minister of Finance was referring to low-quality spending such as that member opposite’s free physiotherapy scheme, which cost the country a quarter of a billion dollars and was proven to be much of a disaster. I would also say, with respect to the member, that many of the changes that she raises in this House are not new. I have received information that shows that in Otago-Southland in the last 3 years of the previous Government, there were reduced home cleaning and support hours for more than 700 people—more than 700 people. I think this is a case of the member suffering from amnesia about the previous 3 years.

Nicky Wagner: What improvements in front-line services have happened in Waitakere Hospital?

Hon TONY RYALL: Staff have completed the first-ever hip replacement at Waitakere Hospital this month, elective gynaecology day-stay procedures are now being done at the hospital, and an almost $2 million refurbishment of the hospital’s emergency care centre got under way this month. That will bring full 24/7 emergency care services at Waitakere a big step closer. Under this Government, the emergency department has already extended its hours this year, and this building work means that it will be in a better position to open 24/7 in the middle of this year for children’s emergencies and for all patients by the end of this year, as targeted. It is something that the party opposite promised while it was previously in Government and never delivered.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why have more than 50 front-line patient services been cut and thousands of patients left without front-line health services under his watch?

Hon TONY RYALL: Front-line services are improving in New Zealand. The member needs to know that we inherited a situation where, under the previous Government, we had $150 million of unfunded services. We have put an extra $536 million into the district health boards. That is why we have record numbers of elective surgery procedures, faster care in emergency departments, more people getting cancer care, and great developments happening up and down the country.

Events, Major—Government Support

6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What support is the Government giving to attracting major events to New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): The Major Events Development Fund provides Government funding to add value to major events taking place in New Zealand. A great example of what the fund can achieve is seen in the announcement that New Zealand will host a stop-over in the 2011-12 Volvo Ocean Race. The Government is working in partnership with the Auckland City Council to enable this to happen. The Volvo Ocean Race is a high-profile, round-the-world yacht race held ever 3 years and spans a 9-month period, and that includes a number of stop-overs. These stop-overs provide significant economic benefits for host cities, generating millions of dollars of economic activity, and also increasing the global exposure of those countries’ ports and country. It will be a good event for New Zealand.

Melissa Lee: What economic benefits will the Volvo Ocean Race stop-over provide to New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am glad the member asked me that question; it demonstrates that members on this side of the House are keen to know the economic benefits for the nation, when members on the other side clearly are not. The feasibility study prepared by Covec and jointly funded by the Government and the Auckland City Council estimated the direct expenditure benefits of hosting a stop-over at $15.3 million for Auckland and a further $12 million to $13 million in additional GDP nationally. It further estimated that $4 million to $8 million will be spent in the media sector. The benefits are likely to be significantly higher now, because Emirates Team New Zealand has confirmed that it will enter a boat in the campaign. It is sponsored by Camper, the Spanish-based international footwear manufacturer. The stop-over is likely to provide some long-term benefits. It will allow New Zealand to continue showcasing our world-class marine and shipbuilding industry.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway Review

7. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I stated yesterday that from 2000 to 2008 the rejection rate of sensitive claims grew from 5 percent to 41 percent, that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that there is no record of any Labour member ever raising any concern about this. I have checked this again, and it is correct. I can also confirm that the new clinical guidelines—

Mr SPEAKER: I remind the Minister that the question simply asked: “Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?”. Unless there were some that he does not wish to stand by, I would have thought that the question could easily be answered just by saying “Yes”, rather than going through the great detail of it. Further information may be elicited by way of supplementary questions.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I wanted to clarify that I had checked also that the Hon Steve Maharey had launched the clinical guidelines on—

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How clear does it have to be? You gave very clear advice to the member, but he is persisting. A “Yes” or a “No” will suffice. Let us hear it.

Hon Rodney Hide: With the greatest respect, it is not the Speaker’s job, as you have often explained to us, to direct what a Minister’s answer should be and whether it should be a “Yes” or “No” answer. In fact, when one is asked a question, I think it is quite polite to the House to actually say “Yes” and to explain the answer. That was what I was enjoying.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member—[Interruption] I am on my feet—were to check the Standing Orders he would find that the Standing Orders require that in answering questions Ministers provide the information necessary to answer the question and no more. The Minister does not have to say “Yes” or “No” to every question, but this question does not require a huge explanation, because it asked just whether the Minister stands by all his answers. There will be supplementary questions, I am sure, and the Minister will have the chance to explain further. But I do not believe we need to take up a lot of the time of the House, because the information being given is not necessary to answer the question.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He still has not answered “Yes” or “No”.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister indicated in his answer that he was standing by his answers, so I invite the member to ask a supplementary question.

Lynne Pillay: What does he say to the woman who was so traumatised and depressed by the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC) treatment that she was admitted to intensive care, then returned home to find a long-awaited ACC psychiatrist’s report stating that she was in remission from depression?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I say that I heard the primary question, I heard the answer, and I am struggling to see how the supplementary question relates to them.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We’re not responsible for your struggles.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. There have been many offences on the other side of the House, which means I cannot deal with that interjection any more than I dealt with those, but I ask members to be careful not to interject when a point of order is being considered. The supplementary question obviously relates to some of the subject matter of yesterday’s questions, but the Minister’s ability to answer that question will be very constrained because of a lack of a direct relationship to today’s primary question. I did not rule the member’s question out of order, because I think the House just has to accept that the Minister’s ability to answer will be very limited because of the nature of the primary question. But I invite the Minister to answer in so far as he can.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions yesterday were very clear. They related to the dramatic drop in—

Mr SPEAKER: We will not have my ruling debated now. I assisted the member in getting an answer to a question. She should not press her luck too far. She asked a very particular primary question about whether the Minister stood by all his answers. I have assisted her in trying to get an answer to that, but to now expect the Minister to have detailed information on a particular case is not reasonable. I have said that the Minister is entitled to answer in so far as he can, but he may not have that information.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that there are thousands of sensitive claims each year. In fact, 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that member did not raise any concern about that. If the member has specific information about a case, I ask her to refer it to the independent clinical review that I announced at the beginning of the week.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that information in my question—information suggesting that about 300 victims of crime had been approved for sexual abuse counselling in October 2008 and that that figure had fallen to 6 in February this year—was incorrect and untrue when it was directly sourced from his own answers in written questions to the House?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I told the member yesterday and I will tell him again that his numbers are incorrect. Let me—

Hon Darren Hughes: They’re the Minister’s numbers.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the members will be silent I will be happy to explain. The answer made plain that the question in respect of February claims was a question in March. In the same way as if he had asked Work and Income to compare the claim numbers for April this year with those of April last year, not all the claims had been processed. In fact, I say to Mr Goff, in that written answer I pointed out that 70 percent of the claims had not been processed. The number six is incorrect. The correct number is more than double that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the controversy that exists around the question and the answer, and given your ruling yesterday, and that he said my figures were incorrect, I seek leave of the House to table written question No. 1883 (2009) and written question No. 01711 (2010), which point out that the figures I used were those of the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Figures are often disputed because of concern about the time frames from which the figures are taken, and whether apples are being compared with apples. But I do not want us to get into the habit of seeking leave to table answers to written questions when those are available to members. I think there is a chance, with the way of asking questions today, to question the Minister in some detail on how he has answered the questions. The honourable Leader of the Opposition still has many supplementary questions available to him today to do that. I would rather see the House exercise a good period of intense questioning rather than see leave being sought to table material that is already available to the House.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you appreciate the dilemma of members in this House when they quote figures given to them by a Minister and that same Minister stands up in this House and says the figures are untrue and incorrect?

Mr SPEAKER: One of the things that our style of questioning these days allows is for members to ask further questions to elucidate that.

Hon Phil Goff: My question to the Minister—[Interruption]—if he just pauses and listens—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Please ask the supplementary question.

Hon Phil Goff: Well, I would like him to hear it. He is talking while I am asking it.

Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the supplementary question.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that in October 2008, in an answer to a written question, he confirmed that 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for help through counselling, that by February 2010 that number had fallen to six, that in the previous month the number was 11, that the month before it was 32, and that in the month before that it was 44, so that there was a consistent downward trend to a situation where almost no people who were victims of sexual crimes were receiving help through ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can confirm that the numbers the member claimed yesterday were different from those I had given in the written answer. The further point I would make very simply to the member is that when someone asks how many claims were lodged for February—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm the accuracy of the figures that I was reading to him and the sources from which they came.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. I say to the Minister that this question was not about yesterday’s answer. This question was asking about specific information that the member has received from the Minister. It would be more appropriate for the Minister to answer the question that was asked by the member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s—[Interruption].

Mr SPEAKER: Before we go any further, I say that the Leader of the Opposition has asked a serious question. I have asked members, instead of seeking leave to table documents, to use question time to question Ministers. The Leader of the Opposition is doing that. I ask his colleagues to show the respect, then, of listening to the answer, rather than giving just a barrage of interjections when the Minister tries to answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the member’s numbers are incorrect is that when one asks at the beginning of March for the number of February claims that have been approved, a large—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

Mr SPEAKER: No—a point of order has been called.

Hon Phil Goff: I have read these figures directly from the Minister’s own answer, and now he is saying that the figures I am reading are incorrect. That cannot possibly be the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: This is a very interesting situation. The Minister, in answering his question, said “the reason the member’s figures are incorrect”. The member asked the Minister about a series of figures relating to one period, and then he went back for several months before that—forgive me, but I cannot recollect the dates or whether he went back about 6 months or 4 months prior to that—and to a pattern in the figures. He asked the Minister whether he could confirm those figures. What I will do to avoid any further confusion is to ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm his own figures, provided by written answer to the House of Representatives, that in October of 2008, 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for counselling, yet through the recent months of this year and last year, those figures dropped from 44 in November 2009 to 32 in December 2009, to 11 in January 2010, and to a derisory figure of just six in February 2010?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the written answer in front of me, and it points out that of the 298 claims in February, at the beginning of March 260 were in the category “awaiting further information” or in the second category “awaiting assessment”. I say to the member that in exactly the same way that one needs to give—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, a point of order has been called.

Hon Phil Goff: I asked the Minister to confirm that those were the numbers of people approved in that 4-month period from late last year to this year, compared with 2008. I am hearing a lot of other figures. I am simply asking the Minister to confirm that his own numbers were the numbers of victims of sexual crimes accepted for counselling.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had about four attempts at explaining the numbers, and every time the member opposite interjects with a point of order and stops me from being able to explain the context of the numbers. I simply ask to be given the time to answer the question the member is asking.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma we have is that this is question time. The member did not ask the Minister to explain the information; the member asked the Minister to confirm whether the figures were correct. The Standing Orders do not provide for Ministers to answer a different question. If the question asked why there is this pattern in the figures, then the Minister’s answer would be perfectly in order, but that is not the question that was asked. Ministers have to answer the question asked, not the one they might like to answer. I ask the Minister to answer the question asked.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The answer that was given at the beginning of March—that six February claims were approved—was correct at the beginning of March. But, of course, since then a substantially increased number of the February claims have been approved. If members want to compare the situation with the situation in October 2008, that would be the fair comparison.

Hon Annette King: Has he been made aware of the human tragedy that is unfolding for victims of sexual abuse since the change of policy—for example, the 11-year-old raped by her stepfather 2½ months ago, who is still awaiting assessment for counselling, or the 19-year-old raped by one man while being held down by two others 6 months ago, who is still waiting for—

Mr SPEAKER: I have been pretty tough on the Minister in respect of answering the question asked. The question the member is now asking is drawing a pretty long bow from the primary question, which asked the Minister whether he stood by his answers given yesterday. He cannot be expected to have detailed information on those particular cases, and that means that the member is seeking to make a political statement rather than ask a question. I have been tough on the Minister, asking him to answer the question asked. I ask the honourable member—hang on, I am on my feet—to ask a question within the Standing Orders, because I think that question was unfair. I have to make sure that if I am tough on the Minister and ask him to answer the question asked, I do not then allow members to ask questions that are outside the Standing Orders.

Hon Annette King: How does the Minister explain the delay in terms of the cases I have just given the House, and the human tragedy that is unfolding because of that delay?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that in 2008, under the member’s Government, 2,400 sensitive claims for counselling and support were declined by ACC. I have been hesitant to interfere—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not possible for me to answer questions when there is that sort of berating from the Opposition benches.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister makes—

Hon Shane Jones: Chuck him out.

Mr SPEAKER: I tell the Hon Shane Jones to be careful. I was clearly on my feet when he made that loud interjection. I think members should be reasonable. I fully accept that this is a tense issue. It is a very serious and sensitive issue. The Minister is doing his best to answer questions sincerely, and I ask for some respect to be shown to the Minister when he is answering.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been very hesitant to interfere in clinical decisions in respect of sensitive claims, but I did announce on Monday an independent clinical review. If members opposite have cases where they are not satisfied with the clinical care, I invite them to refer them to that review.

Hon David Parker: Why will the Minister not admit that he and his Government have badly let down the victims of sexual crime; that he has failed to heed the consistent warnings from the Opposition, from the professional associations of psychotherapists and psychologists, and from Christian counsellors, social workers, rape crisis workers, and Massey University; that it is a matter of political responsibility; and that it could be fixed by reinstating the prior practice?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I again point out to that member that 2,400 claims were declined, and that during the term of the previous Government there was an eightfold increase in the number of claims that were declined. I also draw to the member’s attention the statement from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners that strongly supports the clinical pathway that was adopted by ACC.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without revisiting the issue—and you will be aware that I discussed this matter with you off-line at some point—could I ask you to consider this matter in respect of your ruling about the tabling of documents, which I respect. It is simply that we have had quite an interchange over allegations of accuracy of information, or whatever. I ask you to consider—not here—that there may be a case for tabling, narrowly, when a member calls into question the accuracy or otherwise of, for instance, data contained within written or oral questions, even though the data are available readily to members who do research. The interchange that we have had today about accuracy, or lack of it, could be truncated somewhat if you, Mr Speaker, at your discretion, were to rule that the documents could indeed be tabled. Then they would sit on the Table in the House for everybody to see, and the issue might well be resolved.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the member makes, and I appreciate that it is being made in good faith. Why I did not do so today is that where figures relate to different time periods, and there is debate about the figures, allowing these things to be tabled implies that someone is proving the other person wrong. The beauty of it being pursued through questions is that the questioner can pursue his or her concern about the figures, and the Minister has the chance to answer. That is what question time is all about. I think it was a very tense period of questioning, and that is what this House is all about.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not challenging that, because that is your interpretation. The only difficulty—and, Mr Speaker, you have said it repeatedly through question time, and you are right—is that an Opposition does indeed have further supplementary questions, but those supplementary questions are then chewed up in order to deal with a point that, again, could quite easily be dealt with. If the questioner is not relaying the facts accurately, he or she would be rather stupid to table documents that did not back up what he or she was saying. So that issue could be dealt with. The Opposition is left in the position where its members have to chew up their ammunition to verify a fact that could be tabled quite easily for the House to then further debate.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point, and I do not rule out that possibility. The member will recollect, in fact, that I did allow someone to table a press release recently.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Inclusion of Parts of National Parks

8. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Did he, on 10 February 2010, sign off a proposal to Cabinet to consult on the removal from schedule 4 of parts of Kahurangi, Mount Aspiring, Rakiura, and Paparoa national parks for mining purposes?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Some time before that I signed out a document that went to a Cabinet committee on that date, so the answer, theoretically, is yes. The member knows that, because all of that information is now publicly available on the Ministry of Economic Development website. We have been very open about the fact that officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Conservation initially, in answer to the stocktake, said there was a large amount of land that contained mineral deposits, and that might be considered for removal from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Ministers discussed those proposals and rejected them, and I made that very clear on the day that I released the discussion document. The discussion paper that we did settle on, in fact, had an addition of some 5,000 hectares to schedule 4.

Metiria Turei: Which of the statements made in the Minister’s name on 22 March was true: that Mount Aspiring National Park is not under further investigation and will remain protected in schedule 4, or that Mount Aspiring National Park would be considered for competitive tender for mineral exploration?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not know which two quotes are being referred to, but I do know that Cabinet has decided there will be no further mineral exploration in Mount Aspiring National Park, Kahurangi National Park, or any other national park, other than the investigation of the mineral potential in Rakiura National Park. We are very, very open about that and have put all that information on the Ministry of Economic Development’s website. We are hiding nothing, and as long as the member likes to tilt at the windmill she can be sure that it will not fall over.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is page 5 of Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond, which states that the Government is not further investigating the potential of Kahurangi or Mount Aspiring national parks, which remain protected in schedule 4.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Metiria Turei: The second document is a notice of land closure, which was released on the same day—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of this document?

Metiria Turei: It is from the Crown Minerals office in the Ministry of Economic Development and states that it is the Minister’s intention to consider these areas of land for competitive tender allocations for mineral exploration. The document includes an associated schedule and map.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon David Parker: Why has the Minister withheld paragraphs 50, 51, 79, 80, and 81 from the 10 February Cabinet paper, which was released under the Official Information Act; and are those withheld details even more embarrassing than the reality that until a month ago, the Minister of Energy and Research, Mr Brownlee, along with Ms Wilkinson, was signing off on the removal of 400,000 hectares of national parks from schedule 4?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: None of the facts mentioned in that question is correct. I cannot respond to them if they are not correct.

Metiria Turei: How can the Minister reconcile the fact that in his 22 March document he was telling the public that the Mount Aspiring National Park is to be protected from mineral exploration but that through the notice of land closure released on that same day, he was telling the mineral industry that the Mount Aspiring National Park will be opened up for mineral exploration?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: One of the interesting anomalies in all of this is that right now anybody can theoretically go and get a permit to prospect on schedule 4 lands. There are three permit categories: prospecting, exploring, and mining. Mining is prohibited, exploring is prohibited, but prospecting is not. People can get a prospecting permit for those lands and can go out there and dig to their heart’s content. What is more, it is on a “first come, first served” basis that future applications are considered. I thought it was prudent, while we are asking the public to consider the wider interests, to put a prohibition on vast blocks of land across New Zealand. For reasons of simplicity, the maps are very, very general, but there will be specific parts of that map where land could be open to this sort of activity. We were trying to avoid exactly what the Greens fear: a Klondike-type rush on high-value conservation land.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table, under the land closure notice referred to previously by Metiria Turei, the map attaching to it, which covers the east Nelson reserve land, including the Grampians and Mount Richmond Forest Park.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One cannot speak to a point of order that seeks such leave, but I ask the House’s indulgence. All of that is available on the Ministry of Economic Development’s website. Nothing is hidden.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but I will ignore that for the time being.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Has he read the 2005 version of the General Policy for National Parks document, which was produced by the Department of Conservation for the New Zealand Conservation Authority?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I have. The member may be interested to know that in policy 10.8(b) of that document it states: “Proposed access arrangements to prospect, explore or mine in national parks will be considered on a case-by-case basis”. It is very interesting to note that in 2005 the previous Labour Government approved exactly the policy that the National-led Government is advocating now—that is, considering the mining of conservation land on a case by case basis. It seems that for the Green Party it was OK if Labour did it, but it is not OK if National does it.

Metiria Turei: If the Minister truly has no intention of mining in these national parks, will he now commit to withdrawing the notice of land closure for all areas of national parks included in it and allow the schedule 4 protection to remain?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That would prejudice against any possibility of the Government’s preventing either prospecting or exploring opportunities in those areas. It would be fundamentally absurd to do what the member suggests.

Metiria Turei: Which of the statements made in his name on 22 March was true: that Mount Aspiring National Park will remain protected in schedule 4, or that Mount Aspiring National Park will be surveyed for mineral exploration, using the $4 million subsidy he is currently consulting the public about?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I want to deal with this in two parts. The first statement made by me is absolutely correct. The second one is a truthful statement, because when a plane flies over the top doing the aerial magnetic survey, it does not suddenly turn itself off as it goes across a national park boundary. That may be hard for the Greens to understand, but it is the fact of the science.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister stated in this House that “the consultation process will be very, very public”, why did he not tell the public of his intention to open Mount Aspiring National Park to “competitive tender for mineral exploration”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not know where the member got that from, but that is simply not the case.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Government backbenchers are skating on thin ice, because a point of order was clearly called and then there was just a loud barrage of interjections. I think that those members are probably protected by their sheer numbers, but I do not want that to become a practice. I ask them to desist from doing that.

Metiria Turei: I am not sure how to proceed, given that the Minister has just granted me permission to table his document, which states it is the Minister’s intention to consider these areas for competitive tender for—

Mr SPEAKER: My problem now is that having just asked the House to be quiet while the member makes her point of order, I have no idea what the issue of order is. The member has the chance to ask a further supplementary question. If she did not understand the Minister’s answer, then she can deal with that further by way of a supplementary question.

Metiria Turei: How—[Interruption] Well, this is a serious one. [Interruption] The barrage—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not know what was in the water this morning, but it is not good. I ask Government members to please show a little more respect to another member. A member is entitled to ask questions, and she will not be treated like that. That was very discourteous.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I take the opportunity to say this. We support your ruling, but it is not all Government backbenchers who are interjecting. Mr Paul Quinn, in particular, makes a regular feature of barracking and yelling at Metiria Turei on nearly every occasion that she stands up to speak. I think it would be good order for the co-leader of the third-largest party in Parliament to be able to make her points here. To be fair, not all Government backbenchers are responsible for this; it is one particular member who screams his head off at the co-leader of the Green Party.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate—[Interruption] I advise Government backbenchers to take this matter seriously, because it discourteous. It is discourteous to this House. It is not about me; I do not matter. It is this House that matters. The point raised by the Hon Darren Hughes is a serious point. I will not tolerate a member being treated with discourtesy. Every member has the right to ask questions. Some members may not like other members’ questions. They have the right to interject, but not to treat a member discourteously.

Metiria Turei: How can the public have any confidence in this Minister and in his statements on mining in our national parks, when he will say one thing to his Cabinet colleagues and to the mining industry, and on the same day he will say something completely different from that to the New Zealand public? How can they have confidence in anything that he says?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am sure that anybody who goes to the Ministry of Economic Development website, who digs out all the bits of paper, who understands the process, and who is interested in making an intelligent submission on the proposals made by the Government will be quite confident that his or her voice will be heard.

Schools—Operational Funding

9. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What decisions has she made on schools’ operational funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The primary decision I have made on schools’ operational funding was to provide an additional $80.1 million over 4 years into schools’ operational grants in Budget 2009. I have also told the ministry to stop the previous Government’s practice of wasting money on “Wassup!” badges and anti-bullying word finds that sit unused in the corner of classrooms, so that we can get more money out to schools.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did she decide to give new wharekura base operational funding of $50,000 compared with the $130,000 base funding that a Pākehā school with the same number of students will get?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would refer that question to the Minister of Māori Affairs, who is the Associate Minister of Education and has responsibility for wharekura. But if the member cares to put it down in writing, then I will ensure that he will get an answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have in my hand the decisions signed by that Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that it is up to Ministers to determine who is responsible for certain matters that I cannot determine as Speaker. The member has supplementary questions, so if he thinks that the Minister’s answer is wrong, then he can easily frame a question that can make that a very sharp issue.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know that the Opposition has a limited number of questions. For a Minister to say in an answer something that is patently untrue, because she—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member must not use a point of order to allege that a Minister has said something that is untrue. Question time does not always flow exactly as members might expect it to flow. Supplementary questions that are asked should relate to the answers given. The Minister has given an answer that appears to the member to be pretty controversial. He can now, therefore, test that answer further with supplementary questions. That is what question time is all about.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did her Associate Minister Pita Sharples agree to her discriminatory funding decision, which values white children’s education more highly than that of brown children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I find that comment highly offensive. This Government is working very closely with the Māori Party and with my Associate Minister of Education to ensure that all Māori children, whether they are in mainstream schools or in wharekura, are given an excellent education. I have made the offer to that member. If he cares to put his question down in writing, then I will ensure that he gets an answer to it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she, on 27 January this year, make a decision to fund wharekura $50,000 for base funding when a white kids’ school would get $130,000?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have that piece of paper in front of me. I do not have the details of the decision that was made. If the member had wished to get specific answers, then he should have put that down in the primary question so that I could have brought the information to the House with me.

Louise Upston: What other decisions has the Government made that have increased operational funding for schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In August 2009 the Prime Minister launched Kiwisport, delivering on this Government’s promise to put money directly into the front line to help more New Zealand children participate in organised sport. Kiwisport will provide $45 million in operational funding directly to schools over the next 4 years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the document entitled Education Report: Change of Class Applications, which is signed, I think, about nine times by the Minister of Education.

Mr SPEAKER: The member mentions the document’s name. What is it?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a Ministry of Education document approved by the Minister of Education. She has signed it about nine or 10 times.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have listened to the comments made by the Hon Trevor Mallard in respect of brown schools and white schools. The context of the discussion indicated that kura kaupapa Māori wharekura are only for Māori children.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. Does the member want me to intervene? Is the member personally offended by a statement? I apologise to the member, but he needs to make it more clear what his point of order is.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Against that background, I do find the member’s comment offensive and I ask that he withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being considered. It would be reasonable for me as Speaker to ask the member to desist from that. To ask him to withdraw and apologise for something that does not directly relate—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: There has been a Speaker’s ruling on this matter once before. It related to a small skirmish between myself and Mr Tamihere. I most willingly made a withdrawal and apology on that occasion. I think it is appropriate for Mr Mallard to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable Te Ururoa Flavell first, and then I will rule on the matter.

Te Ururoa Flavell: The point I am making is that kura kaupapa Māori have open entry to the tamariki, to the children, of this country—Māori, Pākehā, or others. The inference was that they are only for Māori children.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is introducing debating material into a matter where he has claimed that he took personal offence to what the Hon Trevor Mallard said. But I have a dilemma in that I do not believe that I can ask the member to withdraw and apologise for his language during the asking of the question, because I do not believe he was making a personal reflection on anyone. I have to be careful not to simply rule out things willy-nilly. I ask Mr Mallard to be careful in describing situations in the future.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There were words used by Mr Mallard that I can understand Mr Flavell taking exception to, most notably the suggestion that it was discriminatory. I think that if someone has taken offence, it is not unreasonable in matters particularly of this sensitivity that there is a withdrawal and an apology.

Mr SPEAKER: I will not waste further time—well, I should not use that language; it is a matter that has created some concern in the House. The member has expressed concern that the Hon Trevor Mallard reflected on kura kaupapa Māori incorrectly, that kura kaupapa Māori, as the member points out, are available to all New Zealanders. This is a debating issue. It is not really an issue of personal offence. There has been no personal reflection on anyone. The member may have made a mistake in implying that kura kaupapa Māori were available only to New Zealanders of a certain ethnic background, and I would ask him to be more careful in the future. But he was not making a personal reflection on any member of this House. That is why I do not believe I can ask him to withdraw and apologise. I have to be careful not to make this place too precious. But had it been a personal reflection on the honourable member, it would have been a totally different matter.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Benefits

10. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What benefits are there for New Zealand in proceeding with the moderated emissions trading scheme on 1 July 2010?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The emissions trading scheme has three main benefits: firstly, it provides a clear financial incentive to plant trees and not deforest, and given the trend of recent years, that is critical for New Zealand’s long-term future; secondly, it provides an incentive for investment in renewable generation after a decade of a declining proportion of renewable power; and, thirdly, it provides the right environment for business and industry to invest in new, energy-efficient technologies that will be critical to New Zealand’s long-term competitiveness. Without the emissions trading scheme, New Zealand would not meet its Kyoto Protocol target, and that would come at a cost to all New Zealand taxpayers.

Chris Auchinvole: Are claims correct that New Zealand is the first in the world to have an emissions trading scheme, and that it is just a tax for revenue purposes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, 38 countries have commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and 29 of them, or three-quarters, already have an emissions trading scheme. Nor is the scheme a tax. Although consumers and businesses will pay $350 million in the first year of the scheme for their emissions, foresters will receive $1,100 million in carbon credits for post-1989 forests. Far from providing net revenue to the Government, the scheme is actually a cost to the Crown. There are 12,000 New Zealanders who, in good faith, planted trees on the assurances of both National and Labour Governments that they would receive carbon credits for those post-1989 forests. The emissions trading scheme honours that commitment.

John Boscawen: Does he agree with the statement: “… New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it. It will drive up the costs of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand business for negligible environmental gain. … Ministers may take pride in being toasted at international Climate conferences for being so bold and brave, but there is no justification for New Zealand going out in the cold by itself on this issue.”; if not, what part of the honourable member for Nelson’s statement in November 2005 does he disagree with?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member very conveniently ignored that in that quote was reference to Labour’s carbon tax. National has been absolutely consistent in opposing a carbon tax. An emissions trading scheme is significantly different, in that next year it will provide over $1,100 million of credits to foresters, and it does not produce a net revenue gain for the Crown.

Chris Auchinvole: What steps has the Government taken to reduce the cost of the emissions trading scheme for households and businesses, and to ensure that New Zealand’s international competitiveness is not adversely affected?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government has more than halved the cost of the emissions trading scheme for households and businesses by providing for only a half-obligation from 1 July. Most countries in the Kyoto Protocol have a full obligation on their energy and industrial sectors. We have introduced a price cap of $25, and we have addressed the international competitive issues by taking an intensity-based approach to allocations. This Government is very cognisant of international developments, which is why the legislation provides for a review in 2011. I have signalled that we would not proceed with a full obligation or the entry of further sectors unless progress was made by New Zealand’s significant trading partners.

John Boscawen: Why has the Government abandoned its policy of harmonising our emissions trading scheme with Australia’s, and why will the Government not follow the decision of the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to put Australia’s emissions trading scheme on hold until 2013?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Over lunch I spoke with the Hon Penny Wong, the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water. She reinforced to me that the Australian Government’s preference remains an emissions trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction scheme, but it has been unable to secure the numbers within its Parliament to progress it. I remain of the view that the changes this Government made to the emissions trading scheme last year were in New Zealand’s best interests, and that is why we passed them into law. I would much rather be in the position that New Zealand is of having settled emissions trading scheme legislation than have the uncertainty that exists in Australia and the United States in this important area of public policy.

Charles Chauvel: Does he recall Treasury’s warning to Cabinet last September over the risks to the “overall credibility and effectiveness of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme” from “harmonising with an overseas scheme that has not yet been finalised”; and does not yesterday’s suspension by Australia of its emissions trading scheme confirm the wisdom of that advice and his folly in ignoring it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is quite the opposite. The changes that we made to the emissions trading scheme halved the cost for consumers, and halved the cost for businesses to ensure that there was not a disincentive for businesses to grow, despite the fact that all last year Labour criticised those changes. I think that what has occurred in Australia confirms that the changes we made to soften and delay the emissions trading scheme were exactly the right approach. I find it particularly ironic that Labour members are complaining about the cost of living but are proposing an emissions trading scheme that would be twice as expensive for consumers.

Early Childhood Education—Priority for Government

11. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she still stand by her statement to the House on 1 April 2009 that “Quality early childhood education and care is a high priority for the Government.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes.

Sue Moroney: Does she stand by her July 2008 promise, with reference to Labour’s 20 hours free policy, when she said “We will retain all the existing subsidies and fee controls”, and will she repeat that promise now?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: During the election campaign we promised to retain the 20 hours’ free early childhood education and we will not be breaking that promise.

Sue Moroney: What did she mean, then, when she told the Early Education Federation on 25 March that she “wants to work more on targeting the grant”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have always been very clear with the early childhood sector that we need to do better with the very large and growing amount of funding that is going into early childhood education. I have shared with the sector on a number of occasions that we are examining closely the cost drivers. The cost of early childhood education has almost trebled over the last 5 years—almost trebled. We are not necessarily getting the participation from the groups that would benefit the most.

Sue Moroney: How did she allow early childhood education to slip from being a high priority for her Government to now being included in the Minister of Finance’s definition of low-quality spending and up for Budget cuts?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not believe the Minister of Finance has ever said that. In fact, if members look at the six priorities for this Government, they will see that quality early childhood education is part of that. I heard the Minister of Finance talking just today about how much this Government values quality early childhood education.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does she agree with her statement to the New Zealand Herald on 29 January 2010 that evidence suggests that at least 20 hours of early childhood education per week from the age of 3 years provides the best support for future educational achievement; if so, how would the Government justify any changes to fee increases for parents?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not aware of the context of that statement; I do not have it in front of me. But this Government is committed to ensuring that early childhood education remains affordable and accessible.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with Te Puni Kōkiri’s paper on mātauranga kōhungahunga Māori that participation in early childhood education can benefit children’s school readiness, result in improved learning, reduce antisocial behaviours, and possibly even improve health; if so, will the Government maintain its commitment that from 1 July 2010 all kōhanga reo and playcentres will also be eligible to offer 20 hours free early childhood education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The National Party campaigned on the promise that we would make parent-led centres also eligible for 20 hours of free early childhood education, and we intend to honour that promise, as the member stated, from 1 July this year.

Rugby World Cup—Initiatives Benefiting New Zealand Businesses

12. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Economic Development: What initiatives has the Government undertaken to ensure that New Zealand businesses can create economic benefits from the 2011 Rugby World Cup?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): Last night I launched the New Zealand 2011 Business Club, an online platform to connect overseas business people who are interested in attending the Rugby World Cup with their Kiwi counterparts. The club will enable regions—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What an insult to Colin Meads.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The club will enable regions and businesses throughout the country to get information on the visitors coming to their area, including their businesses and social interests, so they can offer to host them at events and, as a result, learn more about how they operate in their own markets. The club will create a lasting legacy and strong international connections. It is free to join and it can be found at www.nz2011.govt.nz. Might I say that it took a National Government to put the title “Sir” on Sir Colin Meads.

Jonathan Young: How is the Government promoting the business opportunities from the Rugby World Cup?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has an office called New Zealand 2011 and it has been working closely with Business New Zealand, regional economic development agencies, and chambers of commerce to develop its business engagement programme. In addition, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has developed a guide to opportunities in 2011, as well as a website to make procurement opportunities easy and accessible for local businesses. Our 2011 ambassadors have been successful in promoting New Zealand in overseas markets through the vehicle of the Rugby World Cup. Regions are putting events into the Festival 2011, which will help showcase the capacity of New Zealand business. We will soon be undertaking a regional roadshow to promote the business club and encourage New Zealand businesses to get involved. The tickets are on sale, the stadiums are going up, and there are only 499 days to go.

Points of Order

Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 16 in my name, relating to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Labour is rebranding. It used to be the “Tax and Spend Party”; now it is the “Tax, Spend, and Borrow Party”. I looked through the big list of qualities that it wants to attribute to the Labour brand, such as funky, cool, and—what else was there?

Chris Tremain: Edgy.

Hon Members: Retro.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There was edgy, retro, creepy—[Interruption] Boring, that is right—and intelligent. I did my own survey of members of the public. The one thing the public knows—and probably the only thing, because members of the public do not quite remember the name of the Leader of the Opposition and they certainly have never heard of the Opposition’s finance spokesperson—is that Labour wants to borrow money, and borrow big.

I have been looking at what Labour members say about their policy. Debt is a serious issue in New Zealand, and I will tell members why. There is any number of ways we can measure it, but let us take net debt. The dollar amount of net debt for the financial year ended 30 June 2009 was $17 billion; that was the Government’s net debt. By 2016 it will be $65 billion, and that is under the careful, considered management of this Government. It will go from $17 billion to $65 billion, and that sits alongside a broader picture for New Zealand where the total amount of debt owed by New Zealand—by Government, households, and businesses—in 2000 was $90 billion. New Zealand’s net debt today stands at $170 billion, and it was heading to $250 billion by 2014.

Why is that potentially a problem? We have only to see what is happening in world debt markets, as we speak, with regard to Greece. Who knows; Portugal may be next. We are entering a decade where Governments with high debt levels will be scrutinised more closely than at any time since before the Second World War as to what they are doing to make sure that the people who lend money will get it back. Greece is finding out that if a country does not do enough, people will stop lending to it and then it will have a real problem.

In that context, Labour’s brightest star—according to him—David Cunliffe, says that debt is not a big problem. What is more, he has backed up that assertion not just with poetry but also with policy positions. There is no doubt that the policy positions are pretty clear-cut. Labour wants to borrow a whole lot more money to put into the superannuation fund, to put back the research and development tax credits, and to make up for all the low-quality spending that we are shifting around. Labour has made its position on debt pretty clear. Labour does not think it matters much. Those members think it is fine to borrow a lot more, when borrowing is already going up far too fast. They simply do not care about the people who will come after them who would have to pay back $65 billion worth of the net debt that New Zealand would have.

But at least we know what Labour’s position is on debt—that is, borrow a lot more money. We have no idea what Labour’s position is on tax.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Nor do they.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: And that is exactly the point. The reason it is hard for us to tell is that Labour does not know. GST is not a new subject. It has been kicking around for 9 months. Labour members’ position seems to be that they are against GST, but they cannot promise not to do GST because they are not sure whether they can carry out that promise.

Dr Cam Calder: Because they don’t know what they are doing.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because they do not know what they are doing. They are worried that all their spending promises might need GST to pay for them. They are against GST, but they will not roll it back. But it is absolutely clear that Labour is in favour of borrowing more and more money.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and happy Pink Shirt Day. It is a day when we focus on stopping bullying, so let us start with each other and the Earth. I hope that the Minister for Economic Development is not playing favourites when it comes to facilitating mineral exploitation. The Green Party was deeply worried this week after seeing the Minister on the Greenpeace video. It said that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has fallen for “sexy coal” and was losing interest in gold. Of course, it is pretty hard to tell because the Cabinet papers contradict the consultation document that the public is trying in good faith to respond to. Perhaps we need to communicate more deeply with our Prime Minister on this issue. I know he is getting quite a few letters on the subject.

How does the Prime Minister feel about gold bling? After all, it is shiny and popular, and one can access about a teaspoon of it for every tonne of earth dug up, crushed up, and then piped or trucked to a toxic waste dump. Then there is the acid mine drainage from the mines themselves, as well as from beneath any tailings dumps. This effect is not as pretty as gold, and the drainage is still leaching its orange toxic slime into the Hauraki Gulf from numerous small mine sites from 100 years ago. The Government has budgeted $17 million to try to clean up a small mine on Mount Te Aroha. The mine closed in the 1970s and is still leaching 5,000 kilograms of heavy metals per year into waterways and the Hauraki Gulf.

It is curious how the traditional goldmining areas have experienced a total collapse of their economies and have had to develop other, more sustainable industries. West Coast and Waihī streets should be paved with gold. Of all the towns in the Coromandel region, Waihī should be thriving on the vast profits and so-called sustainable jobs that Martha Hill mine and Favona underground mine have delivered to the citizens. It may surprise the advocates for so-called modern mining to realise that Waihī has just hit the bottom rung of the Ministry of Social Development’s deprivation index. It has slipped from level 9 last year to level 10 this year. I do not think that being literally at the bottom of the heap is that sexy for the people of Waihī, who have no higher education services after high school in their town and have high levels of drug, alcohol, and mental health issues.

But the people of Waihī have a tailings dump containing 40 million tonnes of toxic tailings, which are heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, zinc, and mercury. The Waihī tailings dump is 300 times bigger than the Tui mine tailings dump, so just imagine what it could cost to clean up in 60 years’ time. Newmont Waihi Gold, which is an “ever-responsible” citizen, has put aside $10 million for the lucky local trust that will own this toxic dump when it has left town. This trust, which consists of tangata whenua and local authority people, will be responsible for any problems with water quality or dump collapse in the foreseeable future. That $10 million will not cover the scoping report let alone the clean-up of some of the drains and ditches polluted by that vast dump.

I say to the Prime Minister that gold is really sexy, is it not? Seventy-seven percent of the world gold resource above the ground is used in jewellery, and gold jewellery is the symbol of real value. When all those financial markets get shaky, which of course has nothing to do with greed and financial speculation, there is always gold. I ask the Prime Minister whose gold it is. Several hui this week with Hauraki tangata whenua raised the matter of their whakapapa, which connects them from the top of the sky to the centre of the earth in places where they hold mana whenua. Hence they state unequivocally that the Crown does not own the gold; in fact, the gold is owned by them. They have never received any royalties for that gold extracted in the previous goldmining days, and they will not be receiving any gold in the future. So if they say that the Crown does not own it, how can the Crown do a stocktake and sell it off? Not only is this a concern, but we are also concerned about the fact that the goldmining industry is being facilitated by a Government that does not understand even the real cost-benefit analysis. It has been happy to admit in this House that it never did a cost-benefit analysis of the real price of gold.

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs): No wonder Labour needs to re-brand itself! We have heard reports on Labour’s very expensive, taxpayer-funded “Axe the Tax” bus tour. The Nelson Mail said: “Labour’s ‘Axe the Tax’ roadshow drew just a handful of supporters—mainly union representatives and party stalwarts”. The Taranaki Daily News reported: “Phil Goff was out and about in Taranaki yesterday—but the crowds weren’t.” No wonder Labour needs to use taxpayers’ money to re-brand itself! But it will all be a waste of money, because everybody still remembers Labour’s brand: tax-and-spend envy politics.

Let us look at some of that record. In 2000 Labour took office and immediately increased the top personal tax rate to 39c—an “envy tax” rate.

Dr Cam Calder: How much?

Hon PANSY WONG: It was 39c. For the next 5 years, while New Zealand was enjoying one of the best growth periods because of the world economic situation, Labour refused to cut tax despite the massive surplus. In 2005 Labour announced a “chewing gum tax cut”, only to reverse it in 2006. Finally, when it was staring at defeat in the general election, it grudgingly brought out a tax cut.

But Phil Goff, back to form, immediately announced that he will set up a top tax threshold to punish rich people. He will impose the highest income tax rate on people who earn over $70,000 a year. I thought that I had better find out who these rich people earning $70,000 a year and who drew the ire of Labour are. Apparently, they are 11 percent of our hard-working workforce. Let us look at those people. Those 200,000 workers include 8,000 teachers, 1,700 machine and stationary plant operators, 1,200 forestry and garden workers, and—guess what—4,000 labourers. Is that not incredible? Labour is not backing labourers. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money for Labour to try to re-brand the so-called Labour Party. Its members should just own up and be proud of their high-tax, envy-politics party.

It is such a privilege and a delight to be the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, because on the other hand our ethnic communities are hard-working, aspirational people. Every day I meet members of those communities, they walk up to me and tell me that the Prime Minister, the Hon John Key, and my Government are doing a very good job backing them wanting tax cuts as a reward for hard work. Ethnic New Zealanders are aspirational. They want to do better. They want to create wealth. They want to create jobs to contribute to this country of paradise. For a very long time ethnic businesses have concentrated their business dealings largely within their own communities. Now my good Office of Ethnic Affairs is championing the cause by providing a platform for our ethnic businesses to utilise their international relationships and their business skills to benefit New Zealand. The Office of Ethnic Affairs has hosted the ASEAN Business Forum.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): What a wonderful couple of own goals from Bill English earlier today. First off, he said that New Zealand has too much debt, but today in question time he confirmed that the previous Labour Government had cut net debt to zero and it was only 5 percent when he took office. He has been in office for 18 months; New Zealanders think it is time that he grew up and took responsibility. Then he claimed that New Zealand was like Greece and Portugal. Well, talk about selling one’s own brand down the river as they are the most indebted countries in the OECD. New Zealand’s debt is only one-third of the average, so we cannot be the same as them. I say to Mr English that he should get his figures right. Then, to top it off, he said that Labour was fiscally profligate but that it would not promise to put down the rate of GST. Talk about a self-contradiction in one sentence. There were three own goals from Bill English before lunchtime.

The difference between our two parties is that Labour does not want New Zealand to be a raw-log economy. Labour does not want to see a country so dumb that it earns $14 billion from the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand, then mines its own national parks and drive away tourists. We do not want to see our primary industry, dairying, being sold off, paddock by paddock, to Fonterra’s competitors so that they can undermine Fonterra by getting their hands on the milk supply. Todd McClay, the rising star of the National Party, wrote in his column this week: “As a country we must be focused on tilting the playing field towards productive investment, exports, and new jobs. We need a balanced programme to achieve this… .” We agree, but what is the Government’s record? Do members remember the Job Summit? It produced—wait for it—a cycleway, which might get 200 jobs. What about the 9-day fortnight? It was such a miserable failure that the Government canned it in the middle of the recession. What about the rolling maul? That was a kind of Clayton’s plan—I say with no offence to Mr Cosgrove. It was a plan one has when one does not have a plan.

What about catching up with Australia by 2025? The plan was dead on arrival as soon as it left Don Brash’s hands. There is no target for 2025, 2020, or 2015, and not even 2010, because the Government does not talk about catching up Australia any more. Why not? It is because it does not have a plan. It is a Government adrift in a sea of focus groups and public relations spin. It is a Government led by a man who would sell his mother if he thought there were votes in it. It has a Minister of Finance with all the imagination of a Dipton farmer, the vision of a Treasury analyst, and the good judgment to claim housing allowances for both his houses at the same time. A series of short-term bits and pieces does not an economic plan make. That is why Exporter magazine said: “Just digging up raw minerals or growing a few more sheep isn’t going to get us to the high wage, high value economy that we need.” High-tech exporters are going broke while those guys are too scared to change monetary policy. Instead it drives them out of business with high exchange rates. The country’s leading sustainable businesses—the 100 percent plan—have been turned away by this Government, rather than it getting behind clean jobs and clean technology.

Ordinary Kiwis know in their guts that things have not been fixed. They feel increasingly insecure about their jobs and their families. Ordinary Kiwis know that if we are going to turn round this boat, we have to pay our way in the world economy. To do that, we have to fix the underlying triple deficit that is holding us back. New Zealand does not export enough, it does not save enough, and it does not innovate enough. That is the underlying problem with this economy, but Bill English does not get it. He thinks it is all about the Budget deficit, and his recipe for that triple deficit is just to cut, cut, cut social spending and hurt the most vulnerable New Zealanders. It is the wrong question; not only is it unfair but also it is bad economics because it does not go to the heart of the problem. Instead, this is a Government with no answers. It stands idly by while Kiwis borrow from overseas banks to bid up each other’s house prices. It watches while we paper over current account deficits by selling assets and building up long-term debt. It is a Government with no answers and no hope.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): My friend, colleague, and bench mate David Cunliffe has outlined very clearly to this House the challenge this Government has presented to the country: the challenge of having a Government that has no plan, no ideas, no vision, and no action. The challenge for New Zealanders is getting harder every day.

In the health area every week we have further reports of new health cuts. Front-line health services are cut, patients are going without any services at all, and the Minister, who promised the country that no front-line health services would be cut, and who promised to move resources and health from the back room to the front line, now stands up in this House and washes his hands of all ministerial responsibility. I say to the Minister that if it is good enough to take the credit for the hard work that doctors and nurses and the health bureaucracy deliver around the country, then it is good enough to take responsibility when things go bad, and they are absolutely going bad in health.

This afternoon in the House I asked the Minister of Health about Bill English’s comment that the Government was going to cut low-value services. I asked the Minister of Health whether the 3,000 elderly people in Otago and Southland who have had their home support cut have been getting low-value services. Those services are not low-value to them. Those home support services provide 1½ or 2 hours of home help for older people in their own homes. Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, this is in your very own part of the country—that great part of the country, Southland—and in your next-door neighbour, Otago. For those older people, those services are the difference between being safe and well in their own homes and having to move into a rest home. The Minister of Health has cut those services. He has cut home support for 3,000 people in that region of Otago-Southland.

In Nelson, where the Minister of Health’s bench-mate has been elected until the election next year, mental health services have been cut. It is very obvious to everyone that mental health is not an area where we have excess services. We do not have a lot of spare capacity in mental health; if anything, we need more resources and support going into mental health. In Nelson, those services have been cut.

In Palmerston North—and soon in Levin—for the first time that I can recall we have actually had nurses laid off. Nursing positions have been disestablished while those people are in their jobs. It is an outrage that the people in Levin who fought so hard to ensure that the services were retained in the Horowhenua Health Centre are now being told that all the work and all the commitment they put into getting a deal with the Government of the time is now being ripped up and thrown out. All that passion from the people of Levin, Ōtaki, Waikanae, and Shannon, and those surrounding areas has been thrown in the rubbish bin by Tony Ryall.

I tell members that things are going to get worse in the Budget next month. I have figures provided by the district health boards about what they expect their increases to be in the Budget this year. If we think it is bad now, wait until we see the Budget. In the last Budget Canterbury District Health Board got $51 million. It is expecting just over $36 million this year. That will not allow it to stay still, let alone offer any improvements. MidCentral District Health Board, in the area I have just referred to, is already cutting front-line health services, cutting nurse positions in Levin, taking away all the assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation beds at the Horowhenua Health Centre, and cutting out district nursing for terminally ill Palmerston North citizens. Last year it had an increase of $26.5 million; this year it will get $11 million. That is a cut, and Tony Ryall, the Minister of Health, will have to justify that. The South Canterbury District Health Board is just managing to hold things together in its area. There are 5,000 fewer people going through its emergency department. Last year it got an increase of just under $6 million. This year in the Budget it will receive an increase of less than $5 million.

The manifesto of the National Party should say health cuts, not health services.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): John Key’s National-led Government is principled, pragmatic, and keeping its promises. What were those promises? They were promises that we would implement policies that offer a brighter and more prosperous future for all New Zealanders. That is in stark contradistinction, of course, to the late, unlamented, lacklustre, and lackadaisical Labour administration, which was an administration that recoiled from making decisions. It shrank away from the hard calls; to resile from meaningful action became its default position. It was the new black among the old reds, so often was it overcome with torpor, languor, and lassitude when hard decisions needed to be made. Somnolence and solipsism characterised its caucus. A hard decision or new idea was as rare as a spit roast at a vegetarian feast. They were as rare as a spit roast at a vegetarian feast.

It is a very similar situation today, in fact. That was then and this is now, and nothing has changed. As the French would say: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” There is a long legacy of 9 years of supervised neglect of New Zealand’s well-being, and of our nation’s prosperity and future. In a statement seemingly made from a parallel universe or, alternatively, from the vantage point of a separate reality—possibly from alongside Animal, Miss Piggy, or Kermit—just today on breakfast television the Hon Phil Goff reiterated that Labour would reverse any tax cut made by this Government in the forthcoming Budget. I say again that Labour would reverse any tax cut made by this Government in the forthcoming Budget. So, if perchance we should reduce the tax rate from 38c in the dollar to 33c in the dollar, Labour would raise taxes and take more money from hard-working New Zealanders. Labour’s mantra has never changed; Labour will raise taxes. As Churchill observed: “for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” If the previous Labour Government had any economic policy at all, it could be summarised as: “If it moves, tax it; if it continues to move, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidise it.”

John Key leads a Government that is, as I said, principled, pragmatic, and focused on finding solutions. What are some of these solutions? Some of them include a stocktake of New Zealand’s mineral resources. We have had hysterical grandstanding on this issue from members on the other side of the House, but let me say that a good housekeeper knows what is in the kitchen cupboard. As a boy from the Naki and a proud New Zealander concerned for the future of my children and the children of all New Zealanders, I offer my thanks to the perceptiveness and farsightedness of those people in the 1950s and 1960s who did a stocktake of the North and South Taranaki Bights, which enabled $2.8 billion from oil to come into our economy last year. It is the third leg in New Zealand’s major exports.

This Government is reshaping the mesh in many areas and at different levels. What are some of the other things we are doing, but which were ignored by the lacklustre previous administration? Of course, we are looking at benefit reform. National believes that a fundamental dignity and right of being is the ability to work. Our future-focused package aims to reform our welfare system by unashamedly putting the focus on work. How will we do that? We will bring in some part-time work-testing, and shift the focus on to what people can do rather than what they cannot do.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): One would think that Labour was still in Government. Every Government speaker to date has spoken about what Labour is doing, not what National is doing. One would think Labour was still in Government. This Government has no plan and no idea, and, in fact, it does not know what it is doing. That is why it has to talk about Labour. People listening to this general debate will be very, very disappointed by the fact that National members refuse to talk about their own ideas. Why do they refuse? Because they are ashamed. We have just heard that a good housekeeper knows what is in the kitchen cupboard. The problem is that when National was last in Government it left the cupboard bare, so people know what they will get when they get National.

I will talk about and highlight a concern that is very dear to my heart, and that is what is happening within our whānau and our communities with our rangatahi. I am concerned about the lack of jobs for young people, and especially for Māori and Pacific youth out there in our communities. When we look around, in every community we see young people who are full of hope and creativity. They are looking for opportunities, but, sadly, this Government is letting them down. Māori youth unemployment has gone up, and that is a tragedy. Pacific Island youth unemployment has gone up, and that is a tragedy. Youth employment per se throughout the whole country has gone up, and I want to know what this Government is doing about it. It should be doing more.

In fact, while Government members are posturing on the other side of the House and talking about Labour, they should be being accountable to the many young people to whom they are promoting the politics of aspiration. When we look at the unemployment rate, we are concerned. In 2008, under Labour’s watch, unemployment was at 4.7 percent, and that figure has increased to about 7.3 percent under National’s watch. Currently 168,000 people are on the unemployment benefit.

Sue Moroney: 168,000.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I repeat: 168,000. That is the highest it has been in 10 years, and it has occurred under National’s watch. Since National took office, unemployment has increased by a huge 54.7 percent, or 60,000 in the last eight quarters. Those figures represent people all over New Zealand, many of whom want to work, but the simple fact is that the jobs are not there. Why? Because the Government has no plan to grow the economy and create the jobs that are needed so that our young people and those who want work can get it. There are just not the jobs available. The Government should be doing more on that front. Government members should be telling the House their plan to grow the economy and create jobs, but, sadly, they do not. Instead, they quip at Labour as if it were still the Government, and they refuse the responsibility they currently have, which is to provide real opportunities and real jobs to the many young people who are out in our community. The Government is full of symbolism, but there is little action. It provides empty promises and hollow gains. That is what the Government is currently doing.

More important, the shocking numbers of young people who are unemployed in our communities are staying at school longer. That is the feedback we are given. But what those same communities will tell us is that even if young people stay at school longer, the reality is that we cannot pathway them into jobs in their communities, because the jobs are simply not there. We need better vision, better hope, and better opportunities at a community and provincial level. That is the type of feedback I get from schools in Morrinsville, Te Kūiti, Taumarunui, and Huntly. This Government should be doing more on that front.

We hear about Community Max as a Government response, but many of the providers who have gone into that initiative are saying that it is a short-term fix to a long-term problem. The real investment has to be into education and training for our young people. It is about building their career pathway and linking them to learning, opportunities for life, and better job prospects. But, again, we need a thriving economy with jobs out there so that the young people can get into them. Community Max is a short-term fix to the long-term problem of sustainable employment for our young people.

We hear about the Youth Guarantee and better transitioning of young people to training and employment initiatives, linking them up with business and tertiary education providers. Even in the linking up, provincial towns tell us that where transport is an issue, and where they have difficulty in transporting people 30 kilometres to get to where they need to, things are not working. This Government has done little.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): This is my first contribution in a general debate. From time to time I will continue to express my views in this esteemed House. People in the Indian community have been telling me that they are fortunate to have the Hon John Key as the Prime Minister of New Zealand to take them through these difficult times. I tell this House that the Indian community is very happy with the change of Government. People feel more confident, safer, and more comfortable.

While I was interviewing young candidates to represent me in the Youth Parliament 2010, one entrant from Manurewa told me that she and her friends felt much more confident while walking back from school than they used to a few years ago. When I asked why that was, she said it was because she and her friends now encountered more police on the streets in South Auckland. She mentioned that the mere fact that people saw more police walking around neighbourhoods, and police cars driving around more frequently, made them feel safer, as they believed criminals would think twice. She also mentioned that her parents are more confident with the economic situation. They think that the country will improve significantly under this Government—more than it did under the previous Government. That seems to be the recurring theme when I speak with many Indian families.

I shall now talk about the small and medium sized businesses—the majority of which are dairies, liquor shops, petrol stations, and vege shops—that are owned by ethnic people who have migrated to New Zealand. We have a history of more than 120 years in this country. We started from cutting bush in the King Country and the Waikato region, but now we own businesses from dairies around the corner to multi-storey office buildings in the central business districts of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. When I talk to these people, they say: “Thank God Labour is gone!”.

We have had good times in the past, but opportunities have been lost. The previous Labour Government did not capitalise. The Opposition is talking about flawed tax policies by this Government, but the latest Roy Morgan New Zealand poll shows that there is no decrease in support for National and that the confidence rating is up by 6.5 points. Sixty-one percent of people think that the Government is going in the right direction. The Indian community is thus doing well on the economic front.

Another thing of importance to this community is education. Indians believe that education is the most important thing. It is something exceptionally important and valuable that no one can take away. This is why ethnic students do very well at schools and at university level. On this note, I inform members that the Indian community is very pleased with the introduction of national standards. They feel that they will be more informed and that their children will get a very good education. On my last visit to Papatoetoe High School, I was told by the principal that more than 40 percent of the students are of ethnic origin. In the upcoming Youth Parliament we will have seven youth of Indian origin and six from other ethnic backgrounds.

Unemployment among Asians is very low. That is because our community commenced by being employees and, gradually over the years, we have developed and expanded our horizons by buying small businesses. That is why so many small businesses are owned by members of the ethnic community.

As an incentive towards growing our economy, the Government will announce beneficial tax changes in the Budget, the outcome of which will be more jobs and higher incomes for families, especially those on lower and middle incomes; beneficiaries; and our senior citizens. Income tax cuts across the board will also generally bring about an increase in purchasing power, thereby improving the lot of our shopkeepers and communities as a whole.

Another thing that concerns our community is safety. The unfortunate deaths of Navtej Singh, the liquor shop owner, and Hiren Mohini, the taxi driver, struck fear into many taxi drivers.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Just 3 weeks out from the Budget there are clearly no plans or ideas from the Government benches. We are only 3 weeks out and all we are hearing is the Minister of Finance, Bill English, preparing this country for cuts. That is about as visionary as it gets from the opposite benches: preparing people for funding cuts in this Budget. That is what it is all about. New Zealanders are starting to ask themselves how that Government has got this country in such a big mess so quickly. Those members have hardly been on the Treasury benches, and suddenly we are facing big Budget cuts.

The other question people are asking—and Mr Quinn might want to listen to this—is why other countries are recovering much more quickly from the global crisis than New Zealand. That is the question that New Zealanders are asking as we lead into Budget 2010. The penny is starting to drop. New Zealanders are starting to work out that that Government has no plans and no ideas, and that everything it has done to date has actually put us in a worse position than we started from. Members should not forget that this country had 9 years in which a Labour Government ran surpluses. Even when that party was baying for tax cuts to happen, what did Labour say? It said no; they were going to save it for a rainy day. That rainy day arrived, and when it did, National was in Government. It has now put us in a very bad position, even though Labour had us in a position where we had saved for that rainy day.

New Zealand started ahead of the pack in the OECD when the global crisis hit, yet we are coming out at the end of it in a much worse position than when we started. Bill English and John Key have to stand up and be accountable for that, and in about 3 weeks’ time they will. What will their response be? It will be to cut funding. Which areas will funding be cut to? It seems in the last week we have learnt that it is early childhood education. Early childhood education was once a high priority for that Government. That is what John Key used to say. All of his speeches used to say that early childhood education is a high priority for the National Government. But suddenly that sentence has dropped out of all of his speeches, and what has it been replaced with? It has been replaced with Bill English saying that actually it is too costly. He says we spend far too much on early childhood education in this country, and something has to be cut. Well, that is the slippery slope for early childhood education.

There is no point in that Government going on about improving standards in education while cutting costs in the early childhood education sector. The Government keeps saying that it wants to improve participation in early childhood education, so how come this week Bill English is suddenly saying that he wants to contain costs? How on earth can that Government grow the sector and contain costs?

Paul Quinn: Hell on earth will freeze over! That is the full saying.

SUE MORONEY: I think Paul Quinn ought to be asking these questions in his caucus meeting. People in his area will suffer.

It cannot possibly be true that the Government will improve participation in early childhood education and contain costs, without the costs shifting to parents and to families. That will be round two of this Budget. We already know—it is already well signalled by the Government—that families will face increasing costs with GST. GST is going up 20 percent. There will be a 20 percent increase in terms of the taxation on everything families pay for. Now parents are starting to learn that they will face increasing costs in early childhood education, yet the Government will not come clean on it.

I do not think it is acceptable, 3 weeks out from the Budget, for the Minister of Finance to say that there will be cuts, but not to tell the country what those cuts will be. Families have to make decisions, and I do not think the National Government understands this. Every week in this country families make decisions about what they will spend their money on. Will it be the food bill? We know that that is increasing. GST will be up; the taxation is going up by 20 percent on every single food item. Will they put more money into the mortgage? Will it be the rent? [Interruption] I do not think they are even thinking about holidays under this Government. Every penny will count, and now they do not know what increasing costs they will be facing in early childhood education.

MELISSA LEE (National): Boy, am I glad that I do not have that member managing my finances! The Labour Opposition’s definition of “saving for a rainy day” is $65 billion in the poop. Is that saving for a rainy day? No, that is not my definition of “saving for a rainy day”. We must earn before we spend—we must earn before we spend. Even my 11-year-old son knows that; he has been doing it since he was 4 years old. He has had to do his chores and earn pocket money so he could send it to his sponsored child since he was 4 years old. He knows that we must earn before we can spend. But Labour members do not seem to know that; they have forgotten it or they just do not get it. Saving for a rainy day is not being $65 billion in the red. They continue to want to borrow, and to spend big. To achieve that they want to have higher taxes and more debt, in order to spend big to win votes. That is the only reason for it.

I wonder whether individual members on the opposite side of the House are so irresponsible with their own finances. I doubt it. So what makes them think they can be irresponsible with this country’s finances? Labour would mortgage our families’ futures with a borrowing programme that would leave our children with a legacy of debt and deficits. New Zealand must realise that, and make sure that we never go back to that dangerous situation we have just managed to get ourselves out of that we call the 9 long years of Labour Government.

Today I will take a little moment to talk about the Korean people, and to bring a Korean perspective into the House. The history of Korean people in New Zealand is not as long as that of my colleague’s Indian community, which has been here for more than 100 years. Korean migration to New Zealand began only back in the 1980s, and now the population is about 40,000. The motivation, however, for moving to New Zealand has not really changed. Most Koreans in New Zealand have lived in Korea. They were born there, they had a professional busy life there, and they did not want for many things. But they had a desire for New Zealand and for what there was plenty of in New Zealand: clean air, wide open spaces, and a more relaxed lifestyle than what they had become accustomed to in Korea. When Koreans settled in New Zealand, however, families were separated. Often mums and children would live in New Zealand, but the fathers had to go back to Korea to work because they could not find jobs in New Zealand. I will address one thing that a previous speaker said. I think it was Nanaia Mahuta who asked what the National Government has done in terms of providing employment. I ask the Labour Opposition what it did, when it was in Government for 9 years, for those migrant communities whose members were leaving New Zealand, and for all of our young people who were leaving this country because they could not get jobs? Labour members talk big now that they are in Opposition, but they did nothing then.

A lot of Korean people are in small businesses, but some have contributed greatly to the New Zealand economy, even without any English and with a lack of New Zealand experience. The desire to achieve a better standard of living and a more prosperous, engaged, and active life is something that is very, very strong in the Korean community. Koreans are very excited that we have a John Key - led Government and that National is in Government, and they are very excited for New Zealand because they feel that New Zealand has finally become aspirational. Let me give the House an example of one of these people. John Chung is someone I do not really know very well, but I have heard about him over the years. Back in 2003 he purchased a Gisborne sawmill. The business was in receivership and had been closed down for 8 months, and all the workers had been made redundant. He re-employed 50 people who had been made redundant by the closure of that mill, and invested in and upgraded the facilities and machinery. Those improvements significantly improved the quality and quantity of wood that was produced, and Mr Chung successfully established a market overseas and sold 70 percent of his production offshore. He turned that company into a profitable one.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): The whole House agrees that we need to grow the economy; the question is exactly how. We want a skilled labour force, we want an innovative economy, we want a knowledge-led economy, and we want something that is value-added rather than commodity-led.

In the last few days we have seen the real colour of this Government’s money when it comes to putting money behind research, development, and innovation. The Primary Growth Partnership is the flagship of the Government’s push for research behind agriculture and other commodities. But what do we find? After 18 months of this Government being in power, that partnership has yet to give out any money to AgResearch, to our Crown research institutes, or to our universities. Yes, we have given about $3 million or $4 million to the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, but we have not given anything else in that area.

It is the most vital area of New Zealand’s economy. How do we grow our economy? It is through research, through science, and through technology. The Government put up $30 million, which was to be matched by the business community: the business community is putting up $30 million in return. But no money has gone out; $60 million is sitting there waiting to be used and unable to be used. Can we imagine that situation in any other sector? Can we imagine it in the education or health sectors? Sixty million dollars unable to be used—what a complete waste! Andrew West from AgResearch said: “There’s been a lot of talk about extra money in the last few years but there’s been no serious allocation from the Primary Growth Partnership”. The article continues: “Jobs will also go”—he is talking about the jobs that have just gone in the wool and meat area—“in dairy foods, food safety, parasitology, reproductive biology, developmental biology, protein structure, biomembranes and bioprocessing.”

This is an appalling state of affairs. This area is where New Zealand earns its living. It is where New Zealand has the competitive edge; it is where New Zealand is able to make its way out there in the world. What is the impact of that, and of other cuts? Last week we lost 36 jobs in AgResearch. They were in the wool and meat industry areas. The wool industry, a $700 million industry, now does not have the research it needs in order to grow that industry. Elizabeth Tennet of Textiles New Zealand says: “It’s not good enough to say because farmers voted down their wool levy, this justifies destroying the innovation and research and development in the wool industry in which New Zealand has been a world leader. Anyone can cut and burn, it takes leadership to build.” It takes leadership to build. We have heard a lot today from the John Key - led Government about John Key’s leadership. But in this vital area we have seen the wool industry left stranded without the research and development that it needs in order to develop. The future of the wool and garment industry requires and relies on innovation, design, and branding, and on marketing our natural, “clean, green” image, as Elizabeth Tennet states. It relies on developing the quality textiles, carpets, and lifestyle products that we are becoming famous for. That has gone. It has disappeared as a result of Government cuts, the Government’s inability to stand up and lead, and its inability to put money behind the wool research that AgResearch desperately needs.

The Government’s research effort has no leadership, no plan, and—we are about to see—no money. We can contrast that with the Fast Forward Fund, which the previous Labour Government put up in its last year of office. It was $700 million that was transferred into the Government coffers. It was no fiction, unlike what Mr English likes to point out; the fiction is the Primary Growth Partnership.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): What an enjoyable debate this has been, over the last hour or so! I have been listening to members from both sides of the House. I can sum it up pretty quickly. On this side of the House there is direction, confidence, and a plan for action. On the other side of the House—well, we will come to that in a moment.

Members opposite are very, very confused, are they not? We have heard members opposite talk about tax, spend, and borrow. That is all they have for the New Zealand public. After 9 years in Government we are still hearing the same old thing—tax, spend, and borrow. Of course, we did hear about the re-branding that Labour is going through. Not only is it about going out and listening to everyday New Zealanders; it is also about re-branding. How do Labour members want to brand themselves? They want to be funky and they want to be cool. There is a bit of metro in there, and certainly a lot of retro. They said they needed to be creative as well, but they left out the words “desperate” and “lost”. After the results of the last poll I see a bit of depression amongst them, and certainly they look a little bit sad.

What we get from members opposite is “borrow big and hope for the best”. If they ever found their way back into Government, their “borrow big and hope for the best” strategy would lead to bankruptcy—not just for everyday New Zealanders but for the Government’s accounts. The poll results of the last few days tell us that New Zealanders recognise that fact, but the last people in this country to work that out are the members opposite. Long may that continue, I suggest to them.

I want to talk for a moment about taxes. As I said, Labour members have said that if Labour came back into Government it would raise taxes and borrow more. No amount of cosmetic surgery can hide the fact that Labour’s reckless economic policies are stuck desperately in the past. But I will give Labour a little bit of credit where it is due. Labour has a twin-pillars policy for the economy—that is, more debt and higher taxes. I say to the House, and to anybody else out there who may be listening, that if Labour came back into Government it would put taxes back up.

In Labour’s 9 years in Government it promised to give tax cuts. It did not deliver, although it gave us the “chewing gum tax cut”, which was enough to buy some chewing gum. But then it took that tax cut away, as well. At the very end of its 9 years, when the last bit of life was almost dragged out of the old dog, almost at its very death, it gave us a tax cut, but that was too little, too late. The Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, and his finance spokesperson would mortgage our families’ futures to pay the bills—it is all about borrowing.

After 9 years in Government Labour was dragged, kicking and screaming, into giving tax cuts. Members opposite have reverted back to type extremely quickly, and they are calling for taxes to be increased. On Breakfast this morning the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, said that Labour would reverse any tax cuts that the National Government delivered. I repeat that Labour would reverse any tax cuts that the John Key Government delivers. It would leave GST at 15 percent and would continue to borrow. What a strategy! What a policy for disaster!

Earlier in this debate Pansy Wong spoke about ethnic New Zealanders. She said they are aspirational. The ethnic New Zealanders in my electorate are aspirational, and the polls show us that that is the case. She told us that ethnic New Zealanders want to do better, they want tax cuts, they want a fairer society, and they want rewards for their hard work. They are getting that from this Government, and the polls are telling us that things are very good for the Government.

Cam Calder also spoke about the previous Labour Government. He was right in part, but I want to correct him slightly. He said that if something moved, Labour members taxed, if it continued to move, they regulated it, and if it stopped moving—well, he was wrong. If it stopped moving they gave it welfare. There was a lot of stoppage in our country over those 9 years. This Government is focusing on what New Zealanders can do, not on what they cannot do. We are backing everyday New Zealanders and helping them to get on with their jobs.

Kanwaljit Bakshi spoke about the Indian community in New Zealand. He said they feel they have a secure future. They are confident in John Key and our Government. They recognise that we have done a lot of work in the area of law and order. They know we will do a lot more. They are confident that the economy and the economic future of New Zealand will get better. Mr Bakshi quoted them directly. They said: “Thank God Labour is gone.”, and, by golly, it has gone.

I want to talk for a second about Labour’s “Axe the Tax” bus trip. Phil Goff used taxpayers’ money to drive all over the country in a big red bus, and the slogan was “Axe the Tax”, but it should have been “Keep the Tax”.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That extraordinary urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. The bill’s title is somewhat self-explanatory. This move has been taken in the interests of public health, and the speeches that I am sure will come from members across the House will indicate the feeling that this move should help to stem the large numbers of people who are taking up smoking, and to encourage many of those who smoke to stop; in saying that, I know that I am straying into the debate. Procedurally, it is desirable that this bill is passed as quickly as possible in order that it can be given assent and that new tax provisions can be applied.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill

Procedure

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill, after its second reading to be set down for third reading forthwith, without debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the dinner break today, notwithstanding the provisions under the extraordinary urgency arrangements, to be from 6 p.m. until 7.30 p.m.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Bills

Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. There are only a few matters before this House on which one could stand with one’s hand on one’s heart and declare that this was a life-and-death debate. The rationale for increasing the tobacco excise is very much in this arena. It is purely and simply about saving lives.

I come to this bill with many mixed emotions. As an Associate Minister of Health, it worries me greatly that about 21 percent of all New Zealanders over the age of 15 years are smokers, and that many smokers are younger than that. In basic terms one in five New Zealanders are regular smokers. It is irresponsible to dismiss this as a recreational pastime, to minimise the impact of the harm caused by justifying tobacco use as a private pleasure that one should be free to indulge in in the privacy of one’s home, and not to acknowledge the addictive nature of this tobacco use. Exposure to smoking in the home and tobacco use itself result in a staggering figure of around 5,000 deaths a year. In graphic terms I can put some names to these numbers, simply by walking along the gravesides of our family urupā.

The focus of this legislation, tobacco use, is the single-largest cause of preventable death and chronic illness in this country. It would be a foolish Government that ignored the economic and social repercussions of this relentless killer, yet for too many years it appears that we have been prepared to turn a blind eye to the crisis that afflicts our communities right throughout this land. Actions have been infrequent and erratic. Years have elapsed while we have debated minor changes. In all that time the death toll has kept on rising, with New Zealanders dying prematurely from smoking-related illnesses that show no mercy. We cannot stand by and be oblivious to the pain that strikes too many families. These early deaths are completely preventable. The science tells us that on average, a smoker loses 15 years of life.

It is no news to anyone in this House that tobacco is the leading cause of the life-expectancy gap between Māori and non-Māori. It is soul-destroying to know that one in two Māori women smoke. The disproportionate impacts of heavy use of tobacco on Māori are etched into the lives of many w’ānau. During the period 2000 to 2004 lung cancer was responsible for over 31 percent of Māori cancer deaths. During that same period cardiovascular disease, including heart disease and strokes, resulted in Māori death rates that were twice as high as those for non-Māori, and deaths due to respiratory disease were three times more frequent in Māori than non-Māori.

It is impossible, in that context, to come to this debate with views about the nature of the product per se. Day on day, approximately 13 New Zealanders die from smoking. They die from lung cancer. They die from heart disease, from strokes, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, from emphysema, from chronic bronchitis, and from cancer of the mouth, pharynx, and oesophagus. They are dying from a habit that we can do something about, so today we are taking this action in order to save lives.

I was by my mother’s side when we received the diagnosis that her cancer had progressed to such a stage that she might have 6 months to live. My mother had been a heavy smoker for some 40 years, but even though we all understood the risk that comes from smoking-related illness, there is nothing quite as traumatic as having to sit and watch the life of a loved one slowly drained. My cousins and I were raised by my grandmother. Every single one of those cousins has died from smoking-related illness. I am the only one still alive of those who were raised by my grandmother. This story—my story—is not an isolated, individual case. For the sake of our future, we must act.

This bill is part of a coordinated range of measures that target tobacco use as a leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. Independent research studies have established the impact of price rises on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Raising the price of tobacco is probably the most powerful tool to reduce smoking. International organisations, from the World Health Organization to the World Bank, recommend that countries use tobacco taxes to increase the price of cigarettes and counter the global smoking epidemic. It is very simple: all smokers who buy tobacco will face price rises. The more that someone smokes, the more that he or she will pay, and the bigger will be the incentive for him or her to quit. The Government is concerned that cigarette prices have plateaued in recent years and that the reduction in cigarette consumption has also stalled. That is why we are putting up the tobacco excise in three steps of 10 percent over the next 2 years.

The Government is also concerned that roll-your-own tobacco is increasingly being seen as a cheap alternative. That is why we are putting up the excise on loose tobacco by an additional 14 percent, to equalise the excise weight-for-weight with that payable on manufactured cigarettes. Roll-your-owns are no safer than tailor-made cigarettes, and may indeed be more harmful, because roll-your-own smokers will often inhale deeper than others in order to make the cigarettes go further—or so I am told.

This issue is of such severity that we must accord it urgency. I personally regret, given the circumstances, that I have been unable to give other parties sufficient advance notice prior to the introduction of this bill, but I feel assured from previous statements made by the parties around this House throughout the years that all of us understand the perilous situation that we face. The stakes are too high. We must act decisively, and this bill is an important step on the pathway forward. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the first reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill, and to say that Labour will be supporting this legislation throughout its passage, just as we support the urgency that has been accorded to it.

I will begin by congratulating the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia, who has just resumed her seat. This is a huge step forward in health promotion for all New Zealanders, but particularly for Māori, and I say to the Minister that I admire her ability to achieve this step. I am not quite sure how that has happened, and I am not quite sure that the Minister knows how it has happened, but she is certainly worthy of congratulations. It is an issue on which she has spoken passionately before, as a former colleague of mine in Labour, and also in this House. I genuinely congratulate her and say that Labour will certainly support this bill throughout its passage.

The aim of this legislation is not to get more revenue, although that will be the accusation levelled. One of the issues that my colleagues and I will be following throughout the Budget process is watching where the money goes. When we have an increase in revenue that is primarily focused on health promotion, it is important that we can watch that money being directed into health promotion. I certainly wish all power to the Minister’s arm in ensuring that our health promotion activities will be strengthened by the increased revenue that results from this measure.

But this measure on its own will be a health promotion, because we know that when the price of tobacco increases, the consumption of tobacco is reduced. Although we strongly support this move, and think that the Government has a moral responsibility to pass on the increased revenue to health promotion, we know that this measure on its own will decrease tobacco consumption, and that is a very good thing. There is very clear evidence that an effective way to discourage the consumption of tobacco is to increase the price. The figures that I have heard quoted and used in the House in an earlier debate is that a 2 percent increase is equivalent to a 1 percent decrease. A 2 percent increase in the price of tobacco is equivalent to a 1 percent decrease in the level of consumption. That figure has been used before, and I am sure that it has some validity.

A combination of the increase in price, the increase in excise duty, more public spending on anti-smoking education programmes, more support for people not to start smoking and become addicted, and more support for those who want to quit, has been maintained in New Zealand when different parties have been leading our Government. That combination has ensured that New Zealand, like many other countries, has been successful in substantially reducing the number of people who smoke in our country. But even with that success, tobacco smoking is still the single largest cause of early death and, more important, of avoidable death within our nation.

I took the opportunity just a few moments ago to look back on an earlier debate in which Sue Bradford spoke. I commend Sue Bradford, and I bet that she is listening to this debate and wishing she were here. This will be one of the rare moments when Sue would wish she were back in the House. She gave a very strong contribution to that debate, and I know that the Green health spokesperson, Kevin Hague, will do the same, because he always does when he contributes to debates in the House. Sue Bradford, in the debate on this very issue in 2000, talked about the link between smoking rates and people on low incomes, including people who were beneficiaries, people who had poor mental health, and, increasingly at that time, young Māori women and Pacific Islanders.

I remind the House of Sue Bradford’s contribution in that debate and also of the fact that her contribution remains relevant to this day. We have a higher number of people on low incomes, people on benefits, people who are in low-income work or in precarious employment situations, and people with more mental health issues. They are the people whom this bill is designed to help. They will find it harder on a low income to purchase tobacco, and they will have all of the resulting problems when they are withdrawing from addiction. It is in that regard that I urge the Government to ensure that support is given to people who are smokers to move off the consumption of tobacco. It is too hard for many people if that help is not given, so I urge the Government to consider that as the next part of the package.

I also had the opportunity to read a very interesting contribution in the debate in 2000 from the Hon Bill English. I will just take a little bit of the House’s time to share Mr English’s contribution in the debate. He began by saying—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): If the member is quoting from Hansard, then she must quote the page number and the volume.

Hon RUTH DYSON: In referring to what Mr English said, I am quoting from Hansard, Volume 583, at page 1987. The volume is dated 4 April to 18 May 2000. Mr English stated: “Mr Speaker, if you ask me to give you the reasons this bill was introduced, I cannot think of any.” Then he explained that that was not his responsibility. But he went on to state that he wanted the Government “to explain why this is such an urgent, vital matter of widespread public interest that this House has to take this legislation through all the legislative stages today. The Budget, … will be in 6 weeks’ time.” He stated that maybe the work had not been done and was not ready to go in the Budget. He said that the legislation should not have been put through all stages under urgency, but should have been put in Dr Michael Cullen’s Budget, which was just a few weeks away. Well, I am sure that when National members get to their feet to contribute to this debate, they will be apologising for Bill English having such a shallow view on an issue that deserves the support of all parties in this House. Every member of this House should want to do everything he or she can do to promote better health for all our citizens.

Mr English went on to say “The Government can tell us why this legislation did not wait for the Budget. Why is the Government not using the time of this House to further its programme? All these members could be in their electorates doing more useful work. Why does it not have in front of this House its widely signalled initiatives, all the things it was going to do …”. Instead, Mr English said that the Government was putting the legislation through all stages of the House.

I know why the National Government is not using the opportunity of this particular debating time to further its own initiatives. The reason is very straightforward: it does not have any. That is the reason. But because this legislation increases the price of tobacco, it is not just important but also a well-established tradition of this House that it goes through all stages under urgency. We know that some members of the House will have heard of the introduction of the bill, and will now be up the road at New World stocking up—having had the advantage of advanced warning of the increase—as other people are also entitled to do. But that is the reason why we are putting all parts of the legislation under urgency. The legislation increases the price of a product that is publicly available.

I will conclude by saying that about 4,500 New Zealanders die every year from smoking-related diseases. Thousands more suffer the long-term health consequences of smoking. Thousands have heart attacks and survive, but live with a lower level of capacity. They have strokes, severe strokes, and can be incapacitated for years. Many thousands of New Zealanders have to endure very painful treatment for cancer. We know the impact and the effects that second-hand smoking has, particularly on children. When the Minister introduced this legislation, she said that it was very rare for this Parliament to be considering an issue that was literally about life-and-death. But this is certainly one of those occasions. It is not about raising more money. It is not a tax grab from the Government. It is not often that I have good things to say about the current Government, but I say that this legislation is not a tax grab; it is a genuine move to try to reduce tobacco consumption in New Zealand. It is a genuine move to improve the health of our citizens. I add, once again, my genuine congratulations to the Minister for pursuing this issue with such determination, with such staunchness, and for being able to achieve this result in our Parliament.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. As other speakers have said, this bill is an incredibly important part of the jigsaw puzzle of reducing smoking in New Zealand. I pay tribute to the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia for her long-expressed efforts in bringing this legislation to fruition today, and to the National Government. Cabinet has agreed to equalise the tobacco excise by weight, resulting in a one-off 14 percent rise in excise duties on loose tobacco, as used in roll-your-own cigarettes. It has further agreed to increase the tobacco excise across all tobacco products by 10 percent immediately, and then by a further 10 percent in January 2011 and January 2012. This amendment bill is sponsored by Tariana Turia.

It is interesting to note that “Tobacco taxation has been shown to be one of the most effective means of encouraging people to quit smoking, or at least to cut down.” Those were the very words of Annette King back in 2000, when a similar bill was passed under urgency. I note and acknowledge that the Māori Affairs Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry into tobacco control, and I understand that it has received many submissions that support the tool of an excise tax. Furthermore, the World Health Organization recommends that countries tax tobacco, to discourage tobacco consumption. There is a lot of evidence to show that this mechanism has worked, and in the past, if one goes through the various times when this has happened in New Zealand, one finds that there has been a decrease in consumption.

I think it is really important to recognise that the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants has become widely accepted in New Zealand, and that patrons largely welcomed those changes.

Hon Darren Hughes: Opposed by National.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I must say that I was very much for that move. People up and down New Zealand say that it is extremely welcome. This debate is not about choice; smokers will still have a choice to smoke.

It is worthwhile bringing in the libertarian argument, because there is no doubt that basic libertarian philosophy advocates as much freedom as possible, provided it does no harm. There is no question that not only direct smoking does harm but second-hand smoking does considerable harm. Therefore this legislation is one of the great public health tools that we can implement to cut down on a very, very concerning spectrum of conditions.

A combination of efforts has been made over a number of years and in a variety of ways in order to assist people to quit smoking. But the impact of an excise increase on tobacco is quite dramatic: a combination of triggering new quit attempts, preventing quit relapses, and dissuading new smokers. It is estimated that after 10 years there will be 40,000 fewer smokers and 300 fewer premature smoking-related deaths. After 20 years it is estimated there will be 80,000 fewer smokers and 600 fewer premature smoking-related deaths a year. It is interesting to note that the prevalence of smoking and tobacco consumption has dropped in New Zealand over the last 50 years. However, those declines have slowed significantly since 1990, and in the case of consumption have stalled since 2003. I again acknowledge that the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act was a challenging piece of legislation at the time, but it has been much accepted throughout this country. The present legislation is being welcomed, as far as I can tell, by all parties. It is very heartening to have heard Ruth Dyson say that she supports the Government in this initiative.

It is interesting, historically, that the link between tobacco, smoking, and disease was not proven until the 1960s, when Sir Richard Doll, an epidemiologist from Oxford University, came through with quite unequivocal, evidence-based research to show those links. More recently this link has also been shown with marijuana smoking. Smoking not only affects the respiratory system by causing lung cancer, pharynx cancer, and lip cancer, but also causes an increased number of cases of heart disease, an increased number of strokes, and it badly affects people who have chronic obstructive respiratory disease. It also affects unborn babies, who can be profoundly affected with intrauterine growth retardation, and, of course, young infants can have chronic chest infections made much worse if they are brought up in a smoking environment.

I saw this firsthand as a pathology resident in the United States. If anyone wants to see an image that will make them quit smoking or wants an abrupt session on the effects of smoking, I suggest that that person cuts open the body of a chronic smoker who has died from chronic obstructive airways disease. That person will see a black lung; it is a horrific sight. Later on, as a specialist obstetrician, time and time again I had the spectre of growth-retarded babies of mothers who had smoked heavily throughout their pregnancy, and, clearly, had given their infants a very poor start in life—they would be unable to achieve their full potential.

There is no doubt that the bill has a very, very solid basis behind its being introduced into the House today. There are concerns about whether it will affect lower socio-economic groups more than others. But the Government has put in place a considerable amount of money towards efforts to help people quit smoking. In fact, this year $57 million was provided towards tobacco control and smoking cessation services, including nicotine replacement products and prescriptions to help smokers quit. The bulk of this money funds Quitline and other specialist services targeted towards helping people to quit smoking, and focuses on Māori, Pacific, and pregnancy services. There is also funding for training, education, research, monitoring, evaluation, and media campaigns.

The financial costs associated with this bill are quite staggering. The health costs are billions of dollars every year, and of course the amount raised from the excise tax will go up to over a billion dollars a year. But the sad thing is that smoking continues, when quitting smoking would prevent a whole array of crippling conditions, such as the ones I mentioned before—lung cancer, strokes, and many others. Hopefully the provisions in this bill will stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place. It is an extremely positive move to help people stop smoking. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate today in support of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. I commend the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia for introducing it into Parliament today. I acknowledge that she has been a long-time opponent of tobacco. She has fought for many years for measures to reduce the consumption of tobacco, and I congratulate her on bringing this bill to the House.

I also thank Dr Hutchison for his speech today; as a doctor he would be more aware than many others of the impact of smoking. But I do have one tiny little dig to say to Dr Hutchison—what a difference a day or two makes! He might remember that when I was the Minister of Health in 2000 and I introduced a bill to increase excise duty, he said “The real concern is that the bill was brought into the House by the Labour-Alliance minority socialist Government without any warning under extraordinary urgency.” That is just a gentle reminder to say that when a bill like this is brought in, it probably is sensible to bring it in under extraordinary urgency and pass it through all its stages. Otherwise what could happen is what happened once when a former National member of Parliament thought the price of petrol was going to go up, in a Budget. He rushed out to fill up his car with petrol, only to find that the Budget actually reduced the excise on petrol. So I think it probably is a good idea, I say to Dr Hutchison, to pass this bill under extraordinary urgency, which we are doing today, and which we are supporting.

Let me get back to the bill. I have been a long-time advocate for tobacco control, even in a time before it was popular. I think, probably, from a health background, I was well aware of the impact of smoking, and like Minister Turia I was also aware of the impact of lung cancer in terms of a family death.

New Zealand has been a long-time leader in tobacco control. In fact, we were one of a handful of countries that were leaders in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control at the World Health Assembly. I was fortunate over a number of years to represent New Zealand as we negotiated, and finally passed, that framework convention. New Zealand signed up to it, as did practically every country in the world, and we have put in place measures to reduce not only the prevalence but also the consumption of tobacco. I ask members to think back to the first real piece of legislation that tried to control tobacco. It was in 1989-90, when the Rt Hon Helen Clark as Minister of Health brought in legislation to restrict smoking in the workplace. That was seen to be a dreadful bill; it was campaigned against by many people, including members in workplaces themselves. If we move forward 20 years to see what a difference there is today, we see that it is widely accepted that smoking cigarettes is bad for you and bad for the population. What a big change in attitude over that time!

Although as a country, and in an international forum, we have been strong in terms of our advocacy against the consumption of tobacco, unfortunately we still have a very high rate of prevalence and consumption of tobacco in New Zealand ourselves. When we compare ourselves with our neighbours in Australia, we see that our smoking rates are still considerably higher than those in Australia. We have seen a slower drop in both consumption and prevalence than we would like, particularly amongst Māori and Pacific people, and that has to be seen as an area where we need to do a lot more work. I think Minister Turia is correct when she says she hopes this will have an impact, particularly on Māori in terms of reducing their smoking.

When we look at the prevalence of smoking, we see that in 1986 about 30 percent of New Zealanders were smokers—prevalence referring to those who were smoking in the population. In 2008 it was 22 percent. That was not a big drop over that period of time from 1986 to 2008, and that is one of the things we are concerned about. Also, when we look at tobacco consumption, which is the amount that is being smoked, we see there has been little drop since 2003—it almost flat-lined in terms of prevalence. Then if we look at when we did have some drops, and I suggest that people who have not read the Social Report from the Ministry of Social Development should do so—in fact, it does look at the matter, under cigarette smoking—they will see that in 2000, when we increased the excise on tobacco, there was a marked drop in the consumption of tobacco. It then slowly crept up again until there was the second excise increase under the previous Government, and once again it dropped, and then it just flat-lined. So since about 2003-04 there has been almost no change in the amount of tobacco that New Zealanders are consuming. I think that shows pretty clearly that it is price sensitive. If we increase the price of tobacco, people will stop smoking.

What is good about this bill is that the price is being increased over a period of years. It is not a one-off hit; it will increase over a number of years. It will be on loose tobacco. An issue has been that we have concentrated on tailor-made cigarettes and have not put the same emphasis on loose tobacco. This is an increase on loose tobacco, and there will be a series of increases over a number of years.

The truth is—and I think these are some of the really sobering facts about smoking—that around 5,000 people die from smoking-related diseases annually in New Zealand. In fact, all cigarettes are deadly for New Zealanders if people take them as prescribed on the packet. If people take them as prescribed on the packet, then every single one of them is deadly. It is not quite the same as one alcoholic drink that someone might have. Alcohol is a big problem for New Zealanders, but every cigarette a person has, as it is prescribed on the packet, is bad for him or her. The children of parents who smoke are three times more likely to be smokers. If we can stop people smoking or get them to give up before they influence their children, then their children are more likely to not smoke.

It also robs our loved ones of 15 years of life if they smoke—15 years. As people get a little older, if they are lucky enough to have grandchildren, they realise how precious 15 years would be in terms of seeing that grandchild, or their grandchildren, grow up, and being lucky enough to be involved in their lives. People are robbed of 15 years if they continue smoking. As I have said, roll-your-own cigarettes are just as deadly as tailor-made cigarettes.

So the price is able to reduce the prevalence and consumption of tobacco. Hopefully, this will help do that. But it also means that we will have to keep up the fight against smoking. This is not a panacea. This is just part of the number of tools that we would use against smoking. I was very pleased that when Labour was in coalition with the Green Party we were able to bring in smoking-cessation programmes, particularly around nicotine patches and so on, that were affordable to New Zealanders, to help them.

If I remember correctly, and Minister Turia can correct me if I am wrong, about 30 percent of people who smoke are addicted to tobacco; the rest are heavy smokers. For those who are addicted, they need help. That is why in our tool box we need to have the excise increase, assistance for people who want to give up smoking, and ongoing public health education. I think that that three-pronged attack will help bring down our smoking consumption in New Zealand. I do not believe that many members of this House today would not support that. We want to see New Zealanders live longer. We do not want to continue to see the cancers, respiratory diseases, and cardiovascular diseases that come from smoking, along with things like sudden infant death syndrome, which is related to smoking, and the respiratory problems we see in children.

I commend Minister Turia for bringing this to the House. I know that it is not the end of her work, and that she will be very happy when we also control the display of tobacco in dairies and supermarkets.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I begin by learning from Paul Hutchison’s experience, and saying that the Green Party understands the reasons for extraordinary urgency on this occasion and supports it. It will be my great pleasure to support the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Bill. It is an honour to speak in the same debate with the Hon Tariana Turia, the Associate Minister of Health—and I congratulate her—and the Hon Annette King, who also played a really important role in this country’s progress against smoking.

Other speakers have commented on the size of this problem. We are talking about the single greatest cause of premature death in this country, causing somewhere between 4,500 and 5,000 unnecessary deaths each year. I take the point that Ruth Dyson made about the increased morbidity associated with smoking. I live on the West Coast and I have had responsibility for the West Coast’s health services. I report that the West Coast has one of the highest rates of cigarette smoking in New Zealand. When I was responsible for the West Coast health services, there was constant frustration for me that so many people were dying unnecessary premature deaths. Much of our health service resources needed to be invested in caring for those people, and were therefore unable to be used for other purposes. I am sure that the West Coast will welcome this move.

I also comment on inequalities. The incidence of cigarette smoking is a major reflection of inequalities in New Zealand. According to data from last year, our overall smoking rate amongst adults is 21 percent, but for Māori it is over 45 percent, and for Pacific people it is over 31 percent. That is a major reflection of inequalities in this country. Further, in relation to socio-economic status, people in the most deprived areas are more than one-and-a-half times more likely to be smokers than those in the least deprived areas. So smoking is a major reflection of socio-economic and ethnic gradients in this country.

There is some good news: overall, smoking rates are declining. Consumption of tobacco products reduced by a third in the period from 1997 to 2008, which the Hon Annette King referred to. That is good news. Also, half of 15 to 19-year-olds in 2008 had never tried smoking. That was a very significant increase on the 39 percent in that category just 2 years earlier, in 2006. We are making some really good progress, so now is the time to ramp up our momentum, not to ease off; I commend the Associate Minister of Health for her initiative in this area.

We are also learning a lot about what makes a difference and about how to do this better. Certainly, nicotine replacement therapy, as the Hon Annette King just referred to, is one of those things that makes a difference. On average, a person will make seven attempts to quit before he or she is successful, but each of those attempts is twice as likely to succeed if nicotine replacement therapy is used. That is a really important piece of information. In relation to this bill, we know that price is an effective mechanism in changing demand. On several occasions now we have referred to the 2000 increase—Paul Hutchison and Annette King referred to it. In 2000 the excise tax was increased by 20 percent and smoking rates dropped by 18 percent. That was a very clear demonstration of that link: increasing the price is effective in reducing demand.

As Annette King talked about, we know that other things would also be successful. I certainly look forward to this House debating a comprehensive range of measures to effect the biggest hit that we can possibly make in tobacco control. The display of tobacco products is an issue that would clearly make a significant difference. The restriction of outlets at which tobacco products are available would also make a difference, as would the extension of the Smoke-free Environments Act into other areas. All these areas would make a significant difference, and we should be debating and pursuing them. Interestingly, the content of cigarettes is also an area that could make a significant difference.

I particularly pick up on Paul Hutchison’s reference to the Doll and Hill study from, I think, 1956, which made the conclusive link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Effectively, that was the birth of a health education approach for our modern era to try to deal with some of the health problems we face. It seemed kind of obvious: if a behaviour is the cause of ill health and other behaviours are available to a person, then if we provide more information about the positives and negatives, and more education, people will choose the healthier option. That is the theory, and it is completely wrong. It kind of works for those who have a greater sense of control over their own lives; certainly since 1956 we have seen that in the higher socio-economic grades. Amongst Pākehā New Zealanders, for example, smoking rates have declined extremely substantially, but less so amongst Māori, less so amongst Pacific people, and less so amongst those who are the most socio-economically deprived. Why is that? It is because this behaviour is not really a choice, as with so many of our behaviours.

Health status reflects a couple of things. It reflects the level of empowerment of a particular community, and it reflects the kind of environment that surrounds that community. Health promotion says that if we want to make a difference we need to empower communities, especially those that are the most deprived, and we need to create environments that facilitate better health outcomes. We do that through community development, we do it through creating healthy public policy such as this bill, and we do it through personal skills and reorienting health services. I look forward to those things being included in our comprehensive approach.

The other point to make is that although we are adopting this approach to tobacco in the House today—and it seems that we might have a near consensus on that point—tobacco is one of three big issues that have a really huge effect on New Zealanders’ health status. One of the other two that I draw attention to is the kinds of foods that we eat and the exercise that we do, which contribute to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and many other causes of ill health and death. The other is alcohol. It is an extreme irony to me that in the House today we are debating a systematic approach of increasing the excise tax on tobacco, which we know will have an effect on tobacco consumption and will improve New Zealanders’ health status, on the day that the Minister of Justice has ruled out an increase in excise tax on alcohol. We know those excise tax increases would reduce alcohol consumption and would improve New Zealanders’ health status. There is an irony. I hope that as a Parliament we are able to learn from this case study and to extend that approach of regulation—a regulatory approach to improving health—to those other areas. If we can learn, then the gains that we can make will be extremely substantial.

I again congratulate the Minister and the Government. The Green Party will support the bill.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): In the 2008 election campaign, one line in the Māori Party policy statement established a precedent for this legislation today. That commitment was to introduce a “Tobacco out of Aotearoa Bill”. Today the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill expresses our heartfelt commitment to saving lives. I congratulate Tariana Turia on having the courage and foresight to do what she knows is right, to do what we all know is right. It is not right to lose our loved ones prematurely, to chop 15 years off their lifespans—lifespans that in the case of Māori are already less than they should be. It is not right that too many children are growing up vulnerable in their own homes to the impact of smoking-related illness and premature death. It is not right that too many babies are being exposed to tobacco-related harm in utero. The bill is long overdue.

The Māori Party celebrates the fact that we know of the amazing potential this bill offers for Māori communities to benefit. The rate of smoking amongst Māori is about double the rate for the rest of the population, and a disproportionate number of Māori die prematurely. Māori in all age groups have higher smoking rates than non-Māori. In particular, Māori women have the highest smoking rate of all groups, at 49 percent.

Another interesting fact that emerged from last year’s study of Māori smoking and tobacco use is that 73 percent of Māori smokers use roll-your-own tobacco. The Associate Minister of Health has spoken of roll-your-own tobacco being seen as a cheap alternative. This bill now puts a stop to that perception. Roll-your-owns will now face the same tax rate as tailor-made cigarettes.

I have no doubt that, given this profile of Māori smokers, today’s moves will not be universally popular within our constituency. Indeed, no doubt I will have a job to explain this development to my own son and daughter, who are smokers. I am not sure that the answer “mother always knows best” will work with them, nor might that other well-known slogan “it is for your own good”, but we are standing right behind the Minister and the Government on this move because of our great love for our people. This policy places love on the agenda.

This policy places bread and butter on the agenda. If we assume that the average smoker smokes about 4,000 cigarettes a year, quitting completely would save that smoker around $2,100 a year now and around $2,700 in 3 years’ time. That means more money for kai for the whānau. But it is about more than what money can buy. The whole purpose of this legislation is that people will be prompted to stop smoking. Even if an average smoker who cannot quit was to cut down by just one cigarette a day today and eventually up to three fewer cigarettes a day, then that would offset the price rises.

As I said before, however, we are not just talking about having more cash in the pocket; there is a massive cost to the system, as well. An estimate in a 2007 study on tobacco taxation in New Zealand suggested that the cost of smoking to the health system was between $300 million and $350 million per year. However, I understand that some more recent estimates have put that figure up as high as $1 billion to $1.6 billion per year. That massive cost to taxpayers could be put to a much better use than seeing good money literally going up in smoke. But it not about just how much this will cost. The Māori Party supports an increase in the price of tobacco first and foremost because of the substantial health gains that can be achieved. We will support any intervention that reduces the number of premature deaths, illnesses, and hospitalisations related to tobacco use.

A decade or so ago our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples was the poster boy for a campaign called “It’s about whānau”. The campaign featured 12 ex-smokers describing their motivation for giving up. The campaign focused on the well-being of the whānau by supporting whānau members who smoked to quit and to stay quit. I can remember Pita’s advertisement in particular. It described his reasons for giving up as being all about his mokopuna. It is a powerful message that we must continue to uphold. Our marae are deprived of far too many Māori leaders, of kuia and kaumātua. We lose our people too early and, with that, we lose the transmission of vital knowledge about whakapapa, our cultural heritage. We must be smoke-free if we are to fully explore our potential.

There has never been a better time for this tobacco tax increase to happen. The support and strength that whānau will need to live a healthy, smoke-free lifestyle is totally consistent with the need for investment in whānau that we see associated with the flagship policy of this Government: Whānau Ora.

The Māori Party acknowledges the significance of the whānau and the importance that Māori place on the maintenance of our whakapapa as a very powerful resource in helping whānau to be auahi kore. To my son and my daughter, I say that it is all about whānau. Together, we can support each other to quit and support our rangatahi to never start. We must ensure that smokers are part of the solution, and ensure that we restore to our whānau the respect that we must place on the first breath of life. It will not be easy, but who ever said that sitting by a hospital bed and watching a relative suffer from lung disease was easy? Where is the joy in counting off the cousins with cancer of the lung, head, neck, oesophagus, pancreas, and cervix, and with heart disease? The key challenge for us all across this Parliament is to get in behind this new bill and promote the value of staying smoke-free.

The Māori Party believes that the Government has a vital role in encouraging New Zealanders to quit smoking. I recall that a survey from the Health Sponsorship Council in 2008 found that some 63.9 percent of all people and 29.5 percent of current smokers agree that the tax on cigarettes and tobacco should be increased and that all the extra money should be used to help smokers who want to quit. We want to see funding for smoking cessation services increased to help smokers to quit, including specific services designed for Māori and Pasifika peoples.

This is a very important day for all our whānau. It is a day on which we live up to the promise that is in all of us for a healthy, smoke-free future. We are proud to support this bill.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am proud and privileged to rise to speak to the first reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Bill. As a former doctor and an ex-smoker, I think this is a courageous and bold step by the Government. I congratulate Minister Turia and the National Cabinet on agreeing on this bill passing through the House, and I am delighted it has the support of other colleagues in the House.

Colleagues will be interested to know that I started to smoke when I was 16 and I eventually stopped when I was 30. I smoked through university, I smoked through medical school, and I smoked through the hospital wards. I stopped by the time I was a general practitioner. I had cancerous and diseased lungs paraded in front of me when I was a medical student, and when I was on the hospital wards I saw emphysemic patients and patients dying of lung cancer. That did not stop me from smoking; that is what addiction does to people. I turned a blind eye. Of course, this all happened around the 1970s. Some warnings were coming to the surface but addicts ignored them and carried on puffing away. The warnings made me slightly uneasy, but I carried on. By the time I got to general practice, I decided it was time I should give up smoking and, fortunately, nicotine gum had come on to the market. Until then there was just cold turkey, and that was it. I had already failed on one attempt with cold turkey. To me, nicotine gum made perfect sense. We give the active ingredient of the addictive substance, which is nicotine, to smokers and we wean them off cigarettes, just as we do with drug addicts by using methadone. It made perfect sense, I took the nicotine gum, and it worked with me. Of course, it made me more proactive as a general practitioner when I had my patients who were smokers in front of me. I could relate to them. I knew what addiction was like, what the substance was like, and what it could do to someone’s mind.

I know that the Hon Annette King made comments that a lot of people are just social smokers and are not addicted. I say that most people who smoke are addicted. There are a few social smokers who can stop at the drop of a hat, but they are few and far between. I think that most smokers are addicted. I was very active in talking to my patients who were smokers. I said: “Look, smoking will catch up with you some way and some how in the future if you don’t stop.” That is true, as smoking harms every single organ in the body. We have heard tonight that it is responsible for up to 5,000 deaths per year and that includes those from heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, lung disease, and lung cancer. It damages the blood vessels and in particular the small blood vessels. It affects the blood vessels in the feet, it causes peripheral vascular disease, eye diseases, and so on. It affects every single organ.

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) made a comment on one of its fact sheets that 50 percent of regular smokers are killed by their addiction and on average they lose 14 years of quality life. That is a staggering statistic—50 percent, or half, of all regular smokers will die from smoking and will lose quality years. Of course, we know that Māori are overrepresented in the statistics. Once again, I congratulate Minister Turia on pushing through this legislation, and the National Ministers who have supported her.

Then there is the cost of smoking to society and to New Zealand as a whole. In 2005 it was estimated that smoking cost almost $2 billion in lost production from early death, morbidity and illness, smoking directly, and healthcare costs. Fortunately I had nicotine gum when I decided it was time I had to practise what I preached and gave up. Now, there are many nicotine replacement options available for those who want to give up. There is gum, there are transdermal patches, and there are sublingual tablets, inhalators, and nasal spray. There are also subsidised pharmaceutical treatments. I am sure there are a lot more out there that need to be funded, and this bill may be the catalyst for that to happen.

In total, $57 million has been put into cessation products and organisations that help those who want to stop smoking. The research proves that increasing the price of tobacco is the single most effective way to get people to stop smoking or to not even start in the first place. This bill will increase the excise on tobacco in three steps of 10 percent over the next 2 years. We know that excise on loose tobacco has traditionally been much lower and that will also increase by 14 percent to bring it into line with cigarettes. This is not a revenue-gathering exercise—absolutely not. This is, as the Hon Ruth Dyson said, about health promotion, about changing lives, and about saving lives. I acknowledge the very important work of Quitline. I expect it will be very much busier as a result of this bill. People can phone or text the organisation, they speak to an adviser, and they get a quit pack and a quit card enabling them to get subsidised nicotine replacement from chemists.

This is a wonderful step. It was the most logical step for this Government to take. We know that the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants has been widely accepted. There has been a change of mood. People accept that. Most smokers now are not in denial, as I was for those 15 years when I smoked. Most people accept that cigarettes are harmful to them and cause illness and death. The sincere hope from this Parliament tonight is that increasing the price of cigarettes will stop people smoking and stop young ones from starting to smoke in the first place. I am delighted to speak to this first reading. It is a wonderful step by this Government. I congratulate Minister Turia and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive): This bill, the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill, which increases the excise duties on tobacco products, is being introduced under extraordinary urgency. I understand that. The House therefore understands that this issue is urgent, that no public debate is allowable, and that there is to be no select committee consideration. I happen to agree with what the Government is proposing, and I will support it.

This bill highlights the reasons why this step, in particular, is being taken—that is, to increase the price of a legal drug that is dangerous to the health of any New Zealander who partakes of it. The reason this bill is being introduced is that the price effect in terms of tobacco is significant. If we increase the price of tobacco we reduce the volume of tobacco that is smoked.

There is a linear relationship, and many studies all around the world will show exactly the same thing for product after product. Unfortunately, if we look at the supermarkets of New Zealand we see that Coca-Cola is cheaper than water or milk. People buy Coca-Cola. Why? Because it is cheaper. It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it—and it is—but nevertheless, because it is cheap, people buy it. That is why the price effect will be relevant in this case.

I have to say, however, that just 24 hours ago, within minutes of the Law Commission’s report on alcohol being tabled in the House, the Government immediately, through Simon Power, the Minister of Justice, reacted and said it would not put up the price of alcohol. The Government did that immediately. It did not give any consideration to the report. The ink was not dry on the report when we were told that, no, the Government would not increase the price.

Would a price increase for alcohol reduce alcohol consumption? Yes, it would. It is a very effective means of doing so. I know that because I introduced a bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits—at 23 percent proof—which target young people. I was lambasted by the industry. Full-page ads were taken out against me personally, but sales of light spirits reduced by 85 percent, and they went off the market. That does not mean to say that alcopops and stuff like that are not still available, but those light spirits were lethal. They were 25 percent proof alcohol drinks, with vodka, brandy, gin, whisky, and so on. So we know that this 30 percent increase in the price of tobacco will be effective.

Mr Power said that a change in the price of alcohol would be unfair to all the people who drink alcohol. Well, I presume that an increase of more than 30 percent in the price of tobacco will be unfair to some of the people who smoke tobacco. I still agree with the increase, but it is amazing that one day an attitude can change from one position on the issue of alcohol to another position on the issue of tobacco, where we can really have a crack at them.

Chris Tremain: You might find that a significantly larger proportion of the population enjoy a glass of wine. What a stupid thing to say!

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Oh, I see. We will hear this. Here is the industry line. I can hear it. Mr Dunne is not here, so we have plenty of acolytes in his place. They are spouting the industry line.

It is true that 5,000 people die in New Zealand every year from tobacco smoking, and that makes this kind of measure significant and important. But what is there about the social, economic, and health problems associated with alcohol that makes alcohol different from tobacco? Is it a significant social and economic health cost? We just heard Dr Blue say that the cost of tobacco-related harm is $1 billion to $2 billion. The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year. That is at least as much as smoking and could well be more, so there is no problem about it being a significant cost.

Is drinking alcohol a health risk? Yes, it is. It is a very serious health risk, and the jury is coming in on that all the time. Are between 60 to 80 percent of all police arrests to do with alcohol abuse? Yes, they are. Are 60 percent of the people who are in our prisons affected by alcohol? The answer is yes. Yet we are told that we desperately need to pass through the House, under extraordinary urgency, a tobacco-related bill—which I personally support—a day after we were told that the price effect is not to be contemplated in terms of alcohol when, demonstrably, all the effects of tobacco use plus some additional effects are there in evidence before us.

The Government has had a knee-jerk reaction. Why is that? Well, the tobacco industry is on the ropes, so people are brave now. Dr Blue has said that she did not use to believe the philosophy behind this bill, and there are plenty of people like her on the other side of the House. Helen Clark pushed for a change like this when she was the Minister of Health, and she was pilloried for doing it. When was that—in 1990?

Hon Darren Hughes: Yeah—20 years ago.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: That was 20 years ago. She did not have too much support then, but now it is a brave thing to do. Why? Because practically everything has been done, and the tobacco industry has given up. It knows that it is a done deal.

The liquor industry has not given up. It is really into this issue, and it will fight it tooth and claw. The brave Government will take on the on-the-ropes tobacco industry, but it will not have a bar of taking on the liquor industry, which is now a much more significant and important problem than ever before. Will raising the price of tobacco reduce smoking levels? Yes, it will. Will raising the price of alcohol reduce the volume of alcohol consumed? Absolutely, it will, but we have seen no courage from the Government on that issue. So under extraordinary urgency we are passing this bill.

As for the Government’s opposition to raising the price of the most dangerous drug in New Zealand, I have a word I could use but I am not allowed to use it in this House. So I will say that it is one of the most significant acts of double standards I have ever seen. One day a serious drug is not to be touched in terms of price, even though the price effect will be very effective—and I acknowledge that—and the next day an industry that really does not have a feather to fly with will be clobbered into the ground. The brave Government will take it on after all the hard work has been done, but it will not take on an industry that is still fighting tooth and claw to hang on.

I heard a representative of the hospitality industry this morning on Morning Report. He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry. He said that. He said: “Yeah, it is a vested interest of the industry. I admit that. Yes, that is too, and that is too.” The interviewer asked him whether there was anything that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with. The answer was no. Oh well, we understand where the industry is coming from. But Mr Dunne did not. He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times, and he was not sure what they meant. He knew what Doug Sellman meant, and he would not meet with him, at all.

I support this legislation, but I have contempt for the Government. It is bringing in this legislation one day after it backed off completely from doing the most effective thing on alcohol. I have contempt for it—I am telling members now. To do something yesterday would have been an act of at least some responsibility. This bill about tobacco is an initiative that needed to be taken, and it needs to be taken regularly. I support it, but I contrast it with the completely mealy-mouthed approach we had yesterday on alcohol, and I am ashamed of the Government for that.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): I start by congratulating the Associate Minister of Health on the reasons she gave for introducing the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. The reasons she gave to justify the increase were based on health improvements for those who quit smoking as a result of this bill, and I believe that in essence that is the only way we can justify this particular legislation. She did not attempt to bring in other claims that the money raised would off-set the costs incurred by smokers or to the public health system, etc., and it is good that she was up front and honest in that respect. Having said that, there are a number of reasons why some ACT members—not all ACT members—will vote against this bill.

Essentially the legislation is not really good public policy. It is very much a tax on the poor. Cigarette taxes are highly regressive, and they disproportionately hurt poor people—poor smokers, that is, who continue to smoke. I guess the Minister would say that to the extent poor smokers do not smoke, she has made them better off. But that is at the expense, I might add, of poor smokers who continue to smoke. I think we need to think a little bit about that. The fact is that we cannot justify this measure, as some people might want to, on the basis that smokers are not paying for the costs of the extra health care that they or others receive; they are already paying more in tax than the costs incurred. A report in 2007, showed tax income was, I think, $980 million, and the expenditure was $350 million.

Dr Paul Hutchison: No, that is wrong.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: Well, I will quote—and these are hardly biased people. The report I am holding is from the Smokefree Coalition and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). I am quoting their document, and I do not think they would underestimate these figures. The report states: “Without trying to calculate a precise estimate of ‘external costs’ it does seem reasonably apparent that the tax contribution of approximately $1 billion annually by smokers exceeds substantially the external costs of smoking …” etc. I do not want to place too much weight on that, but it seems to me that what it really comes down to is that we have to weigh up the benefits that might flow from this bill against the individual freedom of adults to make decisions for themselves. We also have to weigh up whether the objectives of the bill can be achieved in other ways.

It seems to me that the “I know what’s best for you” mentality is running out of hand in this legislature. Price increases aim to restrict the freedom of New Zealanders, especially the poor, to make their own choices on whether they smoke. We run campaigns and we try to influence them. We say that that approach has not worked as well as we had hoped, and therefore we will put up the price to a point where people cannot afford it. If we are going to do that, why not put it up by 600 percent? Why only 10 percent this year, 10 percent next year, and 10 percent the year after that? There is no logic. If that is the logic we are going to follow, why not put it up 500 or 600 percent? We would fix it at that point in time.

I guess why I come down against this legislation, and it really worries me, is that political life in this Chamber seems to be dominated by the view—held by many politicians in the National Party, the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party—that the purpose of Government is to solve private problems. That is what we are doing. We say that some New Zealanders smoke too much, and therefore we are going to put up the price of tobacco. The problem with that approach is that our flight from individual responsibility never ends; in this country over the last 20, 30, and 40 years we have seen a substantial flight from individual responsibility. I have praised the Minister, but it seems to me that the Māori Party runs the danger of affluent Māori being seen to be telling poor Māori that they are unable to make their own decisions. I think that a lot of Māori people and a lot of Pākehā people who are poor know what they are doing, and they make those choices. They may make them wrongly in our view, but in my view they have the right to do so.

PAUL QUINN (National): The sudden end of the speech of the previous speaker, the Hon Sir Roger Douglas, took me a little by surprise. None the less this is a serious topic to address, and I am pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. I start by congratulating the Minister and the leadership of this Government on having the foresight to take this step. In congratulating the leadership, I also record my appreciation of the Labour leadership and that of the other parties for joining in supporting this bill almost with unanimity, and for expediting its passage through the House. When I congratulate the leadership I include the shadow Leader of the House, Mr Darren Hughes. I feel he let himself down in the leadership stakes during question time, but he has recovered.

I make just some quick observations. The first is that there has been some commentary by some of the speakers from the Opposition benches about previous stances of National on this matter. I think it is worth recording that this is a new Government. It is a Government under new leadership with an outstanding Prime Minister in John Key. It is a Government in partnership with the Māori Party, with which it is working to achieve excellent social, economic, and cultural outcomes. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that, since this matter was last discussed, in 2000—and I note that a couple of members from the Opposition have quoted the Hansard from that time—two-thirds of the National caucus are new members. So I think it is unfair to go “back to the future” in that respect. It shows, as Jackie Blue indicated in her speech, that people change their views on matters. In this particular case, this is a new Government, and it has new members who have brought new thinking. This Government listens to its caucus and its Government partners, and that is why we have joined in a new direction.

I congratulate, along with Minister Turia, her colleague Hone Harawira. I know that smoking is a matter very dear to his heart. The tobacco inquiry being conducted by the Māori Affairs Committee is in very large part due to his persistence in calling for the committee to show leadership in conducting that inquiry. So I think it is appropriate that we also recognise his contribution.

I think it is also appropriate to canvass what the bill actually does, because, from listening to the speeches, I do not think it has been canvassed as well as it might have been. I will take just a minute or two to reflect on that. There is a three or four-step process in this bill, and the first step in the process is to increase the tax on raw tobacco—roll-your-owns and the like—to align it with the tax on tailor-made cigarettes. Just to bring home the message, I have here a small amount of analysis of the submissions that we have received. In terms of aligning the tax on roll-your-own cigarettes, 48 percent of submitters to the inquiry being conducted by the Māori Affairs Committee submitted specifically on aligning the tax on raw tobacco with the tax on tailor-made cigarettes. That is not to say that other submitters did not oppose that alignment; it is just that 48 percent actually commented on it.

Having aligned the tax on tailor-mades with that on raw tobacco, there is then a stepped process of increasing by 10 percent from 1 January 2011 “those duties as in force at the close of 31 December 2010 and either with, or instead of, any CPI indexation … on 1 January 2011:”, and then with another step in 2012. In some ways, that again is supported very strongly in the submissions, to the extent that 68 percent of the submitters supported an increase in tax on tobacco per se, and there was a strong suggestion that that increase should implement the World Health Organization’s recommendations, which is an ongoing increase of 5 percent each year. So there is no doubt that in the submissions that the Māori Affairs Committee has received there is overwhelming support for this step by the Government.

I conclude—because I see time is running out—by saying that it has been a pleasure to stand on behalf of the Government to support the Minister and the Government, and also to acknowledge the leadership of the other parties, including Labour.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It gives me a tremendous amount of pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill because we all understand—every member in this Chamber understands—that we need to do something to curb the prevalence of smoking rates in New Zealand. Labour is supporting this bill because it is an evidence-based bill. The evidence tells us that increasing the price of tobacco products through increasing the taxation of them does result in a reduction in the consumption of tobacco products, and that a reduction in consumption will result in a reduction of the harm and the appalling diseases that we associate with tobacco smoking.

I would also like to add my personal support for the bill, because like Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia and, I have no doubt, like many other members in the Chamber, I too have lost close family members and loved ones who have passed away far too early in their lives as a result of an addiction to tobacco.

It is worth reminding ourselves of just why we need to fight the terrible scourge on our society that is tobacco addiction. It is a proven cause of many cancers, not just lung cancer, although that is the most common and often the most aggressive and well-known cancer. But other cancers are also caused by tobacco smoking, as well as a whole range of other diseases. Cardiovascular disease, chronic heart disease, strokes, respiratory system harm, respiratory tract infections, asthma, and a whole range of diseases are related to cigarette smoking. Those diseases do not occur just amongst people who smoke cigarettes themselves; they also occur amongst those who are exposed to second-hand smoke—most particularly, and most sadly, the children of those people who are addicted to tobacco products. So it is important that we take this issue seriously, and that we do everything that we can to curb the prevalence of tobacco smoking in New Zealand. As I said, the evidence tells us that the measure that the House is undertaking this evening is a significant measure to achieve that.

But there is also a range of other significant measures that we could be considering at the same time as this measure. Indeed, a number of people, especially those who have recently been making submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee during its inquiry into the effects of tobacco on Māori—and I acknowledge Hone Harawira for his efforts in bringing that inquiry to the fore—have said that now is the time for a package of proposals. They point to things like banning tobacco displays and regulating, and indeed licensing, tobacco retailers. They look at the need for increased funding for cessation programmes, and at a whole range of different measures that we could also be looking at tonight. There is evidence to support our taking those measures, as well as this one. Perhaps it is a bit of a pity that we have a single-issue bill before us this evening, but as this is the only measure that has been put before the House, and as the evidence supports passing this bill, Labour will support it going ahead.

Of course, Labour has always supported the use of increased taxes to decrease the prevalence—

Michael Woodhouse: Taxes, taxes, taxes.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, it is interesting to note what some of the members opposite are getting into, and I will address that. Labour has always supported this measure; there is no U-turn here tonight from the Labour Party. But this measure represents a significant change in approach, it has to be said, from National. Indeed, the last time that we addressed this issue the National Party opposed an increase in taxes. We have, of course, already addressed, and perhaps had a little mirth at recalling, some of the statements made by Dr Paul Hutchison and the Hon Bill English at the last time that the House looked at this issue.

But I was interested in what some of the other members who are in arrangements with the current Government had to say on it, and I found a speech presented by the Hon Peter Dunne, who at the time—in 2000—found himself in an unusual position. He was in Opposition, but he is a man for all seasons. That time he found himself in Opposition, and he said: “One thing that needs to be said at the outset is that this is a most unusual situation. I can never before recall seeing the House take extraordinary urgency to allow the Government to break an election promise”. He went on to say that the then Labour-Alliance Government had only ever spoken about increasing the top income tax rate, and that increasing taxes on tobacco was a broken election promise.

Well, what an interesting statement that is, when we consider all the possibilities, all the options, that the Government has in front of it to deal with reducing the prevalence of smoking in New Zealand. They are things like banning tobacco displays, the possible licensing of retailers, and an increase in funding for cessation programmes. But of all the things that the Government had to choose from, it chose an increase in tax. Was National not the party that got into Government, that was elected, on the basis of its promises to cut taxes? Yet here we are tonight with the new-found National members revelling in the fact that they are increasing taxes. Although Labour members support that, we are slightly surprised that this is the first choice that the National Government has made in fighting the prevalence of smoking.

In supporting this bill, we must make the point that although the objective this evening is not to increase revenue, it is inevitable that revenue will be increased. So it will be important, as the Hon Ruth Dyson has already mentioned, that when we get to Budget time, we look at exactly what expenditure the Government will announce in relation to matters of smoking cessation and, particularly, of public health policy. Although it is important to focus on smoking cessation, it is also important to focus on ensuring that our young people do not take up smoking in the first place. It is fantastic if we can get people to give up their smokes, but it would be very much better if we could actually convince people not to start smoking in the first place. Once people are addicted, their ability to exercise personal choice and personal responsibility is absolutely diminished, so a far better option is to ensure that people do not take up smoking in the first place. I have no doubt that this bill, which is passing through the House under extraordinary urgency this evening, will assist in achieving that. But we can do more, and the Opposition will be looking to see what the Government does at Budget time to improve not just cessation programmes but also public health initiatives that work with doctors and nurses, and with other people in the community, in getting them out there to reach our young people and ensure that they get the message not to take up smoking in the first place.

It would be a real pity if this increase in the taxation of tobacco products simply mirrors the increase that will be experienced on GST: if it were simply used to mitigate the cut to the top rate of personal income tax—the cut to the tax that is paid by people who can most afford to pay tax. It has been mentioned tonight that this tax on tobacco products will affect a lot of people who cannot afford to pay it, and we hope that that will convince people to give up smoking altogether. But it would be a shame—it would be an absolute shame—if a measure that is being passed in the name of public health becomes simply an opportunity to increase revenue in order to make up for the revenue that the Government will lose when it cuts taxes for those who are the most capable of paying tax. I hope that that does not occur, and I will look very closely at what this Government does at Budget time.

I will wrap up my speech by saying the Labour members absolutely support this bill. We support the work of Minister Turia. We support the fact that she has been able to convince the National Government to do a U-turn on its previous positions. Even Dr Paul Hutchison has been prepared to make an absolute U-turn from his previous position, and he has been able to support the bill this evening. I support Minister Turia and absolutely compliment all members in the House, bar four, who are prepared to support this bill. It is a good bill, and I look forward to its progress through the House.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I am delighted to rise in support of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. At the outset I need to put on record that, like my colleague Dr Jackie Blue, I am also a former smoker. I gave up, pretty much cold-turkey, about 12 years ago; I did not use nicotine supplements. The mind-set change, and the realisation that I came to, was that when someone gives up smoking, then he or she is not losing something but is gaining a heck of a lot. It was only when that mind-set change happened that I was able to sustain that very painful 72-hour period that nicotine addicts go through when they are withdrawing from the product, but after that it does get easier and easier. I hope that those who are still addicted to nicotine, and who are motivated by the changes in this bill, will come to that realisation as well. I understand how hard it is to stop smoking, and I am mindful of the comedian who once said: “Giving up cigarettes is really easy. I should know; I’ve done it about 25 times.”

I am sure the House is grateful to my medical colleagues Dr Blue and, in particular, Dr Paul Hutchison, for his graphic depiction of his time as a pathology registrar and the debilitating effects of smoking. But he also made the very good point that the medical fraternity was perhaps slow to pick up and develop an evidence base for the negative effects of smoking. There are even print ads from the early 20th century of doctors endorsing certain brands of cigarettes. I was smoking when I started work at a bank in Dunedin North and I remember now, with some horror, that as a teller it was the norm that when I was serving customers there would be an ashtray there with a cigarette burning, such was the acceptance that we had of smoking as part of what we did.

Opposition members can and have gently and lightly ribbed National members for opposing certain things when we were in Opposition, but I think that as a society we have gone down a path of enlightenment. I suggest that that is what is happening with this bill. I was in the UK at the end of 1988 when workplaces went smoke-free, and I well remember a colleague who was heavily addicted to nicotine and who smoked about 40 a day and who was so distraught by the change that she felt she would need to resign because she could not survive the day if it was not for the cigarette on the desk. But she got through that as well, and I think we need to support those people who are addicted.

The suggestion that this is some kind of tax for revenue-raising purposes, and, even worse, to subsidise tax cuts I find very, very hard to take. I am sure Iain Lees-Galloway had tongue in cheek when he said that. I also think the Hon Ruth Dyson made relevant comments about being careful about where the money goes in the public health initiatives that might be needed to support this legislation. But we need to remember, as other members have said, that maybe $1.1 billion of revenue is collected through tobacco excise but the total costs on society of smoking, and, in particular, the costs that fall on our health sector, comfortably exceed $1.7 billion and are approaching $2 billion. So it is really not accurate to say that somehow this legislation will be a great windfall to the Government.

I also expect that the Quitline service, which is not subject to fiscal constraints, as I understand it, will be flooded basically—

Hon Ruth Dyson: What do you mean “not subject to fiscal constraints”?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There is no cap on the number of people who can go to Quitline and get the subsidised support that is available. I have no doubt there will be a huge increase in demand for its services. I certainly hope that is the case.

But I want to focus on the case for using tobacco excise as an effective means for reducing the prevalence of tobacco smoking in New Zealand. We have talked about the positive effects of that. It is known in economics as “demand elasticity”, and the best research suggests that the price elasticity of tobacco is probably about negative 4.8 or 5, which means that on average a 10 percent increase in the price would be followed by a decrease in consumption of about 5 percent. But, of course, that does not tell the full story and we need to drill more deeply into the research in this area. For adults who are addicted to nicotine the price elasticity is slightly less than that. There is definitely evidence that it will reduce prevalence in that group, but I think what is really relevant to this is that if we look at the evidence for young smokers, or young people considering smoking, the evidence is extremely strong that the price elasticity in that group is much higher. It ranges from about minus 0.9 to 1.5. In plain English that means that young people are three times more likely than older people to stop smoking or to not start, with this level of excise being increased. So they are far more price-sensitive, and it is for that reason, among all of the many good reasons for supporting this bill, that I support it.

It is also important to make sure that when we look back into history these increases in excise tax actually have had a positive impact, and it is very important to note that we see a step-change that is positively co-related with the increases. It started with the smoke-free workplaces legislation in 1990; then there was an increase in the excise in the late 1990s, and again in the early 2000s. All of those impacts are very, very highly co-related and, in my view, causative of the reduction in smoking.

Another way to drill into the prevalence data is through ethnicity, and this is a really concerning issue that Minister Turia and others have talked about. Māori women in particular are smoking at the rate of nearly 50 percent of the population. Pasifika are also at a high level but not quite as high as that. What is interesting is the Asian statistics. Asian men smoke at about the national average but there is a dramatic reduction for women. Asian women smoke at the rate of about only 5.2 percent of their population. I am not quite sure what the cultural differences are but it could be an excellent body of research to drill into to find out the reasons why they smoke at a much lower rate than others.

In summary, this is an outstanding initiative. I think we will hear the inevitable retorts from the tobacco industry about why this will not be a good idea. I am encouraged that almost entirely this House will support this bill and ignore that rhetoric. This bill will have nothing but good things for our society and for our health system. For that reason I very strongly the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 118

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 1 (Boscawen); Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 4

ACT New Zealand 4 (Douglas, Garrett, Hide, Roy H).

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill heralds one of the most significant developments to take place in the public health system of this country. This bill is about saving lives, and I am humbled and greatly heartened by the support of parties throughout the House on this immensely important day—118 votes out of 122. I greatly appreciate the strength of support that has come through this debate.

This move will put the price of cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco up enough to save hundreds of lives. Our most preliminary estimates are that there will be 300 fewer premature deaths a year as a result of the tobacco excise increase, rising to 500 fewer deaths a year by the year 2031. This development is well overdue. I am reminded of the results of a survey from the Ministry of Health just 2 years ago. It found that 80 percent of New Zealand smokers said that they regretted starting to smoke, and that if they had their time again they would not smoke. This bill is for them. The price increase will give them an added incentive to quit and a huge incentive to all of our young people to never start. This bill is an investment in the future of our country.

I have read over some of the submissions presented to the Māori Affairs Committee inquiry held over the course of the last few months. The challenges laid out there are inspirational. There has been talk of people wanting to live in a smoke-free nation, and to take the opportunity to be world leaders in this land in countering the global smoking epidemic. Some amazing examples have been shared of people trying to make a difference in their own way. There are stories that demonstrate the power of w’ānau, celebrating the impact of loved ones providing the incentive to quit.

I have to admit that many years ago, when I was courting my husband, I had the occasional cigarette. George told me in no uncertain terms that I had to give up, and such was the power of love at that time that I did it. It was an extremely effective strategy, long before the days of nicotine lozenges and patches. Many such powerful incentives were shared by those who had the courage to give their stories to the select committee. In Hokianga the word is out that if rangatahi want to be part of waka ama, they have to be smoke-free. At the Pasifika Festival held every year, Pacific Heartbeat promotes the message of being smoke-free, ensuring that every person who attends that celebration leaves their cigarettes at home.

Other stories simply made me want to weep. One of the most traumatic stories was told by Lloyd and Hinga Whiu. They shared the profound sadness within their midst that within their mother’s line, 14 of the 16 siblings had died of smoking-related diseases, leaving a void that will never be filled. Their submission spelt out in black and white the ghastly reality that cigarettes kill one in every two long-term smokers.

This afternoon, right across the House, we have declared our condemnation of smoking as the biggest single cause of avoidable death and disease. The purpose of this legislation is very clear: it is all about the issue of psychological triggers to quit. We know that most people who quit smoking need to make several attempts before they succeed.

The second distinguishing feature of this legislation is the substantial price increase for roll-your-owns. The Government has decided to equalise the excise duties on a weight-by-weight basis, so that all smokers face the same financial incentive to quit. In effect, the excise on loose tobacco will rise by 24 percent immediately, followed by the same 10 percent increases in 2011 and 2012 as for cigarettes. Loose tobacco accounts for about a third of all the tobacco smoked in New Zealand, and we have one of the highest rates of roll-your-own use in the world, which is hardly something to be proud of. It should be known that the taxation of loose and manufactured tobacco products was last equalised in 1995. Since that time, the proportion of smokers using loose tobacco has increased from 28 percent to 50 percent today. As well as that considerable jump in numbers, users of loose tobacco tend to be younger, to be of lower socio-economic status, and to be Māori or Pasifika people. These groups are the most sensitive to the price of tobacco products and, as such, are the greatest users of loose tobacco.

The bill is intended to prompt people to stop smoking, and I will talk to two particular aspects of this legislation that warrant further explanation. The first is the rationale for why we are not bringing the price increases in all at once. As a Government, we have been concerned about the financial impact of the changes on low-income households, where smokers may struggle to immediately cut down or quit. As a consequence of our concerns, we decided to phase in the increases to give people more time to adjust. But I have a word for those who might suggest that these increases might hurt low-income families in particular. Of course the well-being of our most vulnerable New Zealanders will always concern us, but I ask where the evidence is that their well-being is enhanced by picking up a cigarette.

A far bigger concern for the family members of low-income smokers is the harm that is done through the premature death of a smoking parent, the decline of household income through a smoker’s ill health, the health impacts on smokers’ children from their exposure to smoke, and the health impacts on the children yet to be born when a mother smokes while pregnant. It is also noted that in phasing in the changes, frequent price rises are likely to be more effective than less frequent, larger price rises. A particular concern for me is that 61 percent of smokers who are aged from 15 to 19 years report smoking roll-your-owns. The research tells us that young people are less likely to try smoking if the cigarettes are seen to be too expensive.

Finally, I extend my genuine appreciation right across the House for the vision, the leadership, and the solidarity that has been expressed. It has been an extremely moving debate, seeing parties come together on our commitment to a healthier future for all our peoples in this land. Tonight I place on record my gratitude to all of those smoke-free champions, the advocates and analysts, the Auahi Kore providers, and the researchers. This bill has also benefited from the dedication of officials in Treasury and the Customs Service, and especially the tobacco team in the Ministry of Health.

My last word goes to all of those mokopuna out there who today tell their parents not to smoke, and who carry that message with such pride and vigour. They remind us that when one woman dies, we lose an entire generation. We owe it to our children to pass this bill.

Nā reira, ka mate te wahine kotahi he w’akatipuranga ka ngaro i te tirohanga kanohi ki te pō uriuri, ki te pō tangatango. Mā te wahine kotahi, ara anō he rau w’akatipuranga, koia nei te pūtake o tēnei pire, kua eke panuku, kua eke Tangaroa haere mai te toki, haumi ē, hui ē, tāiki ē.

[So if one woman dies, a generation is lost from sight to the deep and intense night. On the other hand, one woman can conceive a generation that will surmount the realm and ocean of Tangaroa. Welcome the adze; we are about to lead a new life together. This, after all, is the nub of this bill.]

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It gives me great pleasure to stand again in support of not just the progress of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill but also the progress of this bill under urgency. I will begin, as I began my earlier contribution in this debate, by congratulating the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia. She just concluded her statements in what I know was a genuine contribution. She has had real drive for this issue. Minister Turia said at the outset of this debate that it was not often that the House gets to debate what is literally a life-or-death measure. For us to have the opportunity to improve someone else’s health, in part, is a huge responsibility, and I am so proud to be part of the movement that will progress so many people’s health in our nation. This is a significant health-promotion measure. It is fantastic that the New Zealand Parliament has got to the point where we have almost unanimous agreement on the promotion of this measure.

I could not understand Roger Douglas’ contribution earlier this evening. That is not unusual. For probably 30 years it is quite consistent that I have been unable to understand his contributions, even though I know that he makes his contributions genuinely. I chuckled, given how much debate we are having at the moment about the impact of the increase in GST, at Roger’s passion—his outrage—that we were introducing a regressive excise tax. He is the man who designed and introduced GST, so his contribution was extraordinary. Nevertheless, I am sure that his contribution was genuine.

We know that increasing the cost of tobacco has a more negative impact on low-income people because we have more low-income people who smoke. It is not a good enough reason to say: “Therefore, we shouldn’t help reduce the amount of tobacco consumption.” It is disproportionately borne by people who are on low incomes, people who are on benefits, and, as I said earlier in this debate, people who have a mental illness. Those people deserve our support as a Parliament to stop smoking, or even better, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said, to not even start. It is a big step. We have had a lot of confessions from members of Parliament about their journeys through tobacco smoking to being smoke-free. A lot of people find it really, really difficult. The more support we can give people through a variety of ways, the easier it is for them to be smoke-free. We want to make that passage as easy as possible. We need measures like this legislation, which will be one of the biggest contributors to a reduction in tobacco consumption. If we put the price of tobacco up by 2 percent, it reduces tobacco consumption by 1 percent. The figures are on the public record and are easy to see. As soon as we put the price up, we see a dramatic decrease in tobacco consumption, but we have to keep putting the pressure on because the reduction flattens out after a while and slowly starts to increase again.

This measure cannot happen in isolation. We need to make sure that nicotine replacements and advice through Quitline are all accessible and affordable for people. That is part of the package. Of course, there is the health-promotion message of making sure that people understand that if used as prescribed and as intended, cigarettes kill half the people who use them. I invite members to imagine if a breakfast cereal was developed and the inventors of this fabulous new breakfast cereal said: “Here is the breakfast cereal for you. If you eat it”—

Simon Bridges: “Killer Kelloggs”.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Very good; give a gold star to that young man. If “Killer Kelloggs” were invented and the person who invented it said: “Eat this in an appropriate amount everyday and it will kill every second person.”, how many people would race to the supermarket to buy a pack of “Killer Kelloggs”? Unfortunately, there has been the attraction of cigarettes. The portrayal in movies—long before Mr Bridges was born; I say to Mr Bridges that this was in the olden days, although he might not believe it—was that smoking was glamorous.

Simon Bridges: You weren’t born then, were you, Ruth?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you, Mr Bridges. Two gold stars and for that man. Smoking was portrayed as very glamorous. Huge amounts of money went in to advertising tobacco products, and there was a huge concentration and focus on making sure that young people were addicted early and stayed addicted until their death, which occurred 15 years earlier on average than it would have had they been smoke-free. This issue was not something that evolved; it was a deliberate campaign to ensure that the people who produced and sold tobacco were made wealthy by the illness and premature death of others in our society.

We have learnt a lot about tobacco over the years since it first came into prominent being in our society, but we have had a lot of very contentious debate even in the last few years in this House. When Labour introduced the smoke-free environments legislation, there was debate akin to the sky falling in on civilised society as we knew it. Not very long ago, when Tukoroirangi Morgan, followed up by Steve Chadwick, introduced legislation that banned smoking in bars and restaurants, apparently it was going to be the downfall of civilised society. I have not noticed much of a change, except for the better. I was at Astoria on Lambton Quay for breakfast, and as I left people outside were smoking. I walked through a lot of cigarette smoke as I left. I reflected on how recently it was—it was in my lifetime—that that smoking would have been inside where people were eating. Again, I say to Mr Bridges that he is very fortunate that he has probably never known that in his lifetime, but it truly happened that people would be smoking at the same time as other people were eating.

Other measures that have been introduced are sometimes very contentious and sometimes receive a broader range of support across the House. They have all contributed to New Zealand having a healthier population, and to fewer people having massive heart attacks as a result of smoking and either dying far too early or being severely restricted in their ability to contribute. A lot of people who have strokes die immediately afterwards or are very severely impaired and unable to communicate, walk, or move their arms. That is a very debilitating condition that can happen after a stroke, and it is often caused by a person smoking. We know that between 4,500 and 5,000 people in New Zealand die prematurely every year because of cigarette smoke. Tonight, this Parliament will take another step forward towards addressing that, so that more of our family members can live longer and live healthier. I think we can all be extremely proud of that.

Members will recall that at the beginning of my contribution I mentioned that Labour supports not only the legislation itself but also it going through under urgency. I think that is another example of the maturing of our Parliament. The last time that Parliament was in extraordinary urgency and was increasing the price of tobacco, we had a similar debate but our party was on that side. It was a mirror image. Members get the general gist of the situation. Bill English, who is now the Minister of Finance, was outraged. I recall the debate. He was absolutely outraged that this Parliament was going into extraordinary urgency to increase the price of tobacco. He said it was an outrage because it was only 6 weeks until the Budget. He challenged Labour as to why we had not included that increase in tobacco pricing as part of the Budget. Well, let me think. How long is it until Mr English’s next Budget? It is on 20 May and today is 28 April. It is half the time between this day and his Budget than it was between that day and Dr Michael Cullen’s Budget, yet it caused him such outrage that we had not included increasing the price of tobacco in our Budget. We have decided that we are not going to play those sorts of tricks. We understand that the reason this legislation is coming in now is that the last thing Bill English wants is his Budget to be described as the Budget that increased tobacco tax. We support not only the urgency, but also this legislation. I once again say well done to Tariana Turia.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): As most probably one of the only real smokers in this House—

Hon Member: Have another Champix.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, I am on Champix. I am 98 percent or 97 percent smoke-free and very proud of it. I am on the Champix. [Interruption] I tell my colleagues to be quiet. I thank the drug company Pfizer. I think I speak from a position of authority. I am soon to be 50 years old.

Hon Member: You’re what?

Hon TAU HENARE: I know, hard as it is to believe. For over half of my life I have been a smoker—I have lived over half of my life as a smoker. Our family has a long history of supporting the tobacco industry. Some would have said that I would be put out by the dastardly deeds of a person who was going to increase the taxes on tobacco, but I am not. I am not a zealot, unlike some people I know—kia ora, Hone—but I think it is a good thing that we do this. The issue is about the health of a nation, not the health of one individual person but the health of a nation. I think that shows how times have changed.

The Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned a debate from not so long ago, when my brother-in-law, Tukoroirangi Morgan, stood next to me in this House while I was a full-blown, 100 percent smoker and introduced the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, which became the Hon Steve Chadwick’s bill. I railed against my brother-in-law. Fancy doing that to a large portion of people in our community! Fancy picking on the poor! Fancy picking on—

Hon Ruth Dyson: You were in the same party, too, weren’t you?

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, we were in the same party. He had the temerity to put forward a bill that now would probably get 90-odd percent support in the House.

When I was out of Parliament and the smoke-free workplace legislation came in, I, too, used to run up and down spewing forth utter shock that workers could not have their smoko breaks or have a smoke when they wanted to. But now I would hazard a guess that a very large proportion of this country would not want to go back to those days, even though some of us pine for the old days.

The issue of raising the excise on tobacco has been an interesting one. Small increases over a period of time do not work. It is the large increase that works; the large, very strong hit works. My fear is that the lag between the 10 percent rise in tailor-made cigarettes each year over a 3-year period may not work. There has to be some serious thought over the next 12 months or so about the next increase and the next increase after that. Is it to stay at 10 percent or is it to rise even more? By watching the news I heard that by 2013 a packet of 25 cigarettes will cost people around $17 or $18. One has to be mad to think that one would fork out 20 bucks for a packet of smokes, but let me tell members that the habit is so strong that people will spend $20 on a packet of smokes. It is an addiction.

I want the House to consider something, especially my colleagues on the front bench and those who sit around the Cabinet table. Although we feel good about doing something, as we are doing tonight in trying to help people quit and in trying to make sure that young people do not start smoking, there are products on the market today that are not allowed in the country because they are supposedly unsafe. An e-cigarette is one of those products. It is not possible to get an e-cigarette with a cartridge of nicotine in it because it is supposedly—

Simon Bridges: That’s a pen you’re holding.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, this is a pen I am holding. I ask members to get this: supposedly it is not safe to use e-cigarettes, but we are allowed to buy cigarettes in this country, and we know that ain’t safe. So what am I getting at? We do not do enough to break that habit of addiction—we do not do enough. We spend millions of dollars on cessation programmes, and I have to say that the evidence is starting to stack up that they actually do not work as well as we may believe.

Dr Jackie Blue: Oh no!

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh yes.

Dr Jackie Blue: Oh no!

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh yes. I am one of the privileged ones who have—

Iain Lees-Galloway: That will look good in Hansard.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, it may look good in Hansard; it may not look good in Hansard. But the fact is the figures are starting to show that the millions of dollars we spend on cessation programmes—not all of the cessation programmes but the majority of cessation programmes of the last few years—do not work, and they may have been a waste of money. It would have been better to subsidise some of the drugs. It would have better to allow some of the products into this country rather than spend our money on those programmes.

I am very glad that there will be a bigger increase on roll-your-own cigarettes. It is a well-known fact that people smoke them because they are cheap and they last a bit longer than a packet of 25 cigarettes.

I want to send a message that is not so much about who does what in this area, or who gets the kudos. I congratulate my relation, my colleague Hone Harawira, for bringing to the Māori Affairs Committee an issue that we may have our differences about in terms of how to get there, but we agree on the final objective, and that is to be as smoke-free as possible. I also thank my National colleagues.

I have seen the blogs. I have seen the comments on my very popular Facebook page. One said “Another win for the Māori Party.” I tell members that it would not have been a win for the Māori Party if it had not been for National. Without National this measure would not have gone through. So while we stand and talk about the poor health, and the disease out there that is tobacco, I thank National for taking on board the submissions and the pleas made by the Hon Tariana Turia. I also remind the Government and the House in general that the Māori Affairs Committee is doing a sterling job in its inquiry into the use of tobacco and its effect on Māoridom. Kia ora.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): I was not expecting to take a call at this time but it looked as though the debate on the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill might have been coming to a premature close. I will start by saying that unlike many people who have spoken this evening who have acknowledged that they are smokers, who are reformed smokers, who have outlined the extent to which they have gone to give up smoking, or who have spoken about the loss of family members, I have never smoked, I hope I never smoke, and I have never lost family members to tobacco. However, this is a subject on which I have had very strong views for a very long period of time. Roger Douglas said in the first reading debate that there will be some ACT members opposing this bill. I am the ACT member supporting this bill, and I say this very proudly. It makes me sad because I wish I could have convinced some more of my colleagues to support this bill, but before I explain why I am supporting this bill, I will make a few introductory remarks.

It is an absolute privilege to be a member of Parliament. Every day I come into this Chamber I remind myself of how privileged I am to be here, and of the people who have elected me here. The speech I give tonight is a speech that I knew I would be making at one stage during my career in Parliament, and I do it with a great deal of pride and a great deal of thought. I would also like to acknowledge two of my colleagues. I consider David Garrett and myself to be very lucky. We have come into Parliament and we represent a very small party, but it is a party that does not whip its members. We have a confidence and supply agreement with the National Party, and under the terms of that agreement we are committed to supporting the National Party in various matters. Beyond that, however, we are entitled to have a free vote. We have often had a split vote, as we did this evening. I would like to acknowledge the leader of the ACT Party, Rodney Hide, who has voted against this bill. Rodney Hide is a very astute politician. Rodney Hide opposes tax increases, and if there has been any disappointment about this debate so far it has been those seeking to score political points through members, such as Bill English, changing their position. I am very grateful for Rodney, because he has to go to the media and explain why the ACT Party has a vote. He is prepared to do that so that I have the ability and the right to stand up and state the comments I am making this evening.

The second colleague I would like to acknowledge is Sir Roger Douglas. Many people forget that Sir Roger Douglas was a former Labour MP. His grandfather, father, and his brother were Labour MPs. He was the MP for Ōtara for many years. When I joined the ACT Party in 1995 I was attracted to the philosophy of Roger Douglas and his vision for the party, which he recently restated in his book, No Second Class Citizens. I can assure members of the public and parliamentarians that even though it may well be the public perception that the ACT Party is not overly concerned with poor people, that is what motivates Roger, that is what motivates me, and that is why I am in this Parliament. Roger has a very sincere conviction that increasing the tobacco tax is a tax on the poor. It is interesting that Tariana acknowledged that and acknowledged some of the alternative arguments we put up.

Let us go back through some of the issues we have heard tonight. We have heard that approximately 5,000 people die each year as a result of tobacco or tobacco-related causes such as lung cancer and many other diseases. That is 14 people per day. We have heard that people who smoke regularly throughout their life have a one in two chance that they will die prematurely—one chance in two. On average, smoking cuts the life expectancy of an individual by 15 years; rather than a woman living to the average age of 80, she might die prematurely at 65, and, sadly, for Māori it is a lot younger. We have also heard that smoking disproportionately affects large numbers of low-income people, large numbers of Māori, particularly large numbers of Māori women, and, worse still, large numbers of young Māori women. I had a friend for dinner last night and he explained that his stepdaughter goes to a high school in Rotorua where she is one of just three people in her secondary school class who do not smoke. I do not know how many are in her secondary school class; I would imaging there are 15, 20, or maybe 25 people. She is just one of three 14-year-olds who do not smoke.

Why are we discussing this issue? The blunt reality is that tobacco companies kill their customers. It is simple as that. Tobacco companies kill their customers. The only way they can survive is if they get new, young, fresh customers coming in the front door. I believe that this Parliament, this Government, needs to take every step it can take to reduce the number of new young people coming in the door. I see Mr Lees-Galloway nodding this evening. He made the point that this is just one of many things that this Government could be doing. For example, this Government could have adopted Mr Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill to put restrictions on the retail display of tobacco. Every day that we have a ballot, I look with interest to see if Mr Lees-Galloway’s bill has been drawn. Sadly, it has not. I hope that Tariana Turia, who I understand is also looking at this area, will soon have a bill before Parliament that will significantly restrict the retail display of tobacco, the packaging, or the way the product is put.

I focus on young people because the reality is that the new customers who come in, as the old ones die, are not people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s; they are young people. Yes, it is illegal to sell tobacco to children under the age of 18, but does that stop them from smoking? Does that stop that class of 14-year-olds in Rotorua, where all but three of them are smoking? No, it does not. To my mind, smoking is an absolute tragedy. It is a waste. It is an absolute waste of human life. Tariana Turia has put the arguments eloquently this evening and I can not possibly repeat them in the way that she has. Luckily, I have not had someone in my immediate family die from tobacco. However, I did have to help my mother nurse my late grandmother, Mona Wheeler, in January and February of 1985. Luckily for my grandmother, her bad turn of health was very severe, very sudden, and it lasted only about 6 weeks. I cannot imagine anything worse than having to look after and nurse a child or parent, month after month, and see the decline in their health. I acknowledge Tariana Turia talking about how she had to nurse her mother. She had to nurse her mother, she saw her decline, and she was brought up by her grandmother. Today, she is the last alive of all of her cousins; all of the others have been taken by tobacco.

I would like to devote the last part of my speech to acknowledging the efforts of the Labour Party and Helen Clark. I stood up at an ACT conference in 2001 to challenge ACT members who were opposing at that time the previous Labour Government’s Smoke-free Environments Act, and I asked them to justify their decision. One by one, those ACT members got up and justified their decision. To be fair to them, I thought that Muriel Newman had a very valid point when she talked about RSAs and people who had gone off to war, and the ability for them to smoke in their RSA rooms. I thought she had a very valid point, and so, arguably, with cigarette bars. But I will never forget the first time I met the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It was in 1990. She was a young Minister of Health and she was asked to justify her decision to make it illegal for cigarette and tobacco companies to sponsor sport when she was not prepared to do the same for liquor companies. The point she made 20 years ago sticks with me today. I say to Mr Anderton that the reality is that he can have a glass of wine every night for the rest of his life, and the odds are that it will not kill him. But if he tried to smoke a packet of cigarettes every day for the rest of his life, the odds are that there is a one in two chance of it killing him.

I vote for this bill with a great deal of pride. I realise that there are many ACT supporters who voted for me and gave me this privilege, and I apologise to those who do not understand my actions. But I am doing this because I believe that it is right and the best thing to do. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I say to the previous speaker, John Boscawen, that the membership form is in the mail. I want to start my contribution by thinking about the groups in our society that have higher than average rates of smoking. We have heard a little bit about some of those groups tonight. For example, we know that Māori have much higher rates of smoking than the population average. We know that Pasifika people have higher rates of smoking. We know that in general the poor have higher rates of smoking. We know that people with mental illnesses, as Ruth Dyson pointed out, have higher rates of smoking. In my own community, the gay community, there is a higher rate of smoking than there is in the population as a whole. What on earth could explain that pattern? What on earth could explain the distribution of smoking behaviour? Could it be that information about what is unhealthy about smoking only reaches other groups? Is it somehow not getting to these groups? That explanation does not hold water.

Over the last 24 years, since 1986, we have increasingly come to understand that a model to explain the patterns that we see of health and illness that is based on information simply fails. It is not an adequate explanation of what we see. Instead, we have to look at the marginalisation of communities and adopt a socio-environmental model of health that says there are risk environments that surround particular communities. Those risk environments are things like poverty, racism, prejudice, and violence. Those risk environments themselves create the psychosocial risk factors that predispose people towards particular patterns of illness.

In the health promotion model, which is the model we use to explain how to counter that pattern of ill health, we talk about five action guidelines in what is called the Ottawa Charter. Those are: to promote healthy public policy; to create supportive environments, and by that we mean not only physical environments but social environments also; to strengthen community action; to develop personal skills; and to re-orient health services towards prevention. That means that when we look at the pattern of health and disease in relation to smoking, we see that that is also the pattern for pretty well every other disease we can think of. When we look at those Ottawa Charter guidelines we see that it is not adequate to do just one of those things. We have to do all of those things. That is the kind of holistic thinking that the Green Party typically brings to this kind of debate.

In relation to tobacco control, we are talking tonight about price control, because we know that that works. But we also need a comprehensive suite of controls. We need to look at how tobacco is displayed, where it can be bought from, what is in the product, and where tobacco can be smoked, but we also need to look to community empowerment. By that, I mean providing communities with resources in the form of expertise and also the dollars that they need to develop their own solutions to this problem. It also means tackling racism, and tackling prejudice wherever it exists. It means taking measures to address inequalities in our society, measures to create a fair society where all New Zealanders have a fair go. Those are the things that will make the big difference in dealing with the pattern of disease that we see in this country.

One of the measures to tackle inequality is tax. As Iain Lees-Galloway has said already in tonight’s debate, tax is one of the areas where we are able to take some initiatives that address the inequalities in society. This Government has a policy in relation to tax that will widen those inequalities. The truth is that that pattern of widened inequalities will drive increased disease, and it will drive increased smoking rates. So we need that comprehensive pattern of interventions. Yes, we will vote for these price increases tonight because we know that that will be helpful, but we also need to address those wider psychosocial risk factors, those wider socio-environmental risk factors, that create disease in the first place.

As Ruth Dyson has commented, a number of members have spoken about their personal smoking history. I have never been a smoker. I did try it once, but I could not get it close enough to my face, so that never happened. But I did have a particularly powerful experience in Los Angeles a couple of years ago when I went to the Body Worlds exhibition put on by the German anatomist Gunther von Hagen. Very much as Paul Hutchison has described tonight, one of the things von Hagen does in that exhibition is provide actual lungs that have been preserved and plasticised. It was a very creepy experience. The contrast between the lungs of a lifelong non-smoker and the lungs of a person who has smoked is such a stunning example that nobody could go to that exhibition and come away still a committed smoker. Next door to the exhibition of the lungs was a big rubbish bin. The idea was that smokers would put their packets of cigarettes in that rubbish bin. When I went through the exhibition, I saw it was pretty well full.

Although we will vote for this measure tonight, the Green Party seeks a comprehensive suite of measures that are focused not only on tobacco control but are ones that address those risk environments: racism, poverty, and marginalisation of every sort. As Michael Joseph Savage put it: “What is there more important in Christianity than to be our brothers’ keepers in reality?”. What is there more important to us in our society than to take collective responsibility for the welfare of all? I again congratulate the Hon Tariana Turia and the Māori Party. This is a fantastic victory, and I wish her well.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. When Minister Turia began this debate under extraordinary urgency, she said there are only a few matters before this House on which one could stand with one’s hand on one’s heart and declare that this was a life and death debate. This bill, the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill, she added, is purely and simply about saving lives. Today we celebrate another step in saving the lives of New Zealanders addicted to tobacco—in reducing the number of our citizens who die in their thousands every year from smoking. For the benefit of those who want to know exactly what we are talking about, I say it is about trying to put a dent into wiping out the equivalent of the whole population of Kaitāia every single year.

For us as the Māori Party, the cause is made even more dramatic because every year Māori gather to commemorate the lives of the 600 sons of the Māori Battalion lost in the 5 years of the Second World War, and yet we mourn alone the 600 lives of Māori people stolen every year by the decisions of British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group, Philip Morris, and others to maximise their profits from a product that addicts and kills people.

Today is a big day and an important day, not just for Māori but for the whole country, as we take another step on the march to save the lives of 5,000 Kiwis lost every year to tobacco. It is a march begun by smoke-free activists like Dr Papaarangi Reid, Shane Bradbrook, Dr Mārewa Glover, Ben Youdan, Moana Maniapoto, Mere Wilson, and many, many others. It was aided by organisations like the Health Sponsorship Council, Te Hotu Manawa Māori, the Quit Group, Te Reo Mārama, Aukati Kai Paipa, Auahi Kore, the Global Smokefree Partnership, Smokefree Northland, Hapai Te Hauora Tapui, Action on Smoking and Health, Tala Pasifika, and all of the others that have been working for years to bring down our smoking rates.

Today’s step is one of the hardest that we will ever take, because today we take the tough decision to increase taxes: 14 percent goes on to the tax on roll-your-owns, followed by another 33.3 percent on all tobacco products in the years ahead. We do that not just because we think that it might help to reduce smoking and improve health outcomes; we do it because the World Health Organization’s Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2008 stated that increasing the price of tobacco through higher taxes is the single most effective way to decrease consumption and encourage tobacco users to quit.

When people tell us that tax increases will not win us votes, we tell them that some things we do not do just for votes; we do them because they are the right thing to do—some things are more important than winning votes. When people say that smokers will not be happy, we can tell them that in fact 80 percent of smokers want to stop, and that they tell us that anything we can do to help them to stop is a bonus for them. We know that putting up the price will also force people to cut back on their smoking, but, more important, it will also provide a strong incentive for smokers to quit. If it helps to convince young people not to even start, then that is great as well. We can tell the other ones that even though smokers might not be happy, they can be sure that most of their whānau will be happy if this tax increase helps smokers to stop smoking. Yes, it is true that increasing the price of tobacco is a tough measure for those who do not have a lot of money anyway, but the truth is that we are dealing with one of the most addictive substances in the world. It is a substance described by medical researchers as being even more addictive than heroin.

Tobacco is the largest cause of preventable death and disease for Māori. It is a cost that no nation can sustain, and it is a cost that no family should have to bear. But we have to and we do, and I constantly ask myself why that is the case. If a faulty part in a car was responsible for even two deaths, that car’s manufacturer would be sued for millions of dollars. If another country was responsible for the deaths of just a couple of hundred of our citizens, we would go to war. But here we are, losing 5,000 of our country’s family to the tobacco industry every year, and we do very little to stop that. The industry is driven by multibillion-dollar tobacco giants that are directly responsible for the huge social and economic cost to our country. There is the insurance cost for fire, property, health, and for life itself. There is the cost to our health sector of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. There is the stench that cannot be washed out of clothes, the lingering stink in homes, offices, cars, and workplaces, the damage to the unborn child, the suffering of children who are trapped in a smoker’s car, the loss of earnings of those who are in care, the loss of years for those who smoke, and the loss of life that every family is forced to bear.

I take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee—our chairperson the Hon Tau Henare, Simon Bridges, Paul Quinn, the Hon Parekura Horomia, Mita Ririnui, and Kelvin Davis—for the work being done by the committee as part of the inquiry into the tobacco industry and the impact of tobacco on Māori. I also extend my thanks to Metiria Turei, Carmel Sepuloni, and Su’a William Sio for their attendance and their support. I also thank Iain Lees-Galloway for his attendance the other day. I would like to remind all members of this House that although our inquiry is specifically targeted at Māori, we knew, going into the inquiry, that if we were successful in bringing forward legislation to slow and, hopefully, to stop the tobacco industry in its tracks, the benefits that would flow from that decision would enhance the lives of all citizens of Aotearoa—Māori, Pasifika, Pākehā, Asian, and all other peoples who have come to call this land home. The fact was that we simply could not see how Parliament would allow us to mount an investigation into the tobacco industry until, one night, Shane Bradbrook of Te Reo Mārama, who has been a critical part of our inquiry and a dedicated and committed anti-tobacco activist, came up with the bright idea of using the Māori angle in order to get the inquiry going.

We have been to different parts of the country to hear submissions from victims, from families, from doctors, from nurses, from health agencies, and even from British American Tobacco itself to build a case for our final report to Parliament, which I understand will come before the House in July this year. I have seen my colleagues grow in their commitment to our task, and I have heard some excellent speeches from them in tonight’s debate. That encourages me in the last couple of months ahead of us. So on behalf of our committee, I wish to thank the Minister for the inspiration that this bill gives us in the work that we have yet to do and in the challenge of preparing and providing a report that truly reflects the feelings that we have been witness to, the damage that we have heard evidence of, and the recommendations that are needed if this country’s children and grandchildren may one day enjoy a world that is tobacco-free.

When I knew that I would be speaking in this debate tonight I actually prepared an attack speech, because I thought we might be really up against it on this one. But I was wrong—deeply wrong. So I express my sincere thanks to all speakers tonight—speakers from all parties—for their forbearance in this bill being brought to the House under extraordinary urgency, for the depth of their contributions, and for their support for this initiative.

Four years ago I attended a hui where I shared the goal of getting tobacco out of Aotearoa by 10 December 2010. My timing might be just a wee bit out, but we take another step on the road to a smoke-free Aotearoa with this landmark bill tonight. Speaking of smoke-free initiatives and smoke-free bars and restaurants, let me take this opportunity also to add, for the second night in a row, my special thanks to Mr Tukoroirangi Morgan. I did so last night for his work in bringing the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill through to its second reading, and tonight I do so for his work in preparing the smoke-free bars and restaurants legislation, which he, unfortunately, was not in the House to see pass, but which I know he was happy to see become part of the fabric of this nation.

The Māori Party is proud to stand tonight to honour our co-leader the Hon Tariana Turia, the Minister who is responsible for tobacco control, for her persistence with this bill, for her courage, and for her commitment to help to save lives, to reduce—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. I do so knowing that 4 years ago, almost to this day, our family had a call from Perth to say that my father-in-law was going to die, quite quickly, of lung cancer. Our reaction was dismay but not disbelief. You see, he was a very heavy smoker, with that horrible distinctive cough, which, when we stayed with him, woke us up each morning and made me feel quite sick. We always wondered whether it would be just a matter of time. He was 63 years old when he died—far, far too young.

I am a former nurse, and, yes, nurses also fall into a group with high rates of smoking. We heard the member Kevin Hague speak of various groups, and nurses are also amongst those. I have nursed many people whose health had been disastrously affected by smoking. Watching that happen does not stop nurses from smoking. But nursing a family member, as I had the privilege of doing in his last days of life, only 9 months after we heard of his illness, left a lasting impression on me. It left me with a resolve to listen carefully and seek ways to change the incidence of smoking and reduce the number of new smokers.

I pause now to congratulate the Hon Tariana Turia, because I feel sure that these measures will save lives. Not every Minister can steward a bill through the House knowing that that is likely to be the case. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths, so I am proud to be standing here tonight in the knowledge that some people are less likely to start smoking because of these planned changes in excise.

I will briefly comment on the regulatory impact statement, which makes a couple of pertinent points in relation to the decision to bring this bill to pass. Tax on the two types of tobacco—loose tobacco and cigarettes—was last equalised in 1995, so we are looking at quite a passage of time since then. In addition, the decline in tobacco consumption has stalled, and smoking prevalence is declining, but slowly. The current tobacco control programme of regulation, health education, cessation, and taxation is holding rates steady but is not achieving the rate of decline necessary for sustainable health gains and reductions in tobacco-related costs to society and the economy. This is what we see, and this is the reason we must take this action here tonight.

This morning a newsletter arrived in my inbox. It was the Tobacco Control Update. I studied the newsletter more closely later in the day, knowing what was ahead of us tonight and it pointed out—of course, not knowing what was happening tonight—that the Budget would provide an opportunity for the Government to put up tobacco excise tax. There have been many calls for that to happen, and I feel sure that those who read and subscribe to that newsletter will be smiling this evening. There were calls from both the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners and the Public Health Association of New Zealand printed in that newsletter.

Also buried in the newsletter was a link to some research that had been carried out in Thailand by the Department of Health Education and Behavioural Sciences. It looked at 504 regular smokers and looked at what changes in their behaviour would happen if there was a tobacco tax increase. The results were statistically quite significant, with 9.7 percent of the smokers quitting, and a 48 percent reduction in the numbers of cigarettes smoked per day by other members of that group. The researchers concluded, unsurprisingly, that a tax increase was beneficial for Government revenue—I will get to that issue a little later—and that it also affected the behaviour of daily smokers. They also said that the tax had to go up continually, and that sufficient cessation services had to be provided to respond to people wanting to quit smoking. In other words, those who suddenly “got it” needed some help.

We have heard some debate in this House that if we truly believe in reducing the amount of health-related harm from smoking, we should, as the Hon Sir Roger Douglas suggested, put the price up by 600 percent. He expressed concern that we were seeking to control the personal habits of citizens when their personal responsibility should prevail. I can understand the genesis of that argument, but it is not as black and white as that, as anyone who has tried to quit smoking understands. When a person decides to make that life-changing move to stop smoking, all of the ducks need to be in a row, all of the planets need to be in alignment, and all of the excuses need to be philosophically exhausted. This not insignificant change in the excise might be the final duck, the last planet in the line, and it might also exhaust that last excuse. I certainly hope it is that for many smokers.

For many young people, I hope they look at the costs associated with smoking and decide not to start. I hope they plan, instead, a holiday, the purchase of a car, putting money away for a house, or perhaps paying off their mortgage. I hope they recognise that they should enhance their future rather than seriously shorten it. But when the decision time arrives, and when that smoker’s mind is open—the ducks are in a row, the planets are in alignment, or whatever—the challenge for us is to support that person to quit.

I am really proud that since the National Government came into power there has been an enormous increase in the subsidisation of nicotine replacement and the use of the same. It is all very well to do that—

Hon Tony Ryall: It’s doubled.

JO GOODHEW: As the Minister of Health said, it has gone up from $463,000 being spent back in March 2008 to more than $1 million being spent in the month of March 2010. That is pretty stunning; it is quite a huge amount. But it is not just about subsidising; we have to make sure that people use the treatment. Since September 2009 nicotine-replacement therapy, which could be lozenges, patches, or gum, has been available on prescription, and the cost is now down to $3 for 2 months’ supply. That is an important part of what we want to achieve here. The Government has committed $57 million to tobacco control and smoking cessation. That is not an insignificant amount of money, but it is a small amount compared with the cost to New Zealand society and the taxpayer of tobacco-related harm. Estimates are that it costs $1.9 billion. In fact, the revenue from tobacco is nowhere near that. The revenue is $1.1 billion. With these changes, that will go up to $1.3 billion, but it is still short of the cost.

All of the members who have spoken in this debate—not all of them, but a lot of them—have spoken about the loss of a family or whānau member, and that is not about money. That is the loss of a family support member, a mother or a father, and sometimes a child. It is also the loss of potential. It relates to lung disease, heart disease, strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other cancers.

This Government has made quit-smoking advice one of its six current health targets for those who are hospitalised, and not all district health boards have been doing it well. Even in my own electorate the South Canterbury District Health Board has not been doing well in that area. There has been a marked improvement in the latest figures to come out. It is one of only six targets. In the past we have had a multitude of targets and not enough concentration on a few, but this target is particularly important.

I think these measures will save lives, but, I repeat, other measures must be put in place. I hope the smoke-free ambassadors in my town who regularly come to see me and harangue me about one thing or another are smiling tonight, too. I hope they see that this Parliament, almost unanimously, has a desire and a will on this issue and is taking some action in the House here tonight. We have taken a very important step, one I am proud of. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is again a pleasure to speak in support of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. I again congratulate the Hon Tariana Turia on introducing and progressing this very important legislation. She must be immensely pleased with the vote on the first reading of 118 votes to 4, which, as I suppose we have gently canvassed this evening, is a slightly different vote result from that when legislation like this last passed through the House.

My colleague on the Health Committee Michael Woodhouse put his finger on the button when he said that there has been a path of enlightenment since the last time legislation like this passed through the House. I remind Michael Woodhouse that that path, for the most part, occurred under a Labour Government, because it happened during the last 10 years.

It is pleasing to see that this issue has not been quite as contentious tonight as it has been in the past. The reasons for so much support for this legislation have been thoroughly canvassed this evening. Parliament has a deep understanding of the effect that tobacco is having on our society. No doubt I will cover some of those issues again, but first I would like to discuss some of the arguments that have been put up against the legislation. Those arguments came from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas and other members of the ACT Party.

Essentially, they seemed to cover a couple of areas. One argument related to the fact that ACT members are opposed to tax increases. That is their ideological position, this is a tax increase, and therefore they cannot support it, which is understandable. The ACT Party also argued that it is people’s personal responsibility to decide whether they take up smoking and how they try to quit smoking; that decision is over to them as individuals and is not a public issue or even a public health issue. Obviously, I disagree with both of those points. Firstly, it seems to be a shame to put ideology in front of a measure that clearly works. All the evidence indicates that this measure will have an impact on smoking prevalence. Every time it has occurred in New Zealand in the past it has had an impact, and every time it has been done overseas it has had an impact. That impact is measurable, and the research tells us that it is the right thing to do. So, to put ideology in front of that evidence, although understandable, I think is unfortunate and a bit of a shame.

Jo Goodhew touched lightly on another area of personal responsibility. It relates to nicotine, which is the addictive substance in cigarettes and tobacco. As soon as people become hooked on an addictive substance of any kind, their ability to demonstrate personal responsibility and to make logical, rational choices is utterly diminished. I again acknowledge Jo Goodhew for touching on this point. When I sat in on the Māori Affairs Committee, I heard representatives of the Nurses Organisation make their representation. They pointed out exactly the point that Jo Goodhew made: that nurses are one of those groups that have a higher prevalence of smoking than the rest of the general population. It was discussed at length. We discussed the fact that people who—I think the phrase was—“should know better” have a higher smoking prevalence, for all manner of reasons. Let us not go into why nurses might have a higher smoking rate than the rest of the population, but, absolutely, health professionals should know better. They have all the evidence in front of them, they see the effects on a day-to-day basis, and they have to nurse people who are in their last days and going through the painful effects of smoking-related disease, yet nurses continue to smoke. To me it is an indication of just how strong this addiction is. With all of that evidence in front of them, that group of people still find it very difficult to give up this terrible affliction. I think we have to bear that in mind when we are thinking about personal responsibility.

Where does that personal responsibility lie? Indeed, where does our responsibility as a nation lie in trying to assist people who want to make this decision? Hone Harawira said that 80 percent of smokers want to quit, so it is important that we in Parliament and we as a nation support those people to make the right choices and to make that decision, and that we give them the opportunities to follow through on that decision and quit smoking for ever.

I have discussed ACT’s position, and I acknowledge John Boscawen. I think it is absolutely fantastic that Mr Boscawen has voted in favour of this bill, and I thank him for his kind words about my member’s bill. I hope that if my bill is drawn from the ballot—or if, indeed, the Government proposes a similar bill that would achieve the same ends—more members of ACT might get behind it, because it does not lie in the same ideological position as a tax increase. I have a lot of hope, from what Mr Boscawen said, that the next logical move—the banning of tobacco displays, however that comes about—might actually have a little more support. There is so much support from Parliament for this measure, which is absolutely being done in the right way: we are seeing increases year on year, and we are seeing greater increases to the excise tax on loose tobacco to bring it in line with that on tailor-made cigarettes. I think this is absolutely the correct way to go about it, and that is why it has achieved so much support.

So what do we do next? This bill has something of a whakapapa. There have been a number of incremental steps over a number of years: other increases to excise tax; the amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act, which have seen smoking removed from pubs, restaurants, and the workplace; and, going right back to where it started, the ban on smoking on airlines. These days we take it for granted that one would never light up on an aircraft, but, of course, there once was a time when one could. There were smoking sections on aircraft, just like there were smoking sections in restaurants. I am sure Mr Bridges and I remember those days; we are not quite so young that we do not.

We have had an incremental, step-by-step path, and this legislation is another step along the way. So where do we go from here? Well, a number of anti-smoking advocates have made presentations—particularly at the Māori Affairs Committee—and have said that they would like to see the end of tobacco smoking in New Zealand by 2020. That is a bold and audacious goal, and it will require something a little bolder than the incremental steps that have occurred over the last few years. There are a lot of different ideas about how we might achieve that goal, and the most obvious one, when we are thinking about trying to remove something altogether from a culture, is prohibition. I do not think there is an awful lot of support out there for prohibition. We have seen prohibition used in respect of other substances in the past, particularly alcohol, and it did not have very much effect. But we do not have to go as far as prohibition to achieve this goal.

When the Health Sponsorship Council, which was actually set up as part of the Smoke-free Environments Act, made its presentation to the select committee it talked about a suite of proposals, a package that would achieve a step change. I alluded to that presentation a little in the first reading, but I will go over it again. It said that in addition to increasing taxation on tobacco products, rather than the incremental changes, we need “further restrictions, or bans, on point-of-sale tobacco displays; introducing requirements for plain packaging on all tobacco products; increasing support for cessation attempts; licensing of retail outlets that sell tobacco products” and “developing end game strategies, such as a Tobacco Control Authority.” All of those ideas, I think, are open for debate. Let us not try to position anybody at the moment, but let us start the debate on all of those measures and start really talking about a step change and trying to achieve some of those audacious goals. It is worth it. It is absolutely worth it.

Tobacco smoking costs this country $1.7 billion a year, and it is increasing. It is far more than the taxation that is already taken. It costs immeasurable amounts in terms of lives, lost health, lost productivity, and the social impact on families of nursing ill relatives and having family members die at an early age. This is a great bill. It is a step in the right direction, but I hope that in the near future we will see a considerable step-up of action so that we can really tackle this problem. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): There are some very simple reasons for the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. First and foremost is that smoking is the single biggest preventable killer of people in this country. As Hone Harawira vividly put it, the population of Kaitāia, or thereabouts, dies prematurely every year in this country from smoking—around 5,000 people. We know, and all the experts will tell us—they certainly told the Māori Affairs Committee—that the single most effective way to reduce the death toll and to reduce smoking is to put taxes up, to increase the excise tax. So I am strongly, and I speak as strongly as I am able to, in favour of this bill.

Before I came to the House this evening, I was in a select committee meeting and then at a function, so I did not know what the various parties’ positions were. I thought the most likely scenario was a House in unity, a unanimous vote in favour of this bill, and I think that would have sent a very strong signal and message to the people of New Zealand about smoking and this Parliament’s view on it. I was disappointed indeed to hear that a very small number of members are not supporting this bill, but I explicitly commend John Boscawen for going against his party and following his conscience on this topic, and giving a very good and thoughtful speech.

If someone had asked me a year or two ago about my position on something like this excise tax, I may well have said that I did not support it. I would have glibly said that people are free to choose, and are free to do stupid things, if that is what they choose to do. What changed things for me was a select committee inquiry by the Māori Affairs Committee that Hone Harawira pushed for and that, as Tau Henare said, National agreed to, to its credit. We heard from hundreds of people—all sorts of people. There were academics, experts, and health personnel on the one hand, and ordinary men and women, young and old, on the other.

I will come to what they said very soon, but I think before we do that it is worth talking about the problem we have with smoking in this country. I have already said to members that it is the single biggest preventable cause of death in New Zealand. It is a major contributor—this came through clear as crystal at the Māori Affairs Committee—to health inequalities for Māori. The figures that came from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) say it all, really. According to ASH, non-Māori male life expectancy is 79 years and for Māori males it is 70.4 years—a difference of 8.6 years. Non-Māori female life expectancy is 83 years and Māori female life expectancy is 75.1 years—a difference of 7.9 years. ASH’s view, and I agree with it, is that eliminating smoking is the single most achievable way to go some way to closing the mortality gap between Māori and non-Māori.

Why is that? I forget the exact figure, but about 20, 21, or 22 percent of New Zealanders smoke, but for Māori the number is disturbingly high—42 percent of Māori men, and 49 percent of Māori women. That is also the case for Pasifika people. It is disproportionately high, although not as high as for Māori. In those figures we get a sense of the extent of the problem and of the evil of smoking. Yes, it is an evil health-wise, but we asked the experts who came to the select committee—we heard from dozens of them—what the common factor was and what the psychosocial reason behind smoking was, and they said that it was, disproportionately, the lower socio-economic factor. It is about people coming from a certain background. We are dealing with a real evil.

I have one other thing to say on the background to the problem. This bill is raising the tax on loose tobacco. That is a first step, and then it will incrementally raise taxes across the board. According to ASH, Māori smokers are most likely to smoke low-cost cigarette brands or roll-your-owns. Young Māori predominantly use roll-your-owns. Why is that? It is because of price, and we are doing something about that as a House this evening.

We know the problem; it is a serious one for this country. But what was the solution the select committee found? We heard from nearly 2,000 submitters—no, I tell a lie; some of those were form submissions. But all in all there were nearly 2,000 submissions to the select committee. I have told the House often that we heard from academics and the like, but we also heard from ordinary men and women. My recollection of the select committee process is that not a single submitter was against the excise tax going up. I tell a lie; probably implicitly British American Tobacco was, implicitly. But in essence no one was against it, and most were explicitly in favour. I remember a young Māori woman begging us to put taxes up. She had lost her father to smoking and tobacco.

I came to this issue thinking that it was not the right thing, necessarily, to put up taxes. I had my own mantra, if you like, that I tested everything by in the select committee. It was “We have to do what works”, and I wrote it down. I had a question for submitters that I put at the top of my paper every morning, and my question to submitters was: “Let’s say that you can do only one thing to curb tobacco use. What would be the single most effective measure to undertake?” Nearly all submitters said to raise the tax—raise the tax, raise the price. There were those who suggested absolute prohibition, but I agree with Iain Lees-Galloway that that is probably not realistic. But nearly all submitters said to raise the tax, and the academics were very clear that that works. In fact, again, when we asked them about the effect on lower socio-economic groups, they said that lower socio-economic groups are the most price-sensitive and the most likely to change. They said, as I think we have heard from Tariana Turia, those are the groups that can potentially benefit the most from this measure.

I think that the members of this House, almost without exception, can stand proud tonight. We are doing the right thing. Tobacco is the single biggest killer—preventable killer—of New Zealanders, and raising the tax as we are doing will be the single most effective way to reduce smoking in this country. I am proud to be speaking for this bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I will make a brief contribution to the debate, and I will start off on a line that a number of members have taken—that is, to congratulate the Minister in charge of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill, Tariana Turia. It is not a secret that we disagree on a number of things pretty strongly, but we are seeing in the House a degree of unanimity about the dangers of tobacco. I think that this Minister has pushed this Government as far as it can go on price. At this time I congratulate her on that.

I am not someone who believes in a single-faceted approach. I think we have to keep on trying different ways to reduce smoking in New Zealand. Now that we have made some progress with this approach, we have to look at other ways, as well. I hope that when we get the recommendations back from the Māori Affairs Committee, the committee will have some other suggestions that can be picked up in the House and developed.

I am going to sound a bit like an old fart, but I have to say that things have changed around here a bit. When I was first a member of Parliament—

Hon Ruth Dyson: “When I was a boy.”

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, no. When I was first a member of Parliament and invited into the Speaker’s Office, sitting there were cigarettes. There was a cigarette case, which was opened, and cigarettes were offered to people. In fact, I had quite a shock the first time I went to Government House for a function. I do not know whether functions were more regular then. I think they were and I think—I will be careful how I say this—that the Beatties at the time were rather more social than Governors-General since. But as well as people circulating with drink and food, there were people who circulated with trays of cigarettes and lighters. So I think it is fair to say that times have changed and that the acceptability of smoking is nowhere near what it was. Therefore, I think that it is easier for groups such as ours to make decisions that are relatively hard.

Members who have been monitoring their emails, looking at their Facebook pages, or whatever, will know that there is not unanimity on this issue. Certainly, some people who are smokers but not drinkers have questioned the decisions of the last couple of days and the quick dismissal of the Law Commission’s recommendation on increasing the excise duty on alcohol. They have compared that situation with the provisions of this bill. I think it is fair to say that those people have a point. I think that giving proper consideration to the other tax would have been good, as well.

But I do not want to take anything away from what the House is doing today. I think that the vast majority of us know that we are doing the right thing. I will conclude in the way that I started, by saying congratulations to Tariana Turia. She has led this House down a path that it was very important we travelled. Thank you very much.

HEKIA PARATA (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. I am very proud to be standing, if not in unanimity, as the previous speaker indicated, then in near unity and definite consensus on the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. We have heard tonight from a wide range of speakers across the House. Many have shared personal and family stories that help affirm that the decision we are making in respect of this bill tonight is correct. Many people have been very honest in sharing their personal experiences in respect of tobacco and smoking, and I think that the House is both honoured and humbled by those genuine and personal experiences.

We have also heard a raft of statistics that tells us what the collective experience has been. We have heard about what the research and evidence supports in respect of the curse and scourge that is tobacco. We know that it is the single biggest cause of preventable deaths amongst New Zealanders. It takes a very high toll in Māori and Pacific communities. One in two Māori smoke, and almost one-third of Pacific Islanders smoke. We know that those deaths are preventable, and that Māori experience a 10 percent greater mortality rate from smoking-related deaths than non-Māori. We know that Māori are three times more likely than non-Māori to die of lung cancer. In Pacific communities 8 percent of deaths in females and 19 percent of deaths in males could be avoided if smoking was eliminated.

We have heard tonight about the high economic and fiscal costs that smoking subjects our community to, but we have also touched on the high social costs it incurs. We have heard stories of families who have suffered not just in the present but through generations. So the stand we are taking tonight as a Parliament, which comes after several years of incremental progress, is a very important step towards stopping lives being lost to this curse.

As has been noted, the bill provides for incremental increases in costs. We are very conscious that there is a very high incidence of smoking in low socio-economic communities and families and that the impact will hit them hardest. We need to be as supportive as possible in recognising that smoking is an addiction. Almost all the smokers I know wish they did not smoke and that they could stop. We need to be aware that the decision we make tonight will have a significant impact but that there is a lot of support available for people. This change will help not only personal health but the health of whānau and communities, the health of our nation and society, and the health of our future.

I am particularly supportive of this bill, because I have spent a good deal of my life trying to persuade friends and whānau to stop smoking. I have spent a good deal of my life telling women whom I consider otherwise intelligent to stop smoking.

Hon Darren Hughes: Name them.

HEKIA PARATA: Mr Hughes suggests I name them, but I have so many friends and such a big whānau, and they are all so intelligent, that it would take us well into the extraordinary urgency, and we might find that unnecessary.

I am really pleased that this bill is another nail in the coffin of tobacco smoking in our society, and I wholeheartedly support it. I have sisters and brothers who still smoke. I hope they are watching this, and I hope they are committing to stopping smoking, but, more important, I have nieces and nephews who have started smoking. I want them now to consider how important it is for them to stop smoking and recognise that it is not cool and does not look glamorous.

The Hon Ruth Dyson recalled an earlier day when smoking was portrayed as being sexy and glamorous, and one need only watch the series Mad Men—the title is particularly apt—to see that that was the case. The series harks back to an earlier time when smoking was seen as something people did if they were really cool—and it was mad and we need to stop it. We need to be able to help young people to stop before they start. We need them to recognise that they cannot afford it because it is beyond their financial means, and because in terms of their long-term health it is beyond their means.

As Minister Turia indicated earlier, we have to be concerned about our whare tamariki, our ability and capacity to give birth to future healthy generations. Tobacco kills that opportunity, and it creates a very poor start for children who are carried in the womb of a mother who continues to smoke. We need to be supportive of every measure that will help people who are addicted to this terrible scourge to give up, and we know that Quitline and many other agencies are available to help them do so.

Tonight we have had many speakers talk about the costs, about the opportunities, and about what this bill provides in a further step along the path of creating a healthy New Zealand. I would like to end as every other speaker has begun. First of all, I pay tribute to Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia, who has fought this fight when it was very unpopular, as well as tonight when we are warmed by the popularity of the support. I commend her for recognising that in many ways the least of it is the fiscal cost issue, and that mostly it is about the health of our communities, about the health of our whānau, and about the health of our babies—those who have been born and those who are yet to be born. So, Minister, ngā mihi nui ki a koe, e waha nei i tēnei kaupapa [huge acknowledgments to you, who are responsible for this policy].

To the Māori Affairs Committee, to my tungāne—well, he tungāne katoa kei runga i tērā komiti [they are all brothers on that committee]— but I commend Tau Henare, who every day struggles—[Interruption] Simon Bridges is asking me to remember that there are others on the select committee. First of all, I commend Tau Henare who, every day, struggles with this particular fight. He is winning the fight because he recognises that it is important to stop smoking and to be the role model he needs to be to his children, to his mokopuna, and to his community.

I commend my tungāne Hone Harawira, who brought the tobacco inquiry to the Māori Affairs Committee, who pummelled them into agreeing to have this kaupapa, and who has gone around Aotearoa New Zealand carrying the flag on many kaupapa, but on this one in particular, ki a koe, Hone, ngā mihi nui ki a koe [to you, Hone, a huge acknowledgment to you].

To the rest of the boys on the Māori Affairs Committee—

Hone Harawira: Name them.

HEKIA PARATA:—Quinn, Davis, Bridges—to my tuakana Parekura Horomia, and to all of them, e waha nei i tēnei kaupapa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa [who are responsible for this policy, greetings to you all].

I pay tribute to the National-led Government, which has had the confidence, the strength, and the courage to support this issue alongside the Māori Party. I pay tribute to us and to this Parliament. To the members of this House who have shared their views tonight and who will give their vote to this bill, I say that I thank them all very much. We can look forward to a stronger and healthier future for all New Zealanders. I proudly commend this bill to the House. Tēna tātou katoa.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 118

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 1 (Boscawen); Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 4

ACT New Zealand 4 (Douglas, Garrett, Hide, Roy H).

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 118

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 1 (Boscawen); Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 4

ACT New Zealand 4 (Douglas, Garrett, Hide, Roy H).

Bill read a third time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): The House has made good progress on the legislation under this extraordinary urgency motion tonight. I seek leave for the House to rise early and to return for a normal day’s business tomorrow.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

The House adjourned at 9.30 p.m.