Thursday, 30 June 2016
Volume 715
Sitting date: 30 June 2016
THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016
THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 5 July the Government will look to complete first readings of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill, and the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Wednesday and Thursday will be devoted to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Mental Health Services—Funding
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What reports, if any, has he received on the impact of homelessness, inequality, and natural disasters on the mental health of New Zealanders?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I have received a range of reports on the mental health of New Zealanders. There are a wide range of complex determinants that affect an individual’s mental health and well-being. This Government has made significant investments, from strengthening the economy, warmer housing, and lifting benefits, as well as increases to the health budget, to a record $16.1 billion in 2016.
Hon Annette King: If he is aware of the impact of natural disasters on the mental health of New Zealanders, as he claimed several weeks ago, why has he underfunded mental health services in Canterbury by $22.8 million, according to information released by the district health board (DHB) dated 24 June 2016?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That member knows that the funding has increased in the Canterbury District Health Board region by $44 million in the last Budget. That member also knows that we increased the funding for mental health services in March, for the next 3 years, as part of a package of initiatives to boost current mental health services in Canterbury.
Hon Annette King: Is he aware that the additional $5.48 million per year he allocated to the Canterbury DHB and requires to be spent on top of its mental health ring-fenced expenditure leaves it with a $22.8 million shortfall, according to information released by the district health board dated 24 June 2016?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Again, I have to reiterate to that member that the Government has increased funding to the Canterbury District Health Board, it has increased mental health funding, and it is ring-fenced. But the Canterbury District Health Board, like every district health board in the country, needs to allocate that funding to the needs of those in their communities.
Hon Annette King: Has the Canterbury DHB informed him that it is going to have to take funds from other health services, such as personal health and the health of older people, to make up for the underfunding in mental health, according to the information released by the DHB dated 24 June 2016?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Again, I say to that member that the funding has increased in the Canterbury District Health Board region. There are an extra 27 fulltime-equivalent primary-care and community-based mental health workers, as well as further funding for current programmes, such as Telehealth, in the area.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act (OIA) request dated 24 June 2016 from the Canterbury District Health Board—information within which as outlined in my questions to the Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular OIA information. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Annette King: Has the increasing pressure and stress faced by many people living in the most deprived areas in New Zealand and the growing inequality in New Zealand, as outlined by Statistics New Zealand’s report yesterday, led to the 30,000 additional visits to emergency departments of hospitals around New Zealand by mental health users since 2011; if not, what is the reason?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! One of those supplementary questions.
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: There are a number of reasons why people present in emergency departments across the country. But what I can say about mental health services in this country is that there has been an increase in the demand for mental health services, which that member will acknowledge. But in terms of the access to mental health services, there are now over 22,000 adults—new mental health clients—of which 84 percent of them are seen within 3 weeks and 95 percent of them are seen within 8 weeks. So although there is an increased demand in mental health services, there has also been increased access for those who need that demand.
Hon Annette King: Is he alarmed at the recently released figures that show big rises in crisis - mental health referrals—almost 300 percent over the last 5 years—a situation that mental health professionals are now calling dangerous, and, as Professor Max Abbott said, clearly the cracks are showing?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That member knows that this Government has increased mental health spending from $1.1 billion in 2008, when that member was in Government, to over $1.4 billion in the latest Budget. That is $300 million in increased spending to meet those services that are demanded by New Zealanders.
Hon Annette King: In light of the huge increase in emergency department presentations, crisis call-outs, and referrals in mental health, why will the Government not stump up with funding to keep Lifeline Aotearoa going—a respected and long-time suicide helpline in New Zealand that is often the only service that suicidal people contact?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That member knows that after-hours telephone health services were part of this Government’s manifesto in 2011. I am advised that the successful bidder to that tender for those services—7 months on, these services are performing above expectations and the collective benefits of the Healthline integration to one provider are now being seen.
KiwiSaver—Fees
2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the September 2015 Treasury report that KiwiSaver fees are in the upper third of comparable countries in the OECD; if not, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): No, I do not agree with that statement. I understand—in fact, I have been told—that Treasury is having second thoughts about that statement as well. That is because New Zealand is ranked, in that particular report, at 10th out of 26 in the OECD—that number may be many things, but it is not a third. The good news for the member is that data is from 2011, and since then, through the appointment of default providers, the lowered fees on the medium balance account for KiwiSaver has dropped by nearly 20 percent. So in the next figures we would expect to see a better result again.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: So is the Financial Markets Authority wrong about cash cows and raking in dollars in fees a year? And does he think that it is fair that ordinary New Zealanders are paying $300 million each year in fees to private KiwiSaver providers, compared with $4.1 million towards our State-run, world-class Superannuation Fund?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I could just repeat the answer that I gave the member to the primary question, and that is that since that information has been released, the Government has gone through a process of reappointment of default providers, and that appointment of default providers in 2014 has lowered the fees on a medium KiwiSaver balance account from $69 a year to $56 a year, which is a saving of nearly 20 percent. The Government will continue to look for further opportunities to ensure that costs stay down through competition in the KiwiSaver sector.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If those dates are relevant, why is the Treasury report dated September 2015? And what action has he taken to ensure that private KiwiSaver providers with low-level returns are not ripping off the New Zealand people and treating them like cash cows, as warned by the Chief Executive of the Financial Markets Authority, Rob Everett?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The report may have come out in 2015, but it clearly states that it uses 2011 data.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just making it up as you go along.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is absolutely correct, Mr Peters. And it says that we are 10th out of 26 in the OECD, as at 2011. As I have just pointed out to the member, since that time default providers have lowered their fees through a competitive process with the Government. I appreciate his question; he has given us the opportunity to talk about the progress being made.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is it that the Financial Markets Authority’s report is dated 18 May 2016—that is this year, last month—and if this Government wants to offer New Zealanders a State-run saving scheme with minimal fees and guaranteed returns of capital, why will it not just support New Zealand First’s world-leading, low-fees KiwiFund policy?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are many things that could describe the member, but world-leading is not necessarily one of them. In terms of the KiwiSaver funding, in relation to the report that the member raised in his primary question, I have pointed out to him the issues with that report in terms of its age and the accuracy of the comment, and, again, I can tell him that the good news is that the appointment of default providers in 2014 has lowered the fees. Also, to help the member, the Government is helping to improve the knowledge of consumers to help them sort which fund to belong to, and that provides a better opportunity to make a more accurate comparison between funds. If he would like to have a look at that website, it is www.fundfinder.sorted.org.nz. It is on the internet.
David Seymour: How long have Government agencies been carrying out this conspiracy of issuing reports using data collected before the report’s issue date?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thank the member for his question, because I am quite concerned about that. It appears that all the data that is being used to produce these reports has been collected before the reports are produced, and that is possibly a significant problem in terms of the quality of the reports.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a comparison of the returns: KiwiSaver against the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and against the Australian Government Future Fund, which shows how appalling—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need the last part. I need the source of the information.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I prepared it myself.
Mr SPEAKER: I remind the member that it must be from a more than authentic source. I do not intend to put the leave.
Economic Programme—Support for Families
3. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What new Government policies to support New Zealand families will take effect from 1 July?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): A strong economy and improving public finances are allowing the Government to invest more in priority public services to ensure New Zealanders benefit from this country’s progress. A number of measures take effect from tomorrow. Thousands of New Zealanders will benefit from the extra $124 million over 4 years invested into Pharmac, which starts tomorrow. New Zealanders suffering from advanced melanoma will have access to the life-saving drug Opdivo, and people living with hepatitis C will have access to two new drugs that have a 90 percent cure rate. In addition, in the ACC area, the ACC motor vehicle levy will reduce from tomorrow to around $130 annually—that is a $200 reduction since 2014-15.
Nuk Korako: What changes to paid parental leave are coming into force from 1 July?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The maximum weekly rate for paid parental leave will increase from $516.85 to $527.72 per week. In addition, the Government has recently extended paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks and increased eligibility. Parental leave in New Zealand is now slightly more than the OECD average. More workers are now eligible for parental leave payments. Eligible parents of pre-term babies are entitled to a longer period of payments, and workers can take parental leave more flexibly if it works for them and their employer. Last year we increased the parental tax credit in Working for Families from $150 a week to $220 a week, and increased that entitlement from 8 weeks to 10 weeks.
Nuk Korako: What other policies came into effect this year to support New Zealand families, particularly those living in hardship?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Budget 2015 included a number of measures in a $790 million package of support for children living in hardship, and this came into force earlier this year. It included increased work expectations for parents on a benefit. Benefit rates for families with children rose by $25 a week after tax. This is the first time core benefit rates have increased, apart from inflation, since 1972. There is extra support for low-income working families, with the minimum family tax credit and the base rate of the in-work tax credit both increasing, and childcare assistance for low-income families has increased, reducing barriers for parents moving off welfare and into work. That package targets around 160,000 families, with 300,000 children, with incomes of less than $36,350 a year.
James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for the Minister to simply table his speech notes. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the point he is making is that the answer was relatively long, I accept that. But it is question No 3, it is the first Government question of the day, it is an issue that is important—at least to the Government—and I took that into mind as I considered the length of the answer.
Nuk Korako: How is the Government’s economic programme helping families by supporting more jobs and higher wages for New Zealanders?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Many members of the House will find this part quite important: one of the most important things we can do for vulnerable families is help parents into work. Two hundred thousand jobs were created in the last 3 years in New Zealand and a further 170,000 are expected by 2020. The average wage is expected to reach over $63,000 a year in that time. Statistics New Zealand yesterday provisionally revised the unemployment rate down to 5.2 percent, which compares exactly with 5.7 percent in Australia, and New Zealand now has the third-highest employment rate in the OECD.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I realise that many members opposite—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I have a point of order.
Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is if the Minister wants to cover 10 different matters in an answer, he should be asked 10 different supplementary questions.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. No.
Hon David Parker: And my second point is—
Mr SPEAKER: Then I will hear the second point.
Hon David Parker: —at the start of that question we had a couple of sentences where the Minister just gave irrelevancies in advance of his answer instead of answering the question, again lengthening the answer of his turgid prose.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Steven Joyce.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The subject of income distribution and wealth distribution has been discussed in this House—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and I would argue that the information contained in those questions will be of interest not just to members of the House but to New Zealanders. And I think the Government has a right, through the questions, to actually explain what it is doing to help on some of the issues of the day.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point. As I mentioned earlier, it is question No. 3, it is the first Government question of the day, and I am aware of a number of policies that come into effect on 1 July. As I mentioned yesterday, I am the sole determinant of the length of an answer. If it goes for what I consider is too long then I will curtail the answer, and that is what I did yesterday on a number of occasions. That one, I felt, was still giving information that I thought would have been important to members of this Parliament. If some members of Parliament do not find that information of relevance to them, then at least offer the courtesy of letting the others hear the answer.
Inequality, Economic and Social—Income and Wealth Distribution
4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday that “there is no evidence that inequality in New Zealand is increasing”; if so, how does he explain Statistics New Zealand’s statement this week, “between 2003 and 2010, the Survey of Family, Income and Employment found that the top 10 percent had an average 55 percent of total net worth over this time. For the year ended June 2015, the top 10 percent owned around 60 percent of total net worth.”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): Yes; Statistics New Zealand’s latest estimate is that around 50 percent of total household net worth is held by 10 percent of households, and that is the same as reported in 2003-04 in Statistics New Zealand’s Survey of Family, Income, and Employment (SoFIE). I would also add that Statistics New Zealand makes the point that comparing the two surveys should be done very carefully because they are very different.
Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that the Statistics New Zealand report released this week says, at the bottom of page 4: “the top 10 percent of individuals accounted for around 60 percent of net worth, compared with the average of around 55 percent … between 2003 and 2010.”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can confirm two things for the member: he is trying to talk about individual wealth distribution; I am talking about household net worth. That was the basis on which the Minister of Finance made his comments on the radio this morning. The member is right, but he is also right to note that household wealth distribution has not changed over that 12- or 13-year period.
Grant Robertson: It has; I just read it out.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Not households; it has not. That is individuals, Grant.
Jami-Lee Ross: What else does Statistics New Zealand say about comparing the latest data on wealth distribution, which is collected as part of the household economic survey (HES), with old data—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.
Jami-Lee Ross: —on wealth distribution, which is collected as part of the Survey of Family, Income, and Employment survey?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In the same report, Statistics New Zealand said “Methodological differences between HSS, SoFIE, and HES (Net worth), mean the three surveys are not directly comparable. Differences include questionnaire structure, subject population, and the breadth and depth of questions. We advise caution in any comparison customers make between the surveys.”, and that is possibly advice for the member opposite.
Grant Robertson: Is he saying that a report prepared by Statistics New Zealand that says, in bold on page 4, “Individual net worth is more concentrated” is statistically invalid?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not saying it; Statistics New Zealand is advising caution. I just read out what it said in the same report about comparing the two surveys. The member may not like it, but he cannot selectively quote a report and not be prepared to read the rest of it. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just wait until we get a bit of assistance.
Grant Robertson: Is the Government doing all it can to support low-income people?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is doing everything it can to assist low-income people, and on top of that it is addressing the issue of wealth distribution in the most important way in which you can do that, which is by providing more opportunities for New Zealanders to succeed, to get higher-value jobs, and to bring up their families, which is why we are focused on building skills in New Zealand, on—
Mr SPEAKER: Just bring the answer to a conclusion.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —providing new access to markets for our companies, and also on encouraging investment in New Zealand. That provides—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was answered at the start.
Grant Robertson: What was the Minister of Finance referring to in his interview on Morning Report this morning when he used the term “confiscating people’s assets” in relation to addressing inequality?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I am not privy to exactly what the context was of that particular quote.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was going to take the opportunity to raise this point of order at the end of question time today, but given that answer by the Minister, I am going to raise it now. For eight of the 12 questions that are set down today, the Ministers are not present to answer. I think we have a problem with the integrity of question time. Ministers should be prioritising their attendance at question time, and when we have eight of 12 questions unable to be answered by the Minister, we are going to get answers like that one.
Mr SPEAKER: For a long time it has been the practice in this Parliament, and I recall it when I was an Opposition member on that side, that particularly on a Thursday, Ministers may be away. I note the member refers to eight questions not being able to be addressed by the appropriate Minister. A number of those are addressed particularly to one Minister—the Minister of Finance. It is just not possible for a Government to insist that every Minister is available for every question time, and I think the convention, for as long as I have been in the House, would acknowledge that.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to give some consideration to making a Speaker’s ruling that would apply for the remainder of the Parliament, which would require the Government, by 9 o’clock on any given morning that the House is sitting, to furnish the Opposition with a list of Ministers who will be available for question time, because—[Interruption] I think this a fair point—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a—
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: No, this is a point of order that is to be heard, and it will be heard in silence.
Chris Hipkins: —because then the Opposition would be in a position to decide whether to ask a question of a Minister they knew was not going to be present, and then not be able to get an answer, or whether to ask questions of the Ministers who are going to be here.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not—
Hon Steven Joyce: Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance on it, and I do not think it would be appropriate to consider doing that via a Speaker’s ruling. The appropriate course of action for that would be to bring it forward as an alteration to the Standing Orders, and that process, the member will be aware, is about to kick off shortly, where he will have an opportunity—I think the member may well be on the committee. If there was a general consensus around Parliament to do that, then we would build that into the Standing Orders.
Grant Robertson: Given that this week, in respect of inequality, the Government has been through denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, when will he move to the fifth stage of grief—acceptance of the problem—and actually do something about inequality?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That sounded particularly autobiographical. The member is the one who has been in denial. The member is the one who has been angry. The members are the ones being grumpy. Actually, the facts of the matter say that wealth distribution of families has not changed in households, wealth distribution for households has not changed, and the Government is, in any event, moving to help families with any number of initiatives, including a number that are starting tomorrow, which the members opposite did not want to hear—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question has been answered. Is this a—[Interruption] Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just trying to get some assistance from my left.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When, under National, the top 10 percent own 60 percent of the country’s wealth and the bottom 40 percent own 3 percent of this country’s wealth, why does he not admit what abysmal, hopeless economic managers they are?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member might be wrong with his figures, but the key point is that wealth distribution in New Zealand is actually very similar to the OECD, but in terms of how you actually address that, it is about creating opportunities for New Zealanders. And that means encouraging investment, which the member hates; it means doing deals to get free-trade agreements, which the member does not like; it is encouraging New Zealanders to be connected with the world, which the member—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Now the answer is getting to be too long.
David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that 3 percent of income tax payers pay a quarter of all income tax, that 11 percent of income tax payers pay half of all income tax, and that the Government spends over $80 billion a year, $17,000 per citizen, or $85,000—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.
David Seymour: —to a family of five every single year?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address the first part of the question. It was too long.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, people who have greater income and wealth at their disposal do pay more tax, and, actually, I believe that it is only fair that they do. But, in fact, this Government, through that tax collection, provides a huge amount of support for those who need it—as we should—and, importantly, we focus on creating the opportunities for people to work and bring up their families in this country through the sorts of economic policies that encourage the growth of jobs and investment. And I know the Opposition—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —does not want to focus on that, but that is what is important.
David Seymour: Does the Minister know whether John Key still regards Working for Families as “communism by stealth”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have not taken that matter up with the Prime Minister in many years.
Housing, Rental—Legislative Changes and Compliance
5. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What estimates has he received on the number of lives that will be saved as a consequence of the new smoke alarm and insulation requirements that take effect tomorrow?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I am advised that these measures taking effect tomorrow will save a thousand lives over the next 10 years. These estimates are based on 120,000 homes having smoke alarms installed and 180,000 homes being insulated. To achieve those, we need to ensure that there is both compliance and an information campaign, and that is why in this year’s Budget there were substantial contributions to ensure that we do achieve those gains.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What steps has the Government taken to ensure improved compliance with the minimum housing standards?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new law taking effect tomorrow provides for improved enforcement. It will enable the ministry for the first time to directly prosecute landlords for properties that pose a health and safety risk. A new tenancy compliance and investigation team of 10 people has been established and begins its work tomorrow. They will be focusing on the most vulnerable tenants and landlords with multiple substandard properties. Tenants still have the right to, and should, take cases directly to the Tenancy Tribunal on substandard cases, and the new law that takes effect tomorrow strengthens their protections to ensure that there are not retaliatory eviction notices from landlords, when they do stand for those rights of properly standard buildings.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that tenants and landlords are aware of these changes, in noting they are the most significant reforms in 30 years to a tenancy law and affect over—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Budget provided for $3 million for an information campaign. I would encourage all MPs, particularly in their constituency work, to draw to the attention of both tenants and landlords their additional responsibilities and rights with the new law. The Budget also provided for $14 million for the new compliance and investigation team at the ministry. That Budget also provided $18 million for the Warm Up New Zealand insulation programme, which is providing a carrot for landlords to get support to get the insulation done, and which sits aligned, effectively, to the stick that is provided in the regulatory requirements.
Inequality, Economic—Progress
JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): My question is to the ghost Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will lead to—[Interruption] No, I am dealing with this. That will lead to disorder. Would the member ask question No. 6 without that embellishment.
6. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement on Radio NZ this morning that “those people deserve as much support as we can give them”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): On behalf of the Minister of Finance, whom I have acted on behalf of—I do not know—several hundred times in the last 8 years—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! And we will have the answer, please.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes. This year alone taxpayers will provide $10.4 billion of welfare support to vulnerable New Zealanders, and that excludes superannuation. So that is $10.4 billion of welfare support. For example, this is the first Government in over 40 years to increase benefits for families with children, by $25 a week—that is the first Government in over 40 years. It is increasing Working for Families to very low-income working families by over $24 a week, and to other families by up to $12.50 a week. It is increasing childcare assistance for low-income working families, providing free GP visits and prescriptions for under-13s, providing breakfasts in schools to all schools that want it, putting social workers in place in low-decile primary schools, insulating over 300,000—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to have to curtail the answer. The question simply asked whether the member stood by a statement he made, and that was answered almost immediately.
James Shaw: How many families does the Government project will be lifted out of poverty by the recent $25 benefit increase, and by when?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not believe that that particular figure has been calculated, and, in any event, the important ways of lifting the income wealth of families is actually by having a growing economy that delivers more jobs for families. That is the bit that makes the real difference. This helps it in the short term, but in the medium to longer term it is providing them with work opportunities and the opportunities to succeed with their families and to provide their incomes for their families. That is the bit that actually lifts the income distribution of New Zealanders.
James Shaw: Why does the Minister still believe that job growth will solve poverty when so many of the people who are living in cars and garages already have jobs?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because jobs and higher incomes—growing wages—are very, very important to growing the opportunities for families to succeed. The member can say that the level of wages is not important or the level of job opportunities is not important, but I think most New Zealanders would realise that is exactly what is important.
James Shaw: By what percentage have incomes for the bottom 10 percent of income earners risen or fallen relative to household costs, over the last 10 years?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a very detailed question, and I would invite the member to put it down in writing and he will get an accurate answer for his supplementary question. But can I tell the member that, actually, under this Government the number of people dependent on their benefit for an income has reduced, and the number of people whose children are dependent on a benefit income has significantly reduced. That is because more than 200,000 new jobs have been created in the last 3 years, which provide people with the opportunity to succeed.
James Shaw: Does the Government think that all of the 80,000 kids who go to school hungry every day should depend on Lorde for their lunch?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No—and in actual fact most New Zealand children go to school with lunches able to be supplied by their families. In terms of the support that the New Zealand Government supplies, we work with providers to ensure that there is breakfast in schools available and that children have a meal with those schools that need to have that extra support. But importantly, we are increasing the benefits for families with children. We are keeping the cost of living under control, inflation is currently around about 0 percent, food prices have been dropping, and fuel prices have been dropping. All those things help make the important things in life that the member refers to more affordable for families.
Homelessness—Government Measures to Address
7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she stand by her statement on Radio NZ, on why she decided to fund emergency housing places in the latest Budget, that “I just knew that it was worse than it had been and I couldn’t see it getting better in a hurry”; if so, how did she know it was worse than it had been?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Yes, I do stand by that statement. I knew because I regularly engage with emergency providers and understand the pressures that they are under. I knew because I commissioned a review last year that told me that there were people in need, and who were struggling to find houses in Auckland. I knew because I live in Auckland and I understand the pressures that the housing market is under. That is why I addressed it, with $2.5 million going in last year and another $41 million going into emergency housing this year.
Phil Twyford: Why did she advise the Prime Minister to say that homeless people should just go to Work and Income New Zealand, when it is taking her 155 days on average to house the homeless?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, because the figure of 155 days is not accurate.
Hon Annette King: Table it.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is fine.
Phil Twyford: Can she confirm that even if the first 7 days are covered by Work and Income New Zealand, 155 days in a motel will rack up debts of between $25,000 and $35,000 per family, and who is going to pay for that?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: On average, it is for 7 days that people have been requiring those special-needs grants; in exceptional circumstances it will go longer. I am thrilled to announce that that will be starting tomorrow.
Phil Twyford: Given that she says “We’ve got more people in need than I have got houses to put them in right now”, does she accept that it would not be such a big problem if her Government had not sold down the stock of State houses by nearly 3,000 since 2011?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Since the 1990s there had already been a 25 percent increase in State houses in the Auckland market. We have a pipeline that is bringing—[Interruption]. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I cannot even hear myself. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have a pipeline of houses that are coming through of more than 1,000 social houses in the Auckland market. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point in trying to answer the question. Order! Can I just ask that if we are going to have another supplementary question from Mr Twyford, can his colleagues please allow Mr Twyford and myself to hear the answer?
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Disorder will be caused in the House when Mr Twyford asks a question, albeit one with some politics in it, with a specific number—about the number of State houses that have been sold off by this Government—and when the answer given by the Minister referred to what had happened to State housing since the 1990s. That is what caused the disorder—it was the answer that the Minister gave.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, it will not cause disorder, and if I need to deal with it by asking members to leave—that was a satisfactory answer that addressed the question. I admit it was not the answer that Mr Twyford wanted. Can I just warn Mr Robertson that if that is the cause of the disorder then I will deal with it by asking members whom I consider to be disorderly to be leaving question time.
Phil Twyford: When children as young as 11 are living under bushes in South Auckland, is her $41 million over 4 years for emergency housing enough, when she herself admits that it will largely fund only existing services?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is why we actually have the highest number of building consents that we have seen in many years. That is why we are seeing an increase in the number of social houses, particularly in Auckland, that are coming through, including the 18 that I went to see just earlier this week, where we had knocked down five houses to actually then rebuild another 18 homes. That is making a huge difference for those New Zealanders who need it. There are literally thousands of new houses that are in—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now getting back to where we were. If we cannot hear the answers, there is little point in Mr Twyford continuing with his line of questioning. I will invite the member to ask his supplementary question, but if I do not get cooperation from the left-hand side throughout the answer, I am just going to move to the next question.
Phil Twyford: Does she think that homelessness might be getting worse because instead of focusing on fixing the problem she spends her time pretending that flying squads have talked to people who did not need help and having her office smear the people who are actually giving help, like Te Puea Marae?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have a lot of respect for Te Puea Marae and what it is doing there, and always have. I actually think that between the Government, community, and councils what we are doing is making a difference. Yes, there is a lot that is happening. There is a lot in the pipeline—[Interruption] There is just no point, Mr Speaker.
Accident Compensation Corporation—Levies
8. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for ACC: What reports has she received regarding reductions to ACC levies?
Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): I am advised that from tomorrow about 3.4 million motor vehicle owners will benefit this coming year from significant levy cuts. The average ACC motor vehicle levy will reduce again, from around $195 to around $130. The 33 percent reduction means levies are now at historically low levels. I can also confirm that the annual ACC licence fee component for every single petrol car will be less than $100. The Government has also reduced the motorcycle safety levy from $30 to $25. Since 2014 this Government has saved New Zealanders an average of $200 from their ACC motor vehicle levy. That is more money in the pockets of hard-working Kiwis. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now getting too much noise from the New Zealand First quarter.
Jonathan Young: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What reports has she seen regarding the impact of other ACC levy reductions?
Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am advised that an estimated 400,000 businesses have started benefiting from the over $171 million in levy reductions this year. I am also advised that approximately 2.1 million Kiwi earners during this levy year have received and will continue to receive a reduction in their levies. Approximately 300,000 self-employed New Zealanders will also see a levy reduction in their invoices this year. I am also pleased to advise the House that the feedback that I have received from these levy cuts has been hugely positive. In my view, the recent improvements in public confidence in ACC are in part because of the more than $2.1 billion worth of levy cuts under this Government.
Jonathan Young: Why are these reductions possible?
Hon NIKKI KAYE: These reductions are possible because of good financial management and a good National Government. I am advised that assets and investments in ACC have grown from $10 billion in 2009 to $35 billion this month. Under the levy reforms announced last year, we were able to better demonstrate to New Zealanders that we are collecting just enough to be able to support injured people for their lifetime and withstand economic shocks that occur.
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Confidence
9. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the Capital and Coast District Health Board?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes.
Kevin Hague: How does the district health board (DHB) retain his confidence when a recent Crimes of Torture Act report found the treatment of Ashley Peacock to be “cruel, inhuman [and] degrading” and recommended urgent action for the third time, something that has still not occurred?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I seek leave to table the Ombudsman’s report, the Crimes of Torture Act report, which includes appendix 5—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. No, no. It will be easily available if members want it. I suspect it may well have already been presented in report. Would the member please address the question.
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: There has been an addition to the report that the member may not be aware of.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then the member can get it. It will be publicly available on the Ombudsman’s website. Would the Minister answer the question.
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The report has an appendix 5, which states quite clearly that the client “has some of the highest and most complex needs of any client that we have managed in our mental health services.” I repeat: the DHB is working with the Ministry of Health to find a resolution for this person. In terms of seclusion, which that member has constantly referred to, I repeat that “In 2014 the client in question had 68.25 hours in seclusion”, and in 2015 that was 360 hours.
Kevin Hague: Does the Minister take ministerial responsibility for the performance of the Capital and Coast District Health Board in the care of Sam Fischer, who killed himself while in the DHB’s care?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Certainly my thoughts and sympathies go to the family of Mr Fischer. That member will know that the district health board has commissioned an external panel of experts to do a review of some of the incidents within the district health board. The ministry has consulted on the terms of reference of that review, and the report is expected within the next few weeks.
Kevin Hague: Does he take ministerial responsibility for the action of DHB chief executive Debbie Chin, who emailed more than 3,000 DHB staff, after Sam Fischer killed himself, including detailed personal information that breached the confidentiality of both Sam and his mother?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I have not seen the contents of that email, so I cannot make any comment as to its veracity or what was in the email.
Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the Associate Minister is in a tricky position answering questions—
Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Kevin Hague: The point of order is that both this supplementary question and the previous one commenced with asking whether or not the Minister took ministerial responsibility. In neither case has he addressed that point.
Mr SPEAKER: I considered both of those questions very carefully. I acknowledge they are difficult issues and difficult questions. On this occasion I think the Minister addressed both those questions to my satisfaction. [Interruption] Order! If I hear one more interjection today from the Hon Ruth Dyson, I will be asking her to leave the Chamber. It has been constant throughout question time—once more and that will be it.
Kevin Hague: How can the Minister retain confidence in Capital and Coast DHB, when the latest figures show that 40 percent of children and young people needing mental health services were unable to get an appointment within 3 weeks, and 80 did not even get seen within 8 weeks?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That member knows that the funding for mental health services has gone up by over $300 million across New Zealand, and that there is a ring-fencing of funding that goes to the district health board in order for the district health board to meet the mental health needs of that community.
Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That answer did not address the question—
Mr SPEAKER: I am afraid I think it did. The question asked how the Minister can retain confidence in the particular district health board. It gives the Minister a very wide ambit in answering the question. The member might not agree with it; I might not agree with it. I am not responsible for the answer, but the question was certainly addressed.
Kevin Hague: With five major independent reports on mental health failings in the last year, ongoing issues with seclusion, ombudsmen reports, privacy complaints, unreasonably long waiting times for young people, and the largest number of suicides on record, what possible excuse can the Minister now have for still blocking a nationwide urgent inquiry into mental health services?
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: There are issues, certainly, within the Capital and Coast District Health Board. There are reviews that are going on. There are expectations set out for that district health board to report on its performance, particularly in the area of mental health services, but that should not result in a nationwide inquiry into mental health services.
Schools, Private—Funding and Fees
10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does the Government monitor or place any restrictions on the fees charged by private schools; if not, why not?
Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: No; because it is a choice made by parents. No parent is compelled to send their child to an independent school. I am proud to be part of a Government that backs the diverse range of choices in education for New Zealand parents.
Chris Hipkins: Does she think that private schooling is a realistic option for the parents of kids who are most at risk of not achieving in the school system, when some are charging over $20,000 a year in tuition fees; if so, why?
Hon NIKKI KAYE: I can confirm that the Government does also provide a component around the Aspire Scholarship, which is specifically focused on disadvantaged students.
Chris Hipkins: What proportion of kids attending private schools meet the Government’s criteria indicating that they are most at risk of not achieving in the school system?
Hon NIKKI KAYE: As I have said previously, there is a consultation out currently around the funding review. Some of those issues are being worked through. I know there are a range of independent papers that are actually on the internet that the member can look at.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I will just invite the member to repeat the question.
Chris Hipkins: What proportion of kids attending private schools meet the Government’s criteria indicating that they are most at risk of not achieving in the school system?
Hon NIKKI KAYE: I will answer the question a different way. The whole purpose of the funding review is to work through a range of those issues. I cannot answer that question, in part because there are 26,900 students, and some of those considerations are being worked through as part of the funding review.
Chris Hipkins: Does she propose to place any restrictions on the fees that private schools can charge, in exchange for any additional funding they receive as a result of the new funding model?
Hon NIKKI KAYE: As per my previous answer, I can tell you what happens now, but the whole purpose of the funding review—in which there are a range of representatives from the sector—is to discuss a range of issues. All I can say to you is that at the moment we do not place restrictions and we do not monitor, and that is because we do value the choice of parents. But I do not want to get ahead of a process whereby a whole lot of stakeholders are being involved in this funding review.
Chris Hipkins: If she does not know how much parents are currently paying, does not know how much funding private schools currently get, and does not know how many kids at private schools are at risk of not achieving, why is she proposing to give them more money?
Hon NIKKI KAYE: I disagree with a number of assumptions that the member made in that question. Firstly, we do know how much we provide independent schools—that is about $45 million per year. As I said in my previous answers, we have said, on average, we see that as about $1,700 per student. So the member is wrong in terms of his question.
M—Whānau Ora’s Outcomes and Other Policies
āori Development
11. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: What evidence, if any, does he have that Whānau Ora is making any meaningful impact for Māori whatsoever other than anecdotal evidence and conversations he has had?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Whānau Ora): Actually, it is good to go and meet with the people who are actually benefiting from Whānau Ora, but I can advise the House that the evidence comes from at least 10 publicly available reports that all speak of the benefits and the outcomes achieved by the Whānau Ora approach. In phase one of Whānau Ora at least 9,400 whānau received whānau-centred services until June 2014. Since Whānau Ora commissioning agencies have been established, Whānau Ora commissioning agencies reporting on engagement and achievement as at March 2016 show that over 8,500 whānau have been supported through Whānau Ora in all sorts of ways, such as health outcomes, financial literacy, education, and economic security. There is plenty out there. I would table it, but I know that is against the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has become clear that there is a misunderstanding of the Standing Orders. The Minister can, of course, table any paper that he wants, at any stage—he is a Minister. Even if it is a public document, any Minister can table it. In fact, many of the documents Ministers do table are public. They do not require the consent of the House the way other members do.
Mr SPEAKER: And if the member seeks the leave, I have a discretion.
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have got a list of 12 of those reports. I am happy to read all of them out in order to achieve—
Mr SPEAKER: No. No, I want the point of order.
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The point of order is: I wish to table these documents.
Mr SPEAKER: Are they publicly available?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: They are publicly available.
Mr SPEAKER: Then I am not going to put that leave.
Darroch Ball: Why has he not commissioned or released one single independent report or economic analysis on Whānau Ora since July 2014, instead of relying upon anecdotal evidence to measure progress and outputs?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will start by saying that a number of reports have been commissioned and are available publicly. Let us start with the Productivity Commission. I will quote the Productivity Commission, which said in its report: “The Commission finds that Whānau Ora shows much promise to tackle long-standing issues for improving Māori wellbeing. Its kaupapa Māori approach is especially important to Māori wellbeing. It has many of the characteristics required for a devolved model to promote integrated services for families with multiple, complex needs and aspirations.” I have got another one—Office of the Auditor-General. I have got Ministry of Health—I have got them all.
Joanne Hayes: What announcements has the Minister made recently to support the economic outcomes for Māori?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I have more good news. Whānau Ora is committed to empowering whānau to achieve—one of its goals is better economic outcomes. Today, along with my colleague the Hon Peter Goldsmith, I was pleased to announce the allocation of $900,000—
Hon Members: Ha, ha! Paul!
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Sorry, Paul.
Mr SPEAKER: Carry on, quickly.
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I offer my apologies to my colleague Paul Goldsmith.
Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. [Interruption] That is not a point of order. Now quickly bring the answer to a conclusion.
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am just pleased to announce $900,000 to improve the financial capability—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: —amongst Māori. It is more than you have got, Mr Peters, for Māori communities—$900,000 more.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order on two grounds: first of all, he cannot bring you into the debate; the second thing is I got $239 million—not like he got.
Mr SPEAKER: I am not interested in the second part of the—[Interruption] Order! I am not interested in the second part of the point of order, and for the first part I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 31/3. If I am brought into the debate—and often it is accidental—I will intervene if I need to. It is my determination, not the Rt Hon Winston Peters’.
Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table a document that has been obtained through the Official Information Act and is dated 13 August 2015. The source is Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK), and it states there are no independent reports or economic analysis commissioned by TPK.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Darroch Ball: What evidence has he presented to the Minister of Finance for Whānau Ora funding when the Government’s social investment approach demands measurable data and measurable outcomes before continuing to spend taxpayers’ money?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The Minister of Finance is available on the Whānau Ora Partnership Group and receives all of the reports from commissioning agencies on a quarterly basis. He receives those reports. Secondly, all of the reports from commissioning agencies are available online on the website and are public documents. Anyone can read them and there is plenty of evidence out there.
Joanne Hayes: How does the announcement support the Government’s national strategy on financial capability?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Last year the Government signalled that improving the financial well-being of all New Zealanders was a priority. The upscaling of these pioneering Māori pilot programmes reinforces our ongoing commitment to this goal. We know that the Government needs to provide three things in order to steer people away from getting trapped in the cycle of debt and poor financial decisions. The three things are effective legislation, proper enforcement, and improved education. This will certainly contribute to that.
Darroch Ball: When is he going to realise that Whānau Ora is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money while it is not working for ordinary Māori when, for example, the number of homeless Māori in Auckland has increased by 10 percent this year alone, more than half of all homeless—
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, next week is Māori Language Week. My ears are little bit sore with “Maari”—I would ask the member to pronounce it properly as Māori.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is starting to trifle with the Chamber. The question is a provocative question, it is likely to get a provocative answer, but it has been asked.
Darroch Ball: I have not finished my question.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member better hurry up and finish it. To be fair to the member, I invite him to start the question again as he has now lost his continuity.
Darroch Ball: When is he going to realise that Whānau Ora is a complete waste of taxpayer money while it is not working for ordinary Māori when, for example, the number of homeless Māori in Auckland has increased by 10 percent in this year alone, more than half of all homeless in Wellington are Māori, and 40 percent of those of all those on social housing waiting lists are Māori—
Mr SPEAKER: The question is too long.
Darroch Ball: —and Māori youth—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will help the member. On reflection, I have a quote from a chief executive officer of at least one Whānau Ora provider from Northland, who told the media in 2015: “Whānau Ora has made a substantive and positive difference to the way we are able to work with”—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister was asked “when is he”. It was not asked whether he could go somewhere else and seek refuge. It asked him for a personal answer, and he is not giving it.
Mr SPEAKER: The question, effectively, was “When is the Minister going to realise it is a complete waste of money?”. That gives a very wide ambit for the Minister to then answer the question. Members may not like the answer they are getting; I suggest they reconsider the type of questions they ask. The Hon Te Ururoa Flavell—bring the answer to a conclusion.
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Firstly, I say again I reject that allegation in the first instance. Secondly, I say again—
Darroch Ball: Where’s the evidence?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will give you the evidence right now—from somebody involved in Whānau Ora. It is the chief executive officer of Whānau Ora, and they said: “Whānau Ora has made a substantive and positive difference to the way we are able to work with and align services to meet the needs of the people,” That person was Lynette Stewart, the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ sister.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting until I can hear it in silence because I am sure it is going to be interesting.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Every family has a member who loses their way.
Mr SPEAKER: And some families have more than others.
Joanne Hayes: What further reports has he had in relation to Whānau Ora’s success in Northland?
Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I have pretty much given the evidence. As the honourable member just said, there is evidence around, and the evidence is the statement I just gave to the House—that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ sister was a chief executive officer of a provider of Whānau Ora.
Tourism—Growth in Shoulder Season Tourists
12. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he received about increasing numbers of tourists visiting New Zealand in the shoulder seasons?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Tourism) on behalf of the Minister of Tourism: Recent figures show a nearly 20 percent increase in the number of tourists visiting in autumn 2016 compared with the same time last year. Our spring and autumn shoulder seasons are growing faster than our peak summer season. Budget 2016, of course, also included $12 million to help some of our smaller regions pay for new tourism infrastructure.
Maureen Pugh: Which markets are the increasing numbers of tourists coming from?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: An increasing number of visitors from our key markets, such as China, the United States, and Australia, are choosing to visit New Zealand at different times of the year rather than just in summer. In May this year visitor arrivals from China were up 27.4 percent, and arrivals from the US were up 10.5 percent.
Maureen Pugh: What has the Government been doing to increase shoulder season tourists?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Tourism New Zealand has put a huge amount of effort into attracting tourists who want to visit outside the summer season, and its work is really paying off. It has been targeting interest groups such as skiers, cyclists, and golfers, who can enjoy New Zealand at different times of the year. Also, the extra $8 million that was included in Budget 2016 is extra funding for Tourism New Zealand to particularly target those from the Indian and also the US markets, who, of course, do travel outside of our summer season.
Appointments
Ombudsman
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That, pursuant to sections 3 and 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, this House recommend to the Governor-General that Leo Michael Donnelly be appointed as an Ombudsman for a term of 1 year, commencing on 1 August 2016. Today I rise to move a motion that recommends the appointment of Leo Michael Donnelly as an Ombudsman for a term of 1 year, commencing on 1 August 2016. Mr Donnelly has held the position of Deputy Ombudsman since its establishment in September 2004 and therefore has significant experience in the role and familiarity with the services of the Office of the Ombudsmen that the Ombudsman provides. Mr Donnelly joined the Office of the Ombudsmen in 1985 as an investigating officer and has held various positions since then. In his role as Deputy Ombudsman, Investigations and Inspections, Mr Donnelly has assisted the New Zealand Ombudsmen in carrying out their statutory investigation and review functions. I would like to recognise Mr Donnelly’s substantial contribution to the Office of the Ombudsmen for more than 30 years.
The Office of the Ombudsmen is an organisation that is able to conduct, free of charge, examinations into all manner of requests from the public that relate to the activities of governance in this country. The organisation, therefore, has to have people of the highest standard and highest integrity working within its office.
Section 8(1) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 provides for the Governor-General to appoint a temporary Ombudsman “… at any time during the illness or absence of any Ombudsman, or for any other temporary purpose whatsoever,…” if the Chief Ombudsman considers such an appointment necessary. The Officers of Parliament Committee considered the Chief Ombudsman’s proposal and unanimously supported the considered appointment of Mr Donnelly as a temporary Ombudsman for 12 months. I wish Mr Donnelly all the best for his term as Ombudsman.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to just speak briefly in support of the appointment motion to say that, in my opinion, the Officers of Parliament Committee has worked well on this appointment and on other appointments. It is a committee that is very well chaired and the chair is excellent at building consensus around the group.
This proposal is one of the Chief Ombudsman’s and I think it is worth placing on record the fact that a new approach was indicated. Without going into details of what the applicant said, in the Chief Ombudsman’s application during the interviews we had a course of action set out to us. This is being actioned now. There is a very definite indication from the Chief Ombudsman that he wants to get into the backlog, and he is using a pile of technology that has been available since the 1980s but not used within the office before now, in order to speed up processes—things like electronic files and even sending things to Ministers and complainants by email, something that was not the previous practice—so there is a very real attempt to shorten time frames and to reduce the backlog.
The use of Mr Donnelly, whose adjudication skills on these matters are well renowned—this is an area of his expertise, and if he can focus on that and on the backlog I am sure we will make some progress. It will not necessarily be comfortable for the Government while that occurs, but I think the thing that we know about Mr Donnelly is that it does not matter who is in Government, he does not mind making people’s lives uncomfortable.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party is pleased to be able to give its support to the Government motion appointing Leo Donnelly as Ombudsman, and we give our thanks and gratitude to departing Ombudsman Ron Paterson as well. We wish to commend Mr Donnelly for his long service in the office and to congratulate him on the new appointment.
The role of the Ombudsman is a crucial one in ensuring that our democracy functions appropriately and that the public can have confidence in the honest workings of the executive and the Public Service. One of the crucial roles of the Ombudsman is oversight of the Official Information Act (OIA) and, as my colleagues and I have noted many times, we remain concerned about the potential impact of underfunding on the Ombudsmen’s ability to cope with the portfolio of work. We have observed a growing and, indeed, quite concerning trend in which the executive and a number of Government departments are failing to comply with OIA requests, undermining the crucial function of that Act. It is of vital importance that the Ombudsmen’s office receives adequate resources to carry out its watchdog role, and we encourage the Chief Ombudsman to consider what steps could be taken to ensure that their office is properly supported. The creep of non-accountability is something that should concern every party. We wish Mr Donnelly well in his efforts to hold those in power to account for their actions.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to join, on behalf of the ACT Party, with other members who are commending Mr Donnelly’s appointment in supporting this motion. A free society requires an open Government, which, in turn, requires an honest broker sometimes to adjudicate between the competing prerogatives of an efficient operation of Government—between the public interest and the privacy of the many people who interact with Government. I would like to offer our warm wishes to Mr Donnelly as he embarks on this year doing this all-important job that we know he is very well-qualified to do. Thank you.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First wishes to congratulate Leo Donnelly on his temporary appointment as an Ombudsman for 1 year, given the early departure of Professor Ron Paterson.
This party supports the Office of the Ombudsmen as a bulwark against big government, and none are bigger than this National Government, which is increasingly secretive and devious. With 10 outstanding complaints still with the Ombudsmen—one dating back to May 2014—there are several examples showing how a casual corruption is creeping in under this Government. Since the arrival of the Hon Judith Collins, the statutory duty of the police to answer Official Information Act requests, which end up going to the Ombudsmen, has seriously been ignored. When the police do not uphold the law, that is a concern. When that corresponds with a certain Minister’s appointment, it is a cause for serious alarm. This creeps into how questions of officialdom are being answered, or, rather, not answered.
Take Capital and Coast District Health Board. A very senior manager has told staff to give any number in an answer, from a mistaken belief that they do not have to provide information because no one would be any the wiser—I repeat, they do not provide information because no one will be any the wiser. We have a witness to the Ministry of Social Development staffers openly belittling the Official Information Act and the Social Services Committee in this Parliament. These attitudes do not come from the bottom up. They come from the top down. That is why the Ombudsmen need more resources to tackle some in officialdom who view the public and this Parliament with contempt—the same contempt that saw the UK Brexit referendum showing that the public in Western society is no longer prepared to take that any more.
Take the appointment of JacksonStone and Partners to recruit the new Controller and Auditor-General, which could, in circumstances, be questioning through the Ombudsman. We would like to ask why, but we cannot because that is beyond the purview of the Ombudsman. JacksonStone and Partners stand to make $99,000 in commission for this one appointment, assuming that it is charging at the low end of its 18 to 23 percent commission scale, since the State Services Commission says that that role had a salary of $550,000 in 2014. We would rather see Parliamentary Service do some of these recruitments, with the $99,000 commission put towards bolstering the Office of the Ombudsmen or keeping the gallery and Chamber team, who have been serving this place for a long time and whom some of us as MPs, on this side of the House anyway, seriously appreciate. We do not want them to lose their jobs while we have a whole lot of people gorging themselves on the taxpayers’ funds. We have tried to get questions answered on how much these recruitment consultants make, and we have been denied, but the sunlight of transparency will win out.
New Zealand First is sick of troughers, plutocrats, and highly paid consultants creaming it. Millions and millions and millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars—we cannot get to the bottom of it. We cannot find out how much they are being paid. They are creaming it, while the quality and standards of the Public Service continue to slide. Our message to the Public Service out there is that at least one party is on your side, and you know who it is: New Zealand First.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Health (Protection) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 9 June.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge my fellow members of the Health Committee, who tussled our way through this bill. On most aspects of the bill, we were in agreement. A number of measures were discussed; in fact, generally, three areas of measures to further protect the public from risks associated with the spread of infectious diseases of concern to the public health system and with artificial UV tanning. You might well wonder what those things have got in common, but they were put together in the bill.
With regard to protecting the public from the risks associated with infectious diseases, the bill amends the Health Act of 1956. What it does is it improves the tracing of people who may have an infectious disease or have been exposed to one. Why is that important? Because with a number of highly contagious infectious diseases that enter into our population, such as measles, it is very important that health officials, where necessary, have the ability to trace those people who have been infected and those people with whom they have had contact or been exposed to. The bill increases the range of infectious diseases that are notifiable and provides options for the management of individuals with significant infectious diseases whose behaviour puts other people at risk of contracting a disease. Not all people who have been exposed to a disease wish perhaps to have that notified, so there is discretion now. There is the ability to show some pragmatic discretion to maintain people’s sense of privacy and safety but also to make sure that any highly infectious disease they may have been exposed to is not going to be further transmitted through the population.
Finally, just a few words on artificial UV tanning. The Government settled on, and it is proposed in this bill, the age restriction of 18 years and over for people to be able to use UV tanning. Some members of the select committee and other parties wanted to go for a blanket ban. Not so for our Government, and I, in the readings in this Parliament, have cited each time the fact that there are a number of people who use UV tanning salons, or UV tanning beds, to help treat diseases like psoriasis, and they get a benefit. Those people get a benefit out of that type of UV tanning use. We also believe that people should be able to make an informed choice about whether, when they are over the age of 18, they choose to use a sunbed or a tanning device. With that said—and I know I will find disagreement around the House over that one caution only—this is a good bill. It does provide protection for the New Zealand population. I commend it to the House
KEVIN HAGUE (Green): To refresh my memory of what this bill is about—it seems to have taken a very, very long time to come back. Interestingly, the first part of the bill, which deals with the powers of medical officers of health and modernises that regime, actually drew those sections largely from the Public Health Bill. When I was refreshing my memory about this bill, I noted that in my first reading speech I spoke about the fact that the Public Health Bill was reported back to the House on 26 June 2008, and at the time of the first reading of this bill, the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill, the Public Health Bill stood at No. 34 on the Order Paper—in other words, towards the lower end of the Government’s priorities. Modernising public health legislation was not a priority; and if it was not a priority then, it is even less of a priority now, because the bill has now entirely disappeared from the Order Paper. So the other changes that were intended with the Public Health Bill are now, presumably, lost to this Parliament, at least until there is a change of Government.
Jacqui Dean, in her contribution just now, put her finger on something that has always puzzled me, which is: how did it come to be that these powers of medical officers of health in relation to communicable diseases were placed in the same bill that actually dealt with the regulatory regime that should apply to sunbeds? These two matters actually relate to quite different types of control, and if one were to be regulating sunbeds, there are some other matters that could also be regulated at the same time if one took an objective perspective on controlling some of the risks of non-communicable disease to New Zealanders. One thinks, particularly, of the food environment, for example.
So I have had a very interesting personal experience in my work career that related to the issue of the powers of medical officers of health. When I was the chief executive of the New Zealand Aids Foundation, I had to deal with a couple of situations where we had become aware of a person who had HIV engaging in multiple and frequent behaviours that posed a risk of transmitting that HIV to other people; and no amount of conversation with these two people seemed able to change their behaviour in any way. So, on that occasion, I sought advice from the Ministry of Health, and asked: “What are the measures that the ministry could recommend to me that I could take that would reduce the risk of transmission to other people?”. The ministry took a while to provide some advice, and the advice that it provided in the end was fairly equivocal, but what it amounted to was that there is one power in law that medical officers of health have had since the Health Act, which is one of those very longstanding pieces of legislation. They have pretty sweeping powers that aim to detain people indefinitely, with very little in the way of checks and balances on their human rights, and that is about it—you know, that was the power that was available under New Zealand law.
Since that time, I have been a very strong advocate for modernising that provision, because although that provision might be necessary in the most extreme case, there are many less extreme cases in which some degree of exercise of power by the medical officer of health would seem to be appropriate and necessary, without going to that length and while retaining greater recognition of the human rights and, indeed, civil rights of the individual whose liberty or freedom is in some way being constrained. I had some significant involvement in the drafting of the clauses that appeared in the Public Health Bill, and so it was with some sadness that I saw that bill languishing—and it is with some relief, more than pleasure, that I see this bill finally moving through its third reading and becoming law today.
I want to say a little bit about sunbeds, because the decision made by the Government to retain sunbeds and restrict them just on the basis of age really flies in the face of the evidence that the Health Committee heard, and it is contradictory to conclusions that other Governments have made when faced with the same evidence. The select committee heard some extremely powerful evidence, particularly from Consumer New Zealand. Consumer New Zealand referred to the mystery shopper surveys that it had undertaken with providers of these solaria services. What it was particularly looking for was the extent to which the regulation and the guidance that the Ministry of Health had provided for the industry were actually being relayed to customers of the industry. And the answer was: hardly at all. This was not just a one-off intervention on the part of Consumer New Zealand; in fact, it has held a number of mystery shopper surveys of the industry, and I guess the Government’s position might be supportable if those surveys had showed some kind of progress—perhaps not complete implementation of the regulation by the ministry, and perhaps not perfect education of clients using those services, but at least improving it. It does not.
Despite the best efforts, presumably, of the Ministry of Health, the industry is still not complying with regulation. It is still not providing information to the clients of those services that would enable them to make an informed decision—as Jacqui Dean has just spoken about—about whether or not to use a service that actually poses to them a significant risk of skin cancer. So, in a situation where consumers of a service cannot, in fact, make that judgment for themselves—they simply do not have the information—and the industry refuses to meet its obligation to provide that information, how should a Government respond? Sunbeds offer—in almost all cases, apart from a very small number of medical uses—no actual benefit to their users, and they pose a very substantial risk that the industry is not willing to mitigate. That is a case of market failure. That is a case where a responsible Government would step in to protect its citizens, and this Government should have done that.
RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the third reading of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to amend the Health Act 1956 around infectious diseases, and it will repeal the Tuberculosis Act 1948. New Zealand First supports these provisions of the bill.
However, the provisions to continue to support artificial UV tanning services is where New Zealand First must draw the line. There is nothing more important than the protection of New Zealanders’ health, and there are provisions within this bill that aim to do just that. I have been rather fortunate to sit on the Health Committee on a few occasions, and I can tell you, firsthand, of the hard-working individuals who comprise the select committee. As my colleague Barbara Stewart has said and pointed out, it is a brilliant committee and it works hard to improve the health of all New Zealanders, working constructively towards meeting those needs.
We know that the bill has three main aims pertaining to infectious diseases. Firstly, it is to increase the number of diseases that are notifiable, which will result in improved monitoring. There are incremental options to manage individuals with certain infectious diseases who are at risk of infecting others. And there is improved contact tracing to inform and provide treatment if necessary to those who have, or who may have, been exposed to an infectious disease. New Zealand First supports these aims of this bill.
We are pleased that sexually transmitted infections are being treated more seriously. The infection chlamydia has been added to the list of notifiable diseases, which we view as essential, given it is the most common sexually transmitted disease in New Zealand. Often there are no symptoms or signs of chlamydia, so it is important that sexual partners are contacted so they can receive treatment in a timely manner. We know that if chlamydia is left untreated, it can cause permanent damage, including infertility. New Zealand First supports the Ministry of Health in its continuing effort to improve the communication of these risks to young people and the importance of seeking treatment.
We remain of the opinion that provisions within this bill must be proportionate to the level of the risk to the general public. That said, the provisions pertaining to artificial tanning services are disappointing. The lack of a total ban falls short of what is actually required. New Zealand First knows that this Government is gutless and is running scared at the thought of the outright banning of artificial UV tanning services. Minister Coleman himself knows that fewer New Zealanders are using sunbeds. It is not just the Opposition parties on this side of the House that can see the logic in the outright banning of UV tanning services. The submitters told us to ban it. The Cancer Society told us to ban it. The Medical Council of New Zealand told us to ban it. The World Health Organization advised us to ban it. But this National-led Government, sitting up there in its ivory tower, does not see the real, devastating effects of sunbed use. It has taken a soft approach and decided to age-restrict UV tanning services. That is gutless. That is absolutely gutless.
New Zealand First would like to point out to this National-led Government that skin cancer, melanoma, does not discriminate against age. Unfortunately, we saw this firsthand with the sad passing of Holly Devine at just 26 years of age, on Friday, 17 June—a life ended far too early by melanoma. This is just not an age-related cancer, so it makes no sense that a ban on sunbeds would apply only to those persons under the age of 18. We believe that banning commercial sunbeds would have been a very positive and proactive step to protect the future health of New Zealanders. We know that we have the highest rate of melanoma in the world, along with Australia. Yet, the Government does not seem to regard this as a big enough health issue to implement a ban on a device that is known to cause skin cancer. Overwhelming evidence provided by the World Health Organization shows that UV tanning devices are carcinogenic. That should have been enough to lead this Government to ban sunbeds completely. The Ministry of Health tells us that from 2009 to 2013 there were 1,477 new cases of melanoma in those aged under 44 years. In plain language, New Zealand has the highest rate of invasive melanoma in the world.
Barbara Stewart: And the highest death rate.
RIA BOND: And the highest death rate, as my colleague Barbara Stewart said. Let us remember that before the age of 35, the risk of developing melanoma shoots up by 75 percent. An estimate of the number of skin cancers treated every year in New Zealand is a staggering 67,000. This is not an insignificant number, and it should tell us that we must do more. The Cancer Society estimates skin cancer to cost over $123 million each year to the health system and in lost productivity. Not only is there a human cost but there are high financial costs as well.
Why will the Government not get some guts and show some leadership and ban UV tanning beds here in New Zealand? Without the ban on sunbeds, voluntary regulations will remain. We have heard from other speakers on this bill about how they do not believe that this will actually be enforceable. We know that many operators in salons and nail studios are not actually complying with this voluntary regulation. I have seen the evidence of this myself in hair and beauty salons and nail clinics. The requirements are to wear protective goggles and to give a thorough skin analysis and consultation per tanner.
I want to just briefly talk about that. Salons that have sunbeds within them, or sunbed-only tanning salons, simply download whatever they choose off the internet to be deemed sufficient to ask three or four questions that are absolutely irrelevant to giving a precise consultation to sun tanners, or to ensure that their skin meets the sufficient requirement to tan on the beds in the first place. In all the years that I have been in the industry, we have never had tough monitoring at all under a voluntary regulation, and I am aware that is still occurring today. At the very least we should ensure that minimum standards are upheld and are mandatory.
Not only that, there are simply not enough feet on the ground in terms of people power to check this within these businesses around New Zealand. I am aware that in Auckland they have very limited resources in the council to send out health inspectors into hair salons and the beauty industry sector, and, in fact, some of them are lucky if they get visited once a year. So how on earth is this going to be policed? The Government is adamant that extra compliance measures for sunbed operators will put people off having them in their businesses. Well, I absolutely agree with that, because what is going to happen is they will pull those beds outside of their businesses and they will take them home and offer services to clients there. This will force the sunbed tanning industry to go underground, at home, so that it cannot be monitored. As I stand here, I know that there are more than 10 people right now having those services within homes.
In conclusion, this Government is out of touch. New Zealand First asked about the lives that are lost and the effects on families from skin cancer and melanoma death. We believe that the Government has missed an opportunity to do something positive for the future health of this country. The Government seems determined to go against the consensus and, indeed, common sense. New Zealand First supports Part 1 of this bill, but we have drawn a line in the sand and will not tolerate the soft measures taken by this Government in Part 2 of this bill. It is really important that New Zealanders know that New Zealand First will stick to our guns when bills such as this one, in its entirety, are not fit for purpose and make no sense at all. For this reason, New Zealand First will abstain from voting on this bill.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to speak on the third reading of this Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure to be part of the Health Committee, and we had some really good discussion as we were going through this debate and the submissions. I also want to thank the officials for their efforts during this process.
Good health is hugely important to New Zealanders, and the contact tracing part of this bill is hugely important in maintaining that, because we have to improve the tracing of people who may have an infectious disease or may have been exposed to one. So we are amending an Act that was written in 1956. For a change, we are doing a bill that is actually older than me, which I am quite pleased to say.
This is really about streamlining our legislation, also. To me, sometimes we have so many bills relating to the same thing that the more we can simplify this for the public and those people who are deemed to be affected by it, the better. It is also streamlining to include tuberculosis as a notifiable disease under the Act. The consequence of this is repealing the Tuberculosis Act, which was actually made in 1948. It just makes sense to roll that all into one.
It is important, I think, for people to note that when we talk about contact tracing and notifiable disease, the first option under this piece of legislation is always about people voluntarily consenting to come forward. This is not about chasing people, this is not about witch hunting, but this is about protecting the vulnerable people who are likely to be around a person who is carrying a notifiable and infectious disease. If voluntary consent is not gained, then it introduces a duty on a person who may have an infectious disease first of all, but if they do not consent, then it is up to the practitioners to be able to notify. It is important to note that clause 5(3C)(a) allows the sex, date of birth, and National Health Index number of a person with a notifiable disease to be disclosed. So it actually gives the medical officer access to the valuable information.
I will make note here of Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, which is about the identifying information. It means the person’s name, address, place of work, and any other information specified in the regulations under the Act would not be disclosed. That is important, I think, as a protection. We want privacy to come out to protect people but not to actually expose people. It is my pleasure in supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.
JAN LOGIE (Green): It is my pleasure to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill, which is relatively simple and is made up of two parts, in effect. One part of the bill is to strengthen the range of infectious diseases that are considered notifiable and to give the medical officer of health more options in terms of contact tracing for when people have an infectious disease that is on that list.
I would like to speak briefly and specifically to the fact that chlamydia, which is New Zealand’s number one sexually transmitted infection, has finally been added to this notifiable disease list. I think that is well overdue, as mentioned by one of the earlier speakers, particularly because that is an infection that quite often has no symptoms, so that people may not realise that they have the infection to prompt them to go to the doctor. Once somebody has a diagnosis, it will be very helpful for us as a society to put the motions in train so that other people whom they have had sex with are able to be told they are at risk and to go and get checked. So that is very good news in this bill.
I would just like to commend the contribution that my colleague Kevin Hague made earlier in this debate and throughout this process and to mention again to the House his experience in this area as the previous head of the AIDS Foundation and his experience of working with people in the community who were HIV positive, engaging in risky behaviour, and were not wanting to change that behaviour, and the very few options that he found available to him. Really, the advice he was given was that it could lead to the medical officer of health intervening and detaining those people indefinitely, with very few checks on their human rights or balances on that power. That, certainly, in this day and age, is far too extreme an option and is not conducive to providing the environment of good public health that will enable people to come forward and get tested in the first place. We need to have that range of options to support people to come forward and enable more people to know that they should be tested. The Green Party absolutely supports this part of the bill, although we would have liked to see the Public Health Bill also back on the table for more holistic changes and more changes across the spectrum to update our practice in that area.
The Green Party does not support the Government’s decision in relation to sunbeds, though, which is the other significant part of this bill. We have joined with other Opposition parties in expressing that—that the Government has said that it will ban the use of sunbeds for those under 18, whereas the World Health Organization’s evidence was very clear that it classified sunbeds as carcinogenic in 2009, and the evidence is very clear that use of a sunbed before the age of 35 will increase your risk of getting melanoma by 75 percent. There is no place for these beds of death in our society. Our rates of melanoma are too high as it is. Too many people are affected by this, and the evidence that came before the committee was that the industry is not following the existing regulations as it is, and there are still people in this industry who deny a link between the use of sunbeds and cancer. In fact, apparently, there was a provider who came in front of the committee and presented a couple of reports they had found on the internet that said there was no link. If people are that out of step with the science and are wilfully ignoring the harm to people, I think that is a clear indication that the Government needs to step in and protect people. The Government has failed, sadly, to do that in this case.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Carmel Sepuloni—5 minutes.
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I have not been on the Health Committee, but I have heard my colleague the Hon Annette King speaking at much length about this bill. She has given us some fairly robust discussion in regard to this and has made us very aware of what she, being on the select committee, supports and what she does not support. I guess I will just start by saying that it is great to see that the National Government is finally acting on something that the previous Labour Government started—8 years later in fact, because it was Pete Hodgson who, 8 years ago, actually introduced a public health bill in relation to this. I am glad that we have finally got to this point.
We know that the bill will increase the range of infectious diseases that are notifiable to a medical officer of health without requiring identifying information of the patient or diseased person. This will include HIV infection, gonorrhoea infection, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and syphilis. Concerns that the current legislation does not fully support public health practice have been articulated by staff and health agencies over a sustained period of time, which is why this bill is necessary and long overdue. Three measures are being introduced: contact tracing, an increase in the range of diseases that are notifiable, and options for the management of individuals with significant infectious diseases whose behaviour puts people at the risk of contracting a disease.
The restrictions around sunbeds—as our colleague from the Green Party Jan Logie has said—do not go far enough. We should be banning sunbeds like they have in Australia. Coleman has taken a limp-wristed approach to restrictions on sunbeds. He is now getting the Ministry of Health to consult on further restrictions on sunbeds. Why is he doing this when the legislation is now being passed through the House? It is because he knows that the restrictions do not go far enough and he is on the wrong side of the public health debate in relation to this issue. The Ministry of Health has said that banning sunbeds fails one of its key objectives for public health intervention and: “would prevent access to sunbed services by adults who are well informed and choose to take the risk of [artificial] UV tanning for cosmetic purposes.”
So a key test of public health intervention under this Government is the right of people to increase their risk of getting melanoma by 75 percent for cosmetic reasons. It does seem irresponsible, and if we look at other public health debates, for instance around tobacco, then there seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. We are not saying with tobacco: “Well, actually, we’ll leave it as is, because it is your right to choose.” In that instance, we are saying: “Actually, we must increase taxes.” In that instance, we are saying that we will do everything we can to try to make smoking less of an attractive option to people, because it is such a big public health issue. Here we had an opportunity to ban sunbeds because it is such a public health issue, but, instead, the Government is saying: “Well, actually, you know, as long as adults are well informed, if they choose to take the risk, then it is up to them.” So I think we have got a bit of a contradiction around public health messages being put out by that Government.
The Ministry of Health—Coleman’s department—said it “has been concerned for some time about the use of sunbeds in New Zealand, given the clear evidence that they pose significant risk of increased skin cancers to users.” The Government should have voted for the Hon Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper 80, which would have restricted sunbeds to being used for medical purposes only, for persons of all ages. How difficult would that be? We are talking about public health issues here. We are talking about something that we know increases the risk of melanoma by 75 percent. That Supplementary Order Paper, which was put up by the Hon Annette King, was a sensible Supplementary Order Paper. It just seems nonsensical that the Government would not support that.
We are supporting this bill. I guess I could go on and on, but I will not. Our major issue here is that the Government has not done enough in respect of the sunbed issue. Australia has been much more responsible in this regard. It is banning them, and, unfortunately, we are probably going to be on the receiving end of all those old sunbeds that Australians are no longer allowed to use. It is very unfortunate, and I think, with regard to that aspect of this bill, the Government should be quite embarrassed.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to this, the third reading of this bill. This bill has been topical for a number of reasons, but particularly for its attention to the UV suntanning component. I think that if we look back at Hansard, we will see that attention has been paid to that part of the bill at a ratio of maybe 3:4, but I actually want to echo what one of my colleagues has said regarding the infectious diseases component, because I think that part may have one of the bill’s greatest long-term impacts for New Zealanders.
I say that because of the manner in which it places chlamydia on the infectious diseases schedule. It will be a non-notifiable disease included under the Health Act, schedule 1, Part 2, as amended by clause 10 of the bill. A 2014 report by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research looking at 2013 district health board data suggested there were 25,000 positive chlamydia tests. This might seem like a nuisance condition compared with potentially fatal melanoma, but those are 25,000 positive tests that can have significant long-term implications, such as pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancies, and Reiter syndrome. In fact, a quarter of all infertility cases may be due to chlamydia. So it remains my view, actually, that this section of the bill may have more impact on more people than the tanning component of the bill, which I want to turn to here, more in reflection of a comment that my colleague across the House, Ria Bond, made in the Committee of the whole House that was kind of interesting.
She raised a question as to whether UV nail lamps should be included in the bill and said that the UV nail industry had been completely forgotten about. That is kind of interesting, because you can certainly get melanomas around the fingernails. Under the fingernails, you call them subungual, and around the fingernails, you call them periungual, and they are actually a problem. They are a problem because they are painless, and people often mistake them for catching their finger in the door or hitting it with a hammer inadvertently, because they get that brown stain under the nail like you would normally do with a bruise. It is a bruise, but, in fact, the bruise does not go in 3 weeks; it lasts for 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 9 weeks, and by the time they realise they have had it that long, it is often actually too late.
I thought this was a really interesting question: whether UV tanning around the nail and in nail tanning clinics actually had any implications. I wrote to Melanoma New Zealand to seek its advice on that, and it wrote back saying: “The risk from nail curing UV lamps is thought to be small, though there are still limited robust randomised controlled studies. Currently we would recommend using sunscreens or UVA-protective gloves to limit the risk, or avoid drying by this method.”. So yes, clearly, there may be some increased risk.
In the overall context, I think this is a very important bill. I appreciate how long it has taken to get to this, the third reading, but I think this bill now lands in a sensible and functional place that will benefit the health of all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute in this third reading of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. During the passage of this piece of legislation, I had the fortune of sitting on the Health Committee, and I would like to say that this piece of legislation was a bill of two halves, essentially. There was 100 percent support for the first half, and that support was for a focus on infectious diseases. I too want to reiterate that the history of this bill originated from the Hon Pete Hodgson, when the Public Health Bill was submitted to this House 8 years ago.
We all agree 100 percent with Part 1 of the bill. I really just want to focus on increased notifiable diseases within the sexually transmitted infection (STI) space. Sexually transmitted infections are incredibly valid as a topic of focus. In addition to HIV/AIDS, I really want to talk about gonorrhoea and syphilis, because in 2014 the gonorrhoea rate in New Zealand was 70 per 100,000. The implications in areas like Tai Rāwhiti for Māori and Pacific youth, where, actually, the rate is four times that of the national average, are that this will now provide us with information so that we can start addressing and managing some of these sexually transmitted infections. For me, that is the value of this piece of legislation—that it is now going to be proactive. It is going to involve a public health perspective—not treating these infections as individual infections that actually have no ongoing interest or ramification in our community. It will now lead to a better-targeted approach and support, because what we do know is that people who suffer from STIs end up with infertility issues, chronic pain, and issues with neonatal morbidity. There is also a relationship with certain types of cancers. So we support 100 percent anything that we can do to be proactive to protect our community and, within that context, ensure that there are not any privacy issues with individuals’ information. That was the general consensus of the select committee.
In terms of Part 2, I think there was an emerging consensus from the Opposition that we do not support Part 2 of the bill. Part 2 of the bill prohibits the commercial provision of artificial UV tanning services to under-18-year-olds. I just want to quote Minister Coleman from his contribution in this third reading. He said: “A complete ban on the provision of artificial UV tanning services would prevent access to artificial tanning services by adults who are well informed and choose to take on that risk.” He also made the point of saying that if you are over 18, then, basically, you are capable of making that decision. Our contention has been that, actually, young people are not in a position to make that decision and that it is more relevant to those who are under 35 or under 30, based on the international research. We would say that when we know a product is causing so much harm, then, actually, we have a responsibility as a Government to protect all of our citizens. That information came from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which said that artificial UV tanning services increased the risk of melanoma to those under 30 by 75 percent. What is the relevance to us here in New Zealand? In 2012, 2,324 New Zealand citizens were registered with melanoma. In that particular year, we had 354 deaths.
I want to highlight one of the submissions that we received from dermatologist Louise Reiche from Palmerston North, who led the charge at Palmerston North City Council. The MidCentral District Health Board region has a melanoma rate of 51.55 per 100,000. It was her contention that 75 percent of those people diagnosed with melanoma between the ages of 18 and 29 had used artificial UV tanning services. That was her contention. She was supported in her submission and that of the Palmerston North City Council by Jessie Anitoni, who started using tanning machines as a 16-year-old. She was diagnosed with melanoma. She moved to Brisbane, and, basically, called for a complete ban on these UV tanning machines based on her own experience.
I want to highlight that the first country in the world to ban UV tanning machines was actually Brazil, in 2009. Australia followed them in 2014. But 2014 was an interesting year, because on 1 July 2014 Auckland Council implemented a by-law that banned under-18-year-olds from using tanning machines. For the council, it was a focus with operators on explaining the risks and also on ensuring that they displayed warning notices in their clinics so that people were informed and could make informed decisions about whether or not they used their machines. The relevance of that to this debate is that 30 percent of operators in New Zealand reside in Auckland, and over 50 percent of the tanning machines are in Auckland. So, in fact, this piece of legislation is relevant only to the other 50 percent of tanning machines, which are not used in the Auckland area.
When you look at the options that this Parliament had, rather than following Brazil and Australia, this Parliament is actually following the Auckland Council. It does not quite make sense to me. I would have thought that, as a responsible Government, we would have followed what other countries have done based on evidence, not followed what a local body entity has done—no disrespect to Auckland Council.
In March 2016 research from the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane, published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, said that New Zealand had overtaken Australia and become the most melanoma-prone country in the world. Six countries and their rates of melanoma between 1982 and 2001 were analysed. In 1982 the melanoma rate in New Zealand was 26 per 100,000; today it is over 50 per 100,000. Those countries that were analysed were Australia, the UK, the US, Norway, Sweden, and New Zealand. When commenting on that piece of research, Associate Professor Tony Reeder from the Department of Preventative and Social Medicine at the University of Otago, said: “New Zealand has lacked high-level commitment and adequate investment in skin cancer prevention ...” Dermatologist Ben Tallon commented that we need to “wake up”. It is time that New Zealand and this Government woke up. So in 2002 melanoma was identified as a priority in the New Zealand Cancer Control Strategy.
In summary, we do not support Part 2 of this piece of legislation. This bill is actually a sad indictment not only of the Minister but also, unfortunately, of the Ministry of Health. The ministry’s mandate, or its function, is to improve, promote, and protect the public health of New Zealanders. I am incredibly disappointed that the ministry did not adequately advise the Minister—or if it did, that the Minister did not listen to his ministry and ensure that this Health (Protection) Amendment Bill does protect New Zealanders. That is what is incredibly disheartening about the title of this piece of legislation—the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. It is actually a disingenuous title. We have missed the opportunity to protect the health and well-being of our fellow New Zealanders. Labour is supporting this bill, but we categorically, with the Greens and New Zealand First, do not support Part 2. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 109
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Abstentions 12
New Zealand First 12.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I begin by thanking the members of the Health Committee for their thorough consideration of this bill and their suggestions for its improvement. Can I also thank the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, who saw this bill through its first reading and was a huge supporter of it in the last Parliament.
The committee has recommended that the bill proceed with amendments, and it is timely that this bill should now proceed. A number of countries have taken similar steps to standardise tobacco products and packaging, so we are in good company. Progressing the bill through its next stage today is showing that New Zealand is committed to putting tobacco into plain, standardised packaging.
Tobacco products kill New Zealanders. Every year 4,500 to 5,000 people die prematurely. Smoking is a leading, avoidable cause of premature deaths in New Zealand, so we want to stop New Zealanders from smoking, and we are going to take every practical step to achieve that. Most people in society will know a friend or a family member who has died prematurely. I think the good thing about this bill is that it will also prevent young people—and others—taking up smoking, through standardised packaging of tobacco.
Tobacco products already carry large, graphic health warnings, and cigarettes and tobacco can no longer be displayed at point of sale or advertised in any media. Now we are removing the last marketing tool, and consigning the cigarette pack to a plain green-brown colour, stripped of its bright packaging and brand imagery. A lot of time and money goes into designing products and packs to appeal both to existing smokers and also to the next generation. Allowing tobacco products to be advertised or promoted in any way is inconsistent with our Government’s wider goal of making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025.
The bill is intended to tightly control the design and the physical appearance of cigarettes and tobacco products and any packaging used or intended to be used with those products. The bill continues to allow manufacturer information and brand names to be printed on the packs, but only in a tightly controlled way. The bill is essentially a piece of high-level enabling legislation. It creates the new regulation-making powers so detail of the product design, appearance, packaging, and labelling can be developed.
On World Smokefree Day last month I released a consultation document with proposals that mandatory health warnings will cover at least 75 percent of the front of the packages. It also proposes that all tobacco imagery be removed and that brand names will be allowed, but the regulations will standardise how and where the printing is on each packet. A final decision on those detailed regulations will be made after the consultation period ends next month and submissions have been carefully considered. We want to get the detail right around this, and we want a set of regulations that puts into effect the intent of this bill.
The bill generated a large number of submissions—in fact, over 15,500 submissions, of which there were approximately 200 substantive submissions. A number of common themes emerged, including the damaging impacts of tobacco on health. There was concern shown for children living in the homes of New Zealand’s 550,000 smokers. Those children are at the highest risk of taking up smoking, and it is a particular concern for Māori, Pacific, and other high-risk groups. The importance of standardised packaging as a key plank in New Zealand’s overall comprehensive tobacco control programme was also raised, and the Government’s view is that the standardised packaging is part of a suite of tobacco control measures and quit-smoking services, as well as the increases in taxation that we passed in this Parliament earlier this year.
Another focus of the submissions was the anticipated impacts of standardised packaging. A large number of submitters, including the World Health Organization (WHO), are convinced that plain packaging reduces the appeal, the social acceptance, and the approval of smoking and tobacco products. These submitters want warning images and messages to be more noticeable and effective. They point to an extensive body of research and international evidence and reviews that give confidence that the bill will work here as intended over time. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that more evidence and evaluation reports have been tabled, and results from a post-implementation review endorsed by the Australian Office of Best Practice Regulation are continually coming in from Australia that show that plain packaging is working as intended, and is making a real difference to Australians.
Yes, it is true that plain packaging on its own is not responsible for all of the continued fall in smoking rates in Australia, where the smoking prevalence is around 12 percent, but an econometric study published in Australia looked at a significant period of time before and after the introduction of plain packaging, and found that plain packaging alone was responsible for 0.55 percentage points out of the 2.2 percentage point decline in smoking prevalence over the period of that study. In other words, standardised packaging alone was responsible for fully one quarter of the measured decline.
Submitters were also concerned about New Zealand’s international obligations, and the WHO and several other submitters were strongly supportive of the legislation, as consistent with our obligations and our commitments to the United Nations Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. On that point, our Government’s position is extremely clear: New Zealand can implement standardised tobacco packaging in a manner that is consistent with our international trade obligations, and we will.
There are three substantive changes to the bill as it has been reported back to this House. The Health Committee recommended widening the concern for harmful social, economic, and health effects of smoking to include an additional and important cultural dimension. This is to be reflected in the amended purposes of the Act section, and in the scope of new warning messages that will be required under it. It also wanted to ensure that the existing minimum quantities in which cigarettes and tobacco can be sold are maintained in the principal Act. The committee also wanted to clarify rules around the transitional period, when distributors and retailers can sell the branded packs.
The committee has also made a number of small positive changes, key among them the title of the bill and the use of the term “plain packaging”. This legislation will undoubtedly standardise the appearance of tobacco products and packages to prevent them from being used for marketing and product promotion purposes. The committee has therefore recommended that we use the more accurate and descriptive term “standardised packaging”.
This bill is designed to save New Zealanders’ lives. This bill is another tool to fight against the slow, relentless killer that is tobacco. This bill helps people to quit, and prevents others from smoking. I am pleased to support all of the committee’s changes to the bill, which I believe are sensible and well considered. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Labour supports the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill, and we support it with enthusiasm. Can I tell the members that there are a few here who actually sat on the Health Committee to hear the submissions on this bill. I think my colleague Kevin Hague was there. I think Barbara Stewart was there. I am not sure whether there are any National members left in the House who actually heard the submissions.
The Government made a decision to have this bill on 18 February 2013. Then the bill was actually referred to our committee on 11 February 2014. So the first point I want to make is that from February to August 2014 the select committee dealt with this bill. We travelled around New Zealand to hear the submissions. We received and considered 15,682 submissions from interested groups and individuals. A number of the submissions were form submissions and they did replicate the content. We heard oral evidence from 32 submitters in Auckland and Wellington, and I have to say they were overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. Practically the only ones who were opposed to it were the tobacco companies that flew in from around the world to make their submissions to the committee for 15 minutes—because they got the same as everybody else. So for thousands of dollars, for something they said would not work, they were prepared to come and make a submission. I say good on them if they wanted to make a submission, but it really did convince me that this was obviously going to be an effective measure, because if it was not they would not have bothered even making a submission.
So my criticism of the Government is not the bill. The bill in the form in which it is now being presented to this House, due to the work the select committee did—and I am pleased the Minister has said the Government has accepted all the amendments—is a good bill, including the name change. But what I will be critical of is the time that it has taken to get this bill here. We are talking almost 2 years—2 years waiting to pass a piece of legislation that tightens the screws on tobacco control in New Zealand. Why did we wait 2 years? We waited because the Government refused to be a leader in the fight for tobacco control, with this measure. It wanted to wait to see what happened in Australia, because Australia had the guts to put in place plain packaging. It said: “We are an independent sovereign nation. We will make our own decisions about what we have in public health law.” And they went ahead, they passed their legislation, they brought in plain packaging, and they were sued by the tobacco companies. So rather than say “We are a sovereign nation. We are prepared to stand up for New Zealanders and pass our legislation.”, we sat there wringing our hands and saying: “We need to wait and see.”
I was really disappointed because, do you know what? New Zealand has been a leader in tobacco control for decades. The first real legislation passed in this Parliament was passed by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. [Interruption] The Rt Hon Helen Clark—for Simon O’Connor, who does not seem to remember her—was the Minister of Health and she brought in legislation banning smoking in workplaces. Once upon a time, like on Gliding On, you could sit in your office and puff away as much as you liked—or in your factory, or wherever you worked. That was the first legislation. Then, over the years, legislation, regulation, and education have been implemented in this country.
I want to say that the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which is our international agreement, was negotiated and passed when I was the Minister of Health and it was ratified under a Labour Government. We committed ourselves to the principles of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. One of them is plain packaging. There is still more that needs to be done, but that is where we were the leaders. We were out there. We were there with the Australians and some of the Scandinavian countries arguing at the World Health Assembly and arguing against big tobacco companies.
But I do think, maybe, the problem that National has had, apart from not showing the bottle to be able to bring in this legislation in our time frame—New Zealand’s time frame—is the fact that National has had two tobacco lobbyists in its caucus. I raise this issue because Philip Morris’s spokesperson was Chris Bishop, and you need to hear what he said about this bill. He said that there are not any studies that suggest that plain packaging will work at stopping people from taking up smoking or helping them to quit smoking—there is not one study to suggest that. He then went on to say this: “We’re worried about the retailers. We’re worried about the impact. We’re worried about the retailers.”
Hon Member: Who was that?
Hon ANNETTE KING: This was Chris Bishop. He said: “We’re worried about the retailers. We are worried about the impact of plain packaging on intellectual property treaties that we are subject to.” This is a member of the National caucus with these views—no wonder it has dragged the chain when it came to implementing this legislation.
But, you see, research that was cited to us from the New Zealand Medical Journal states that New Zealand studies show that plain packets that feature large, graphic health warnings are significantly more likely to promote cessation amongst young adult smokers than fully or partially branded tobacco packs. I am more inclined to believe the World Health Organization, the New Zealand Medical Association, the Public Health Association of New Zealand—the experts who have devoted their lives to reducing the consumption and the prevalence of tobacco in New Zealand. I am more inclined to believe them than the words of a backbencher who is a former tobacco lobbyist.
So what do we have in this bill that is now before us? And I do hope we are not going to drag the chain and have the second reading and then wait for the end of the year to have the Committee stage and then, maybe, eventually, pass it. If this is in the process now, I say to the Minister, get this bill through—get this bill through and stop mucking about as we have done to date.
This bill does, I think, four very important things. First of all, the principal objective is to reduce the appeal of tobacco products and smoking, particularly to young people. I have to say, Minister, I have seen some of the pictures that are going to be on the so-called plain packaging—not plain at all; that is a real misnomer—and they are graphic. If they do not put you off smoking, they ought to put you off smoking. So that is the first objective.
The second one is to reduce the wider social acceptance and approval of smoking and tobacco products. We must do that if we are going to be smoke-free by 2025. The Government says it has signed up to that, but I do not believe we will make it under the progress that has been made by this Government. Minister, there is so much more—so much more—and the Minister would have a place in history if he just took hold of this portfolio and really moved it along. The third one is to increase the noticeability and the effectiveness of mandated health warnings, messages, and images, and the fourth is to reduce the likelihood of consumers acquiring false perceptions of the harm caused by tobacco products.
Of course, some of us come from the era when smoking was very, very acceptable—where you, as a young person, put your cigarette in a cigarette holder and thought you looked cool. You had the false perception of tobacco. Over time we have got rid of that perception, and this bill helps it. You have got a packet of cigarettes, you are going to have some—[Interruption] No, I am not speaking to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Those who have a packet of cigarettes—
Hon Member: A pipe.
Hon ANNETTE KING: And your pipe—I am looking to have labels on pipes as well. But there will be no doubt that if people are buying tobacco cigarettes, the package will show the damage and the harm that can be done to them.
There is much more that can be said, but I do want to say we recommended a change in the name of the legislation, and the Minister said that he has accepted the change—replacing “(Tobacco Plain Packaging)” with “(Tobacco Standardised Packaging)”. I remember—[Interruption] This is quite an important point, Mr Assistant Speaker. I could just finish it if you gave me a minute.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will give you 10 seconds.
Hon ANNETTE KING: 10 seconds. Sir Geoffrey Palmer said when he was at the Law Commission that bills should accurately reflect what they are meant to do, and this change of name does that. Thank you.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I wonder whether, as a consequence, I have lost 10 seconds on my speech now, but who knows?
Hon Member: We can only hope.
SIMON O’CONNOR: Ha, ha! That is right—it is an optimistic thought on a Thursday. I am very pleased to speak on this Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill here in its second reading. I am quite delighted, as chair of the Health Committee, that this bill has come up the Order Paper and is being read now a second time, and I too am looking forward to it progressing through the House.
I would have to disagree with the member opposite, Annette King. I think this is actually proceeding at a timely pace. In fact, I also want to acknowledge the Minister, Sam Lotu-Iiga, for the work that he is doing on this. I think, really importantly, this whole plain packaging, or standardised packaging—and I will come to that in a moment—actually sits on a whole pile of work that the Government has done and continues to do. In fact, one example that immediately comes to mind is the Minister leading during the Budget process a new bill around excise taxes—just another example of what this Government is doing to target a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025.
We have heard many times in this House through various discussions about the positive progress that has been made overall, but none of us, particularly in the Health Committee, is unaware of the disaggregated figures—that is, when we begin to break down smoking into, say, ethnic or age categories, there is still a lot of work to be done. I mention that because this legislation is not a silver bullet. I know there are some out and about in the community who feel that this alone is going to solve the smoking issue. I do not believe it will, but I think, actually, it is about a whole suite of activities that will assist and this is a strong one within that role.
I am conscious, too, of some of the counterarguments that have been put forward around intellectual and property rights. Although I can sort of understand that from one point of view, I think it is really important to make the distinction that, in this case, tobacco product owners still own the property rights, or the intellectual rights; they are just not allowed to use them for, I think, very good reason because, ultimately, the public good overrides it.
I think it is important to really stress this is about standardised packaging; it is not about plain packaging. It is not just going to be a black, grey, pink, or blue box. In fact, as several members—and particularly the Minister—have noted, there will be graphic images on these packages. There will be graphic warnings. I think people still need to be reminded of the downside—serious, serious downside—of smoking, but this bill is ultimately about making these packages standardised and taking away from any advantage that could be given by trying to make smoking, via its packaging, more acceptable. I have certainly noted—going back years past, in my university days, different ones who smoked would often be comparing the various brands that they were smoking, and I think we are able to push that to the side.
I think it is also important to note it is not actually a bill that was considered by this current Health Committee. There are members on the current iteration who were there, but I think it is important to acknowledge and note Dr Paul Hutchison as the chair at the time, who took this bill through the committee stage, and to rightly point out the real, positive suggestions he and the team then made. I am going to be interested to hear the New Zealand First approach to this, ultimately, Barbara Stewart, because I note the minority view has New Zealand First opposing it, so I will be interested to hear what is said today.
Finally from me, it is really important for the House to understand too that this bill is relatively simple and high-level. Ultimately, it is about the passing of regulations, and this bill enables that to happen. I think I heard from the Minister—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that it is into July that there is consultation on these regulations.
Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Yeah, end of July.
SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes, end of July. In other words, if you in the listening public or those who are expert in the area are wanting to provide some opinion on what those regulations should be, then you have got less than a month to go. I commend this bill to the House on its second reading.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): That was an unenthusiastic contribution from the chair of the Health Committee. I have to say that this is an unusual Government bill in that it was introduced by the Government but the real impetus, the real enthusiasm, for this bill, came from the Opposition—from right back on 18 February 2013, when the Government first decided that it was going to pursue this course of action of introducing plain packaging for tobacco products. That, of course, was a decision not of a National Government Minister—it certainly would never have been a decision of a National Minister—it was the decision of the Hon Tariana Turia.
Of course really, if we are honest about this, the only reason that the Government introduced this legislation was its agreement with the Māori Party, and, boy oh boy, has that Government dragged the chain on this legislation and taken every single possible opportunity to slow the process down. So more than 3 years—more than 3 years—after the Government first decided it was going to introduce plain packaging, here we are, not passing the bill, not passing it into law, not actually beginning the regime of plain packaging—but here we are at the second reading. My goodness, what progress we have made in the last 3 years! Of course we all know why. We all know why, and it is because this Government always prioritises business interests over the interests of the health of New Zealanders. It was concerned that its business buddies were going to sort of give it in the neck for actually doing something that the tobacco companies did not like.
I have to say, of course, all of this is tied up in the business of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and free trade and investor-State dispute clauses, and the threat that the tobacco industry continues to make that it will try to sue the New Zealand Government if this Parliament enacts legislation designed to protect the health of New Zealanders. I have to say that if I was an exponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—which I certainly am not. But if I was someone who was a backer of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and if I was someone who was an enthusiast for investor-State dispute settlement clauses, I would be really hacked off with the tobacco industry right now. This is because the tobacco industry, with its threat to sue the New Zealand Government if this legislation is passed, is actually playing into all the fears people have about what will happen to this country if we sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and if we pass the legislation enabling the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The tobacco industry—the Minister looks confused. The Minister is trying to figure out how this is associated with this bill. He does not do his reading if he does not understand it. This legislation, if it passes, will trigger the tobacco industry’s suing the New Zealand Government under investor-State dispute settlement clauses. That is what people fear—this Parliament not having the sovereign right to legislate in the interests of the public health of New Zealanders because we fear being sued by the tobacco industry, or by any other industry for that matter.
Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: You want me to table the agreement?
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry?
Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: You want me to table the agreement so you can read it? It’s carved out.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: So this legislation, though, Sam—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sam Lotu-Iiga, Associate Minister of Health, this legislation—the tobacco industry is threatening to sue the New Zealand Government if this legislation is passed. I am sure the tobacco industry will sue the New Zealand Government if this legislation is passed. That is why the Government has said that it wanted to put this legislation on the back-burner. It is more concerned about business interests. It is more concerned about the tobacco lobby than it is about the public health of New Zealanders. It is more interested in the lobbying from the tobacco industry than it is in the lobbying from people who are interested in the health of ordinary New Zealanders.
Simon O’Connor said that this legislation is not going to be a silver bullet and that, in his view, lots of people out there think that this is going to be the silver bullet. I do not think anybody thinks this is going to be the silver bullet. Nobody came to the select committee and told us that this is going to be the silver bullet. What this is is the next logical progression in a long line of things that this Parliament and Governments have done over the last three decades, nearly now, to steadily eradicate the prevalence of tobacco smoking and the harm that tobacco does to New Zealanders. So we got rid of advertising, we got rid of sport sponsorships, we got smoking out of workplaces, we got it out of pubs and cafes—all of that opposed by National, by the way.
Every single one of those steps was opposed by National, and it was not until the National Government formed an agreement with the Māori Party that it actually started to agree with these types of steps. So I can see why perhaps some National MPs are confused and they think this is the silver bullet, because they have only just realised that they should be on the right side of this debate and actually start supporting legislation that reduces the harm caused by tobacco. Of course it is not the silver bullet. It is just the next logical step, and this Parliament and Governments have been on this pathway for a long time. It is great that National has finally caught up. We are all actually quite pleased about that, and it is a shame really that we have not been able to advance this cause more quickly over the last 20 to 30 years because of the opposition that National has put up at every step when Labour-led Governments and parliaments where Labour has had the majority have sought to legislate in that direction.
This is an important step. What it actually does is it gets rid of the last bastion of tobacco advertising. This has actually been a process that has taken quite a long time. We got rid of what everybody would think of as tobacco advertising a long time ago. We got rid of that insidious, horrible ability that tobacco had to sponsor sports events, which was just crazy because sport is all about health and there could be nothing that is more detrimental to the health of New Zealanders than tobacco, so those two should never have gone together.
Then, of course, we had the tobacco displays, where tobacco companies could use the packaging for cigarette packets as a wall of advertising in dairies and supermarkets. We managed to get rid of those, but, of course, that does not get rid of the fact that, actually, every time a cigarette packet is put out on the kitchen table where kids can see it, that is a form of advertising as well. We do need to get rid of this, and we can actually use those cigarette packets to deliver the message that we actually need young people to see, which is that smoking is not cool. The packaging looks disgusting, it is not the sort of thing that you want to show around in front of your friends, and, in fact, we have got the messages on there describing to young people exactly what the consequences of smoking tobacco are, and over the years it has all been successful.
We have heard from National over the years, we still hear from the ACT Party, and we still hear from others that none of these things is going to be successful and none of it is going to make any difference, but the truth is that we have seen a dramatic fall in the number of people who smoke. We have seen dramatic improvements in people’s health, but we have still got some way to go. There is still a significant, but a much smaller, minority of the population who smoke, but it is still a significant proportion of New Zealanders who smoke, and not only are they doing damage to themselves but they are putting an unnecessary burden on the health system, all so that the tobacco companies can make a profit.
So this is the next step as we head towards being smoke-free by 2025, but it is going to require a continued and sustained effort from this Government and the Governments that come after it. We had a period of a succession of moves to tackle tobacco. We had getting rid of the tobacco displays. We had increases in tax, and that was great while Tariana Turia was the Minister. Sadly, since Tariana Turia left and we have had a diminished Māori Party and a Minister who does not seem to show as much enthusiasm for this as his predecessor did, the wind has gone out of the sails a little bit. This bill has been sitting on the Order Paper a long time and it is a long time since we have actually done anything to maintain that momentum and keep the pressure on the tobacco industry.
So this is the next step. I hope that we do not have as long between the second reading and the third reading as we had between the first and the second because we do need to get on with this. We do need to keep the momentum up. Just because the Government does not have a Minister who has the enthusiasm that once existed in that Government, it does not mean that we cannot keep the pressure on and keep doing this. Come on, let us get this thing through as quickly as we can.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to be standing and taking a call on this piece of legislation this afternoon. It is not a new piece of legislation, as we are hearing, but it is a new piece of legislation to me. It is part of the goal of becoming smoke-free by 2025. The previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, talked about—you know, we have talked this afternoon about whether it is a silver bullet or whether it is not a silver bullet. I agree that everything we do in this process actually gets us to the goal of being smoke-free by 2025, and this is another avenue, another piece of the puzzle, that is going to help us get there.
We have heard this afternoon about it not being so much plain packaging but standardised packaging. We have heard about some of the gory pictures that are going to be on this standardised packaging. I support that because, honestly, colours and images are the things that make for peer pressure and cool activities amongst our children and our teenagers, and they are the very ones who should not be looking at this type of product and who should not be using it because we all know that the younger that those people start smoking, the more chance they have of getting the diseases and the cancers and the emphysemas and everything else that comes from it.
We talked about standardised packaging. The plain packages will likely feature a single colour - dominated background with pictures on it, and the tobacco brand variant names would be in a very small font, so they will not be out on there in large writing, as they have been in the past. A package will not be showing off who produced it and who has got the brand and created it by a whole wow, but, actually, it will be in just very small writing. We have done a number of moves by actually putting these products away in supermarkets, so that young people do not get to view them in the way that they used to, along with a whole range of things in terms of helping people to stop smoking.
So there is not one silver bullet; there is a whole range of things. It is not easy to tell people to just stop smoking like that once they have started, so it is actually much better if we can stop people getting attracted to it in the first place, and this is very much part of that process. I want to say as well that there have been some conversations in the public world about a black market. It is still very important that anything that goes into a black market around any of this continues to be investigated and continues to be prosecuted. So it is a big pleasure to take a call on this bill this afternoon. Thank you.
KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I would like to begin this contribution, even though it seems odd because it was such a long time ago, in the usual way in a second reading of thanking members of the select committee and thanking the submitters. Most of those members of the Health Committee, as Annette King has remarked, are now gone, but to the submitters, who are still around, I say thank you. To the officials, also, I say thanks very much for the great work that you did to support us, and thanks to the Minister today, the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.
Much of the impetus for this bill came from the inquiry by the Māori Affairs Committee that came up with the grand goal of having a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025—a great goal that I think is pretty well universally supported by members of this House—and part of what that inquiry realised was that in achieving that goal, we would need to be active across a wide range of different domains. So we would need to be increasing the social marketing around tobacco but also recognising that smoking is not really a rational choice—social marketing by itself is clearly not enough. We needed to be more aggressively increasing the price of tobacco, because there is good evidence of the effectiveness of that. We needed to be extending smoke-free areas—a fantastic initiative from previous Labour Governments, and Annette King has mentioned Helen Clark. I would like to mention Annette King herself as being someone who has very strongly contributed in that area. We needed to be moving into the supply side—licensing retailers for tobacco products.
I have to say that it has been very disappointing to see that, really, we have not increased the social marketing. Prices have increased since the inquiry was finalised, but not nearly at the rate that the experts told us was required. We have not extended smoke-free areas and there have been no supply side controls. But in this one area of plain packaging, or standardised packaging—which is the topic for this particular bill—there has been a bill. And, as Iain Lees-Galloway has remarked, in some ways the idea that sits behind this bill now, with the changed name, is in fact to do away with the last vestige of marketing.
Not so long ago—20 years ago—we could have gone to any sports stadium in the country and seen billboards around the outside advertising Rothmans, Benson and Hedges, or other cigarette brands. Such a sight today would be a total shock to someone who was not exposed to that. I have done an experiment of showing photographs of those stadiums to young people and their eyes widened because they could not believe that that was allowed. What the tobacco companies have done is respond by making their packs mini-billboards for their products. So those cigarette packs littered around our cities—the point of them, from the point of view of the industry, is to market the product.
I mention all of that by way of preamble because we are currently not on track to hit that goal—a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025. That slow action—being a slow follower rather than a leader, on the part of this Government—will ensure that we do not meet that target, so the delay in bringing this bill back to the House is, in my view, inexcusable. I have mentioned Helen Clark and Annette King, and I do also want to particularly acknowledge the contributions of the Hon Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira in the last several parliaments on this kaupapa of smoke-free Aotearoa. Their impetus behind plain packaging was incredibly important. I also want to mention Marama Fox, in fact, and how much I enjoyed Marama Fox walking out of that interview on television at the weekend, with the latest of those big tobacco representatives who have come to our country to try to tell us how we should be making our domestic policy.
I raise that because, as Annette King in her contribution noted, in the select committee we received a lot of submissions. Some of the very worst of the submissions that we received were from the tobacco industry. They were contributions that were frequently amateurish, where the tobacco industry sought to give us a vaguely science-y-sounding or science-y-looking submission. They were from proxies of the industry—people whose research was funded by the industry itself. I found it extraordinary, actually—the amateurish nature of those submissions. I believe that they were amateurish because they were from an industry that is used to getting its own way and that is very slowly adapting to a public policy environment, where it is required to actually front up with evidence. In this case, it is an industry that did not have that evidence. I celebrate, in fact, that that industry has become a pariah industry.
But I want to say something to the members of another submitter—to the members, in fact, of the Food and Grocery Council, an organisation that opposed the plain packaging bill that we are discussing here today and that has, in fact, opposed every single piece of legislation that I have seen in my time in this House that was aimed at reducing harm from tobacco. It is now spreading that same approach to measures that are intended to reduce harm from alcohol and from the food environment. I say to the members of that Food and Grocery Council, who are many more than simply those members from those industries, please think carefully about who you want to represent you and whether you want to be the proxies for those industries.
Although we received some poor submissions, we received some very good ones also. I do want to particularly note the submissions from Hāpai Te Hauora Tāpui, from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), from the Smokefree Coalition, and from the Public Health Association, and say that across many years now those organisations have been the sources of authoritative and useful information to members in this House.
In that connection, I want to say that this House, as we seek to take forward not only this measure but also those other tobacco-control measures that we will need to reach that smoke-free Aotearoa goal, will be the poorer for the Government’s decision to remove the funding from organisations like the Smokefree Coalition and from ASH. That is a retrograde step that I hope the Associate Minister of Health—and I can see he is listening intently to this contribution—will reconsider, because those organisations form a vital part of that public debate on tobacco control. They have an essential contribution to make to reducing the harm from this industry.
Let us remember that every year 5,000 New Zealanders die from preventable tobacco-related illness—600 of those are Māori. And everything that this House can do, everything that the Government can do, everything that civil society can do, to prevent those deaths we should be doing. Thank you.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have discovered quite an unusual situation. The Associate Minister of Health spoke in this second reading of this bill. I have just noticed that in fact this bill is still in the name of Tariana Turia, and I am wondering whether this House needs to change the name of the Minister on this bill, because it is an unusual situation where a bill we are debating is in the name of a Minister who is no longer in this Parliament, but the Associate Minister is taking responsibility and credit for it.
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): I will seek leave to change the name on the bill to my name.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I cannot stop the member seeking leave in that way, but I think it would be slightly impractical for staff to go around with twink and sort of—does twink still exist—twink it out while we are mid-debate. Can I encourage the Minister to let me not put that leave. I will indicate to the Hon Annette King that the normal practice is for the name of the Minister to change when the bill is reprinted. We know that this has taken some time, but I think I can remember that even when that member was an honourable Minister of Health, she might have had some legislation herself that stayed in her name even when the Government changed. [Interruption] Order! So I think what we will do, if it is all right with members, is that I will not put the leave, and we will continue. I think we will accept that it is an unusual situation for something to be in the name of someone who is not even a member, none the less.
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the second reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this bill to select committee at the first reading because we believed that it was really important to get the views of submitters, which we listened to with interest, and we promised to do that in our first reading speech. It was challenging to get a substantive view of the situation when we listened to the statistics, because it depended on who was presenting the submission to us—whether they were in the industry campaigning for smoke-free, or whether they were actually tobacco manufacturers—as to what the actual statistics were.
There is absolutely no doubt that cigarettes are harmful and they cause a significant number of deaths every year. I was fortunate enough to be a part of the select committee that travelled to Australia to find out a little more about their smoke-free experience—
Hon Simon Bridges: Sounds like a junket.
BARBARA STEWART: No, it was not a junket this time. We found out that from—
Hon Simon Bridges: Tell us about the other one then, because that’d be a much better story.
BARBARA STEWART: We did not do that, so—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!
BARBARA STEWART: —plain packaging in Australia—the trends showed that there is a downward trend of tobacco consumption in Australia, but that was not necessarily related to plain packaging. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare confirmed that plain packaging does not show itself to be the key factor in this downward trend. Rather, price was the key factor. Of course, Australia is carrying out annual surveys, and its population shows that in the year after plain packaging was introduced the consumption actually increased in most states. Youth smoking actually increased in that time, as well. The researchers from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia analysed the Australian consumption habits and found that “any evidence to suggest that the plain packaging policy has reduced household expenditure on tobacco is simply lacking.”
So the experience over in Australia showed that the Australian tobacco industry actually sold far more cigarettes and tobacco in the first year of plain packaging than it did in the last year of branded sales. In fact, part of that growth was due to a large number of people buying roll-your-own tobacco because it was far easier to actually get. People were buying based on price. That was the cheapest way to go, and it was easier than buying the cigarettes. We believe that people are not stopping smoking because of plain packaging, but only changing the tobacco product that they purchase, and, really, in New Zealand First we would like to see some reduction in tobacco consumption.
Ironically, I was talking to a group of young people and was told that they were not interested in the packets—
Hon Simon Bridges: That is ironic.
BARBARA STEWART: This was a lot of people I was talking to, actually, Mr Bridges, and they were interested only in what was inside the packet. They did not care about the outside, just the inside, and, of course, it is very easy to buy containers to actually put the cigarettes into. They are easily available, so that you do not have to see these diseased body parts when you want to indulge. So it is really easy to get around this plain packaging legislation with very little effort. Most smokers are now desensitised to those pictures on the tobacco packets, so in New Zealand First we believe that a totally different approach is actually needed because those pictures do not mean a lot any more. We know that there should be education—we do not want people to die from cigarette smoking—and so, perhaps, we need to look at ads that are similar to the Tui ads, which actually capture people’s attention. They may be the best for smokers—something along that sort of line.
We also want to know, if we are going to go ahead with this plain packaging because we believe it is improving the health of New Zealanders, whether we are going to apply the same precedent to alcohol, which causes far more harm than tobacco. Are we going to apply it to high-sugar foods, chocolate, energy drinks, high-salt foods, and gambling? All of these are harmful. Why do we not remove branding from these items as well? We know that there are 1.2 million New Zealanders who are obese, costing around about $686 million per year to the health care system. Why is there no action on branding? Likewise, this afternoon the Government was unwilling to ban sunbeds, even though there is a clear link between sunbed use and the development of melanoma. So why is there no sunbed-free New Zealand from 2015, or something?
The Associate Minister of Health talked a lot about smoke-free New Zealand by 2025, and said that implementing plain packaging was going to be the very first step. We do not believe that there is a hope of introducing a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025, particularly if we keep following the path that we are on. If New Zealand is to be smoke-free, why not ban tobacco? It is a legal product. We know that about 17 percent of New Zealand adults smoke, so why not ban the product altogether?
Also, the excise tax on tobacco products raises about $1.4 billion each year, and around $300 million is spent on smoking-related costs. What is the Government going to do to replace the over $1 billion in tax revenue that will no longer be collected if New Zealand becomes smoke-free? Also, for tourism—our Asian tourists are smokers and it will have a negative on tourism. We have had letters saying that tourists will be turned off, unwilling to come to New Zealand because they are not able to practise the habit that they enjoy. How many tourists are we actually going to lose with this stance?
Finally, we know that there is an increase in crime around cigarettes. Young people, in particular, are breaking into service stations and liquor stores, which are being targeted not for the till but for cigarettes. Already in New Zealand we can see an increase in black market activity. We know that the New Zealand illicit tobacco market is estimated at about 8 percent of tobacco products. We are likely to see the same levels of illicit tobacco entering the country. Of course, we have to be aware that people can—and are—growing their own tobacco products and drying them in their own garages and wherever.
We do not believe that introducing plain packaging is the way to reduce the incidence of smoking. There has to be far more than that. In New Zealand First we have always said that we will support good legislation and we will oppose bad legislation. We do not believe that this measure is going to do what everyone believes it will. We will not be smoke-free, we will still have smokers, and we are just wasting our time carrying through this piece of legislation.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for this opportunity. I am taking a short call to support the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill in its second reading. This bill is to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products, and its aim is to reduce the number of young people who take up smoking and also to help smokers to quit smoking.
This issue of smoking is one that I think is discussed in a lot of households. It is because there is a family member who smokes, or it is because a parent or older members in the family are teaching young people in the family not to take up smoking. This is not the first time that it has been debated here in the House and in the community. I remember those days when smoke packs used to be really fancy and were displayed in cabinets just behind the counter in shops and supermarkets. It was very easy for young people to see the kinds of tobacco products that were available and what kinds of choices there were.
We changed that packaging to the packaging that we have now, which is showing pictures of diseased body parts or organs to show the ill effects of smoking. Also, the display of smoking and tobacco products was then banned from behind the counter so that young people cannot see them, so we can stop them getting attracted to smoking. As part of Budget 2016, we are increasing tobacco tax by 10 percent from 1 January each year for 4 years.
We know that one measure is not going to make New Zealand smoke-free by 2025, and that is why we need a number of measures. This bill is one of those measures. I have already spoken about other measures that we have taken in the past. Those measures plus this measure will definitely give us the desired outcome.
Speaking about plain packaging, it is not really plain. There will be warning signs on packaging as there are now, but logos and colours will not be as attractive as they are now. That will definitely help to reduce the advertising of tobacco products. In Australia, as we have heard from other contributors, this plain packaging regime was introduced in December 2012, and we have definitely seen that this has helped to reduce the number of people who take up smoking.
It is not just one measure. As I said, it cannot be claimed that it was just one measure that gave the reduction that Australia saw. There are a number of measures it has taken, and, similarly, we are taking a number of measures to reduce the number of people who are smoking. We know that around 4,500 to 5,000 people die each year due to smoking-related illnesses. It is 4,500 to 5,000 people who die each year because of smoking-related illnesses, and that comes to 12 people a day. Twelve people a day die because of smoking-related illnesses. If we can save these 12 people from dying, then why not? That is why I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. I am very proud to stand and support the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. Like, I think, everybody, I definitely want a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2021, and I definitely support using all of the good, effective tools that we can to help us get there. For my mother, who is watching, essentially this bill introduces a plain packaging regime for her ciggies that she likes to get, and will punch that marketing right in the guts to stop the appeal, particularly to young people, which is what the evidence shows—I am just referring to my New Zealand First friends—does have an effect. Otherwise, why would the tobacco companies stand with so much kaha to oppose it? Why would they do that if it did not work? There is the evidence—and I find myself checking myself, but I agreed with the Associate Minister of Health when he told the story of the evidence and why it did have a significant and important reduction in smoking rates. I want that, too.
I fondly remember that I received an award in 2006 from Te Hotu Manawa Māori—which used to be a Māori health provider under the ministry, actually—for being a Tāmaki-makau-rau Auahi Kore role model. I liken it to a beauty contest, but for non-smoking. I toured the country as a non-smoking Māori woman, reclaiming our traditional auahi kore status through the power of being Māori women. Something we have known for a long time is that Māori women have featured far too highly in the incidence of smoking. I recall fondly my involvement in that work, and being awarded that award back then. I also recall fondly featuring on a postcard for the Ministry of Health as a pregnant Māori woman to encourage smoke-free pregnancy. So it is my honour to stand here and recall my support in supporting those incredible workers and agencies, who were out there long before I was, trying to get us to auahi kore status.
I want to right now do a big mihi to the Hon Whaea Tariana Turia and her relentless, courageous, and urgent work to try to get us to this point. I acknowledge that she also said very recently—I think last month—that it should have been done earlier. She also dissed it a bit. She said that “Oh well, we’ll wait to see how Aussie goes.” is not actually a way to plan our own laws. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Kevin Hague, who acknowledged my other colleague Marama Fox. I agree with Marama Fox. Those tobacco bullies do not need to be given a platform here in our country, so I want to acknowledge those people, as well. I also want to acknowledge Hone Harawira, who supported and worked with Whaea Tariana to push this through.
I want to talk about the fact that Māori are the group with the most prevalence of smoking, more than any other ethnic group. At 32.7 percent, the rate is more than double the rate of non-Māori smoking—more than double. I heard before some discussion about one of the arguments—tobacco lobbyists want to protect their intellectual property. We have to be more concerned about protecting the intellectual property, the wairua property, and the contribution that people are going to make without having to die from smoking and without having to get sick from smoking. That is the intellectual property that we should be worried about in Aotearoa New Zealand. So I wanted to just bat that one away.
My brother, Boyd Broughton, and my sister-in-law, Jeanine Tāmati-Paratene, work for Action on Smoking and Health and work for smoke-free health organisations. I want to also acknowledge the work of people like them and many others who for a long time have been telling us to utilise all the tools that we can—the effective tools—to get a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2021. That is what I want, too. Kia ora.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. Let us just get a couple of pieces of evidence on the table. One is that smoking is really bad. I do not think there is anyone in this House or anyone listening who is not aware of that. The second piece of evidence, from the only jurisdiction that we can really analyse as to the effectiveness of plain packaging legislation—Australia—comes from its post-implementation review, which, by the way, is a very good thing for countries to do when they make regulations. What it told us is that over 3 years after plain packaging was introduced in Australia there was a 2.2 percent decrease in smoking rates, part of a trend that had begun several decades earlier, and, according to the very reputable econometrician whom Australia employed to do this study, anywhere from 0.05 to 0.95 percentage points of that decrease in smoking could have been because of plain packaging. On average they think that about 0.5 percent of Australians stopped smoking over that period because of plain packaging.
So those are the facts that are not in dispute. At least 0.05 percent of Australians stopped smoking because of plain packaging laws. Those are the things that are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not smoking cessation is the only value that New Zealand holds. I think that there are a number of other values that are important to New Zealand, including property rights and the right of a business to employ its brand.
Some of the speakers earlier in this debate have said that we have the proof that this legislation will be effective because none of the tobacco companies want it. Well, of course none of them wants it, any more than political parties would want to have their brands removed so that they could not compete with each other. Every business wants to have its own brand, so that it can compete with other businesses. So it is simply not true to say that tobacco companies are worried that there will be a reduction in smoking. What they are worried about is that there will be a reduction in their ability to compete with other tobacco companies. They are worried that what they are they going to find is that the tobacco companies that succeed under this legislation are the ones that are prepared to compete on price only. So it is perfectly understandable that the tobacco companies would be opposed to having their property rights confiscated.
We have in this country a tradition that you are free to do what you like, so long as you are not causing harm to others. You might have understood restrictions on banning tobacco advertising if you thought that it was going to be seen by people who had not sought it out and who would be sinisterly influenced by seeing that advertising, even though they were not looking for it. You might accept that argument. But what is put forward by plain packaging is that people will not be able to look at these brands, even though they have actively chosen to see them by asking to have the cabinet in the shop opened and by taking them home and looking at them in their own private spaces.
It is said that hard cases make bad law. It is a hard case. Nobody wants to defend the tobacco industry, but the principles behind New Zealand’s tradition of property rights, freedoms of trade, and the freedom to do as you damn well please so long as you are not harming anyone else are also very important. That is why I am opposed to this bill, which will have a minimal effect on smoking behaviour, as demonstrated in Australia. But it is a major step in eroding our tradition of property rights and freedom to trade. That is something that every legitimate business in New Zealand and every business person listening tonight should be very, very concerned about. The ACT Party proudly opposes this bill. Thank you.
MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I agree with the previous speaker, David Seymour. Companies that do mete out harm, destruction, and death on people who buy their products should be worried.
As I was preparing for this second reading I came across these words—and, if I might, I am going to quote them—from the late Dame Whina Cooper: “Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel. For how the children grow, so will the shape of Aotearoa.” This woman, in her 80th year, gathered 60,000 signatures and led a hīkoi of 1,000 miles, from Te Hāpua in the far north to Parliament. Te Roopuu o Matakite—those with the foresight—was launched at a hui at Māngere marae in early 1975, in response to the relentless alienation of Māori land. The diminutive Dame believed that it was time to unite Māori across iwi boundaries, under the banner of “Not One More Acre”. Her hīkoi encompassed overnight stays at 25 marae, each one mobilising conversation and sparking commitment to the cause.
“Take care of our children.” What does that mean? Forty years on from the land march, we are still marching. We are marching for our mokopuna, marching for them to survive another day. This bill, the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill, continues that hīkoi, for a different kaupapa in a different setting, but in the same vein as all the other marches that took place earlier this week. I have the same passion and energy for this bill as I do for fighting any cause that robs our people of land and life, that erodes our spirit, and that destroys our capacity to be strong, healthy, and alive.
Just to be perfectly clear, there is no safe level of tobacco use. Tobacco use causes many types of cancer, including cancer of the lung, larynx, mouth, oesophagus, throat, bladder, kidney, liver, stomach, pancreas, colon, rectum, and cervix, as well as acute leukaemia. Tobacco use is the leading cause of cancer and of death from cancer. People exposed to second-hand smoke have an increased risk of cancer through access to the many chemicals that damage our very DNA. Tobacco smoke contains many chemicals that are harmful to both smokers and non-smokers. Breathing even a little tobacco smoke can be harmful. Among the 250 known harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 69 can cause cancer.
So I come back to the kōrero “Take care of our children.” My most significant qualification for this debate is that I am a mother of nine children—the most exquisite mokopuna you will ever see on the face of the earth. What we all know is that smoking has been found to harm nearly every bodily organ and to diminish a person’s overall health.
I may have overstepped when I personally attacked an industry baron who came to our shores to promote the use of tobacco. It was a diminishing conversation, and I have apologised to those New Zealanders who took offence at my words, such as “peddler of death” or “corporate executioner”. I was angry, and I take full responsibility for my words and the way that I spoke. But over the last week I have reflected on the reasons for that anger, and they never stray far from home: “Take care of our children.”
A study last year by Dr Rob Young, associate professor of medicine and molecular genetics at the University of Auckland, sets it out in stark clarity. Again I quote: “Lung cancer in Māori is characterised by: Earlier age of diagnosis (6-8 yrs younger) despite comparable smoking exposure; … more aggressive cancer histology and greater susceptibility … to the effects of smoking; Two fold greater mortality …”.
This bill is one more step to give effect to Dame Tariana’s vision of a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025. It is one more step to support an educational campaign increasing our efforts to increase quit rates and be mindful of the risks of lung cancer. If there is one thing I know, it is that people who quit smoking, regardless of their age, have substantial gains in life expectancy compared with those who continue to smoke.
If we do not listen to our own successive Ministers of Health, select committees, professors of medical science and environmental health, Dames, advocates, Māori activists, economists, doctors, and nurses, then perhaps we will listen to international experts. Over the last decade headlines in the international medical journal The Lancet have been consistently compelling. Here they are—this is what those international headlines have said—“Maori have the highest rate of lung cancer of all the populations in the 4 high income countries studied”, “Tobacco control in NZ has failed Māori”, “The country needs Māori to lead a new approach to cutting smoking rates”, and “Māori are treated differently in the health system”. I implore the Minister to ensure that Māori are at the heart of auahi kore initiatives. Take care of what they hear. Take care of what they see. Take care of what they feel.
In the Health Committee commentary the advice is to be straight-up in our use of language, to introduce the wording “quit smoking” and “have quit smoking”. It is a move that I totally support. We must speak the way the people speak, so that everyone understands. The committee also recommends that the cultural effects of smoking be included within the context for introducing plain packaging. I cannot help but think of the greater cultural framework into which this whole debate was kicked off. Smoking had not been a part of the Māori way of life. The first Pākehā to be seen smoking a pipe was Captain Cook. Not much later on sealers, whalers, traders, and settlers would trade with tobacco and pipes as a form of koha and as a form of currency to purchase land. By the end of the 1840s the use of tobacco by Māori was widespread among adults and not unknown among children. It comes back to the land, the whenua; the people, tangata whenua; and, most of all, it comes back to our children, our mokopuna.
Fifteen years ago one of the Māori Party’s founding co-leaders, Pita Sharples, was the champion featured on posters of the widespread campaign “It’s about whānau” to promote smoking cessation. Last year the other founding co-leader, Dame Tariana Turia, was presented with the Luther L. Terry Award for Exemplary Leadership in Tobacco Control at an international conference in Abu Dhabi. The American Cancer Society selected Mrs Turia for her enduring commitment to the health of all New Zealanders and tireless pursuit of a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025.
Today our pursuit of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill follows in their steps, follows in the steps of many others before us, and, most of all, sets out to create new footprints for a world free of tobacco harm. The true face of smoking is disease, death, and horror, not the glamour and sophistication that the peddlers of the industry try to push. Tobacco control measures that eliminate smoking altogether will be the only effective way of reducing disparities. We stand in absolute support of this bill, in rejection of the tragedy that smoking has inflicted and continues to inflict on Māori but, most of all, to preserve our slice of paradise for our children. For how the children grow, so will the shape of Aotearoa.
POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I do want to commend the previous speaker, Marama Fox, for her eloquence. It was very important to hear the messages that are coming from our Māori community about smoking. I must acknowledge the work of the previous Māori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, because she has been strident and strong and passionate in ensuring that we get to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. There is no doubt that smoking is definitely something that we should seek to be eliminating from our communities.
I had the pleasure of sitting on the Health Committee ably chaired by Dr Paul Hutchison when we were examining this bill. It seeks to do a couple of things. It really seeks to reduce the appeal of tobacco, in particular for our young people. But it also seeks to reduce the social acceptance of tobacco products, and increase the noticeability of those messages and health warnings that we need to get out into the public arena and keep reinforcing. There is no doubt that this measure alone will not effect the change that we want for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. But it is part of a range of measures that started with the Smoke-free Environments Act, when we looked at ensuring that our workplaces were smoke-free and that our places of gathering, such as restaurants and bars, were smoke-free, so those places where we could suffer significant second-hand smoke harm were eliminated or reduced as far as possible.
It is important to note that the emphasis in this is around ensuring that we not only minimise the number of young people starting but also target them as a group that should not start at all. There is no doubt that once you have started smoking, it is very difficult to give up. So if we can make our best efforts to ensure that we stop people from smoking in the first place, that is the best way to go, but our young people in particular need to be encouraged not to take up smoking in the first place. The bill will look at the penalties that are currently in place, and look to increase the penalties for non-compliance. The penalties for current offences will be increased as well.
This bill also looks at ensuring that the property rights issues that the tobacco companies raised during the submissions are continued, so that the tobacco companies can still have their logos on their tobacco products, but the idea is that they will be standard across all products. All tobacco companies will have the criteria for their logos on packaging determined by this legislation, so that in terms of the percentage or the proportion of the packaging itself the logos of the tobacco companies will be reduced. The packaging itself—and this is one of the issues that is raised in the report from the select committee—is not plain. The packaging is not plain; it is standardised, and what will be included on the packaging are health messages. The colour of the packaging will be used as a deterrent, and so will the images and the messages on the packaging. What the bill attempts to do is to standardise that across the range of tobacco products and companies producing those products. So the recommendation by the committee is to change the title of the bill from Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill to the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill.
I want to talk about the Australian evidence. The Health Committee did hear from the Australian Parliament. One of things we heard from the Australians was that the daily rates of smoking for people aged 14 and over declined from 15.1 percent in 2010 to 12.8 percent in 2013. Although it was too early to say that there was a direct correlation to the introduction of plain packaging, it was certainly something to be celebrated, and also out of line with the messaging we had heard from tobacco companies that when plain packaging is introduced, smoking rates actually go up. So it was an indication, even though it was early days in their plain packaging regime, that there was some hope that that could add to the whole continuum of looking to reduce smoking in our communities.
I also want to comment on the fact that as a select committee we encouraged the use of the vernacular. We encouraged the terminology “to quit smoking”, because “quit” is a word that is synonymous with giving up smoking and with the programmes that are associated with giving up smoking, such as Quitline. I think I want to credit myself for insisting that we used Quitline. I want to acknowledge the work of all of those quit coaches out there in New Zealand, and particularly I want to note my sister Tokerau Williams, who taught me a lot about the work that she did as a quit coach for a Māori health provider. I know that using the terminology of the day that is in popular use is unusual in legislation, but I think in this case it actually adds to the ability for us to get those messages out into the community.
I also want to comment on the fact that we ensured that there is a cultural reference within the bill. When we look at the acceptance of smoking in our communities, we must do what we can to ensure that there is a cultural element within the work that we do with regard to quitting smoking. This is because there is no doubt that there are populations and groups that are more susceptible to the message from our tobacco companies—and it is a shame that our young Māori women in particular have taken up the smoking in rates that are the highest amongst our population. So it is important that we do what we can to ensure that we address those cultural aspects.
I want to go back to the notion of the way the packaging will look. We heard from many of the submitters—and there were many Māori providers of quit-smoking services and there were some Pacific providers of quit-smoking services—and they talked about having grown up in homes where the red packet for a particular brand of smoking, or the blue packet, or the green packet was very prominent within the home. They talked about how that kind of subtle reminder of smoking, day after day after day, really influenced their decisions about whether they took up smoking or not. I can recall, when smoking advertising was a lot more prevalent in our media, just how cool it looked to have a cigarette in your hand, so it is important to ensure that we do what we can to reduce those images and make it as uncool as possible.
I should out myself and say that I was a smoker. I was a smoker for 20 years, and I started at a very young age. One of the things that we have ensured in this bill is that we restrict the size and the number of cigarettes that we sell. In my day the local dairy used to sell cigarettes singly, and I am really pleased to see that this bill will look to eliminate those small pack sizes, because it really just encourages young people to continue smoking if it is easy to access cigarettes.
Lastly, I just want to comment on the transitional provisions. We felt on the select committee that 6 weeks for distributors and 12 weeks for retailers was sufficient time for them to look at the reduction of old stock that does not conform to the plain packaging. We did not buy the argument from the Retailers Association that retailers would have lots of the old stock on hand.
In conclusion, this is a good bill. I think the select committee did a good job on addressing a lot of the key issues, and I commend it to the House.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. Plain paper packaging—or standardised packaging, as we prefer to call it—has been shown to reduce the incidence and uptake of tobacco smoking, especially in adolescence.
In 2008 the Northland District Health Board made nine recommendations to the Māori Affairs Committee, and its recommendation 2 talked to this: “Tobacco packaging promotes the attractiveness of cigarettes. The introduction of plain packaging would help reduce that attractiveness and therefore uptake of smoking by teenagers. The tobacco industry knows that plain packaging will be effective in reducing tobacco sales. Introducing plain packs are likely to protect Māori by reducing the attractiveness of smoking.”
So here we have it—this is fundamentally how this works, and I think Dame Tariana really summed it up. It is all about the marketing. In the first reading, she actually said this: “In essence, the decision to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products in New Zealand is all about the branding.”—this is how it works—“It takes away the last means of promoting tobacco as a desirable product. When tobacco manufacturers push tobacco, they are not simply selling a stick of nicotine; they are selling status, social acceptance, and adventure. The design and appearance of tobacco products and, in particular, the way they are packaged influence people’s perceptions about these products and the desirability of smoking. Brand imagery demonstrably increases the appeal of tobacco brands, particularly to youth and young adults, helping to attract new smokers and also implying wider social approval for tobacco use.”
So there are three parts to the branding: there is the background, there is the image, and there is the text. If we look briefly at these separately—let us look at the background first of all. When the Australians deployed plain packaging in 2012, they commissioned a panel of experts who, over 3 months, tried to determine what would be the most offensive background—the background that was most likely to deter and discourage tobacco purchasers. The colour on this paper is what they came up with as the most effective—or the most offensive, if you like—background colour. It is called Pantone 448 C.
Grant Robertson: I’ve got that on my kitchen wall.
Dr SHANE RETI: Ha, ha! They called this olive green, and all was good until the Australian Olive Association said “No, no, that’s not good. We don’t like the linkage, thank you very much, with smoking.”, and so it was changed to drab dark brown. So this is actually the colour that is now used as a background in Australia. So we have got the background—that is important.
We have then got the image that is used. There is clear evidence that the image has an effect on deterring adolescents, particularly. If we look at the European Journal of Public Health in 2009, they asked adolescents what sort of packaging they were more likely to take notice of—packaging with a picture or just with text, and clearly it was with a picture. So the second part—the image.
Third is the text, and that is a story about the narrative, the font size, the type, and the colour. Again, if we look at the British Journal of Addiction in 2008, before plain paper packaging was deployed into the European Union, they looked at before and after—without a warning label, and with a warning label—and clearly were able to show some effect. So, as Dame Tariana said way back when, this is simply all about the branding—that is its effectiveness.
As other speakers have noted, this is not the silver bullet; this just adds another tool to the armoury combatting tobacco use. And, with that, I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 108
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.
Noes 13
New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1.
Bill read a second time.
Name changed to Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill.
Bills
Building (Pools) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move, That the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Swimming pools are a source of a huge amount of enjoyment for New Zealanders. They are about healthy exercise. They are about Kiwi families learning to get those water skills to be able to ensure that they are safe, whether they go to the beach, or whether they have a swim in one of New Zealand’s many rivers and lakes. But those same swimming pools also pose a serious risk, particularly for toddlers and small children, and the challenge for Parliament with this bill is to get that healthy balance for New Zealanders to be able to have swimming pools, to be able to have that enjoyment, but also to ensure that we minimise the risk for our young children.
The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act of 1987 has been very effective in significantly reducing and preventing drownings of young children in swimming pools across New Zealand. However, that law, now 30 years old, is in need of review and some change because there are gaps in the way in which it is working, which is compromising the safety of children. Equally so, there are some provisions that are cumbersome and impose excessive costs on families and other organisations with swimming pools. The bill introduces a more consistent and practical approach to protecting children from drowning. The current bill will not only save more young lives but also reduce some of those compliance costs.
The major changes in the bill are, firstly, around the issue of inspection. What we know from 30 years’ history of the current law is that although a swimming pool may be compliant on the day that it was built, afterwards—whether it is that trees grow, the fence wears out, the gate’s closing devices no longer work—it may not be. Today that is the principal risk to children. Some of our councils do inspect pools regularly; others do not. What we are proposing through this bill is a nationwide requirement that all pools be regularly inspected, and my officials estimate that that will result in six fewer drownings of young children per decade.
The other issue that is addressed in this bill, and is an important change, is in respect of spa pools and hot tubs that have child-resistant covers. In the current law, they are required to be fenced. My advice from officials is that councils, effectively, turned a blind eye to that law. Neither do we actually think that when there is a safety cover—that child-resistant cover—that there is a justification for also requiring a fence. I am advised by officials that in over 10 years there has been one drowning of a child under 5 in a spa pool. Actually, there were more drownings in baths, and, obviously, we do not require the standard Kiwi family bath to be fenced. That is why this bill takes the view that the safety covers, properly installed and properly inspected, are the right way forward. If we actually enforced the existing law, there would be a cost of $300 million for those people who owned spa pools and those hot tubs. Quite clearly, that cannot be justified.
I do want to acknowledge the considerable work that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done. I particularly want to acknowledge the chair, Scott Simpson, and the other members for the work that they have done in refining this bill and reporting it back to Parliament. They have carefully considered the concerns that have been raised by submitters and are trying to get those improvements in child safety as well as that practical approach to compliance.
I also want to acknowledge the large number of submitters—183 written, 32 oral. Clearly, people view swimming pool safety and, more broadly, water safety as an important issue for New Zealand.
Since this bill was introduced last September, the committee has made a number of changes. Most of these changes have been technical in nature, but there are two significant changes that have been made around the issues of the periodic residential pool inspection regime. Most submitters on the bill were in favour of the mandatory inspection regime, but there was considerable debate between those who favoured the original provision in the bill, which was for 5-yearly inspections, and those who preferred 3-yearly inspections. I support the deliberations of those select committee members who, on balance, decided that the period should be 3 years.
There was some debate as to whether councils should have discretion. I actually think there is an advantage in having a consistent approach across New Zealand. For many of those people who are orientated in swimming pools, there are a number of different councils, and, in my view, the level of risk across different parts of the country does not really justify a different period between inspections.
Another change to the bill relates to who carries out those pool inspections. The bill as introduced would allow for only council staff to carry out those mandatory periodic inspections of pool fences. The bill as it has been reported back would allow for independently qualified pool inspections, and, in my view, this is more consistent with the general approach of the Building Act. Many people would not be aware that, actually, things like lifts have to be regularly inspected to ensure that they are safe. We do not require councils to have to do that. It has to be done by independent, appropriately qualified persons. Equally so, one of the biggest risks from buildings is, of course, the risk of fire. Again, in that area, those inspections are done and certified by people who are appropriately qualified, and in my view that is a sensible approach.
I would also note that many of the councils that currently do not have an inspection system are our smaller councils, so, as a consequence, it would make sense, and there would not be sufficient work in some of our smaller authorities like Kaikōura or some councils on the West Coast to have a pool inspection regime, and having a provision for providing for independent, appropriately qualified people will make this law more practical for those smaller authorities.
A number of submitters commented that using the performance-based approach of the building code for means of restricting access to residential pools, as proposed in the bill, rather than having a more prescriptive standard, would, in their view, actually reduce pool safety. These submitters also indicated that pools should have a fence rather than a physical barrier. My view is that the preoccupation with fencing is not sensible. There are properties around New Zealand where, for instance, a pool is located adjacent to a 20-metre high cliff, and to require the property owner to install a fence in that situation, where there is quite clearly a barrier that would prevent any young child getting access to the pool—this is a more sensible approach. It is consistent with the broader approach that is applied in the Building Act. It is also consistent with the standards that have been developed around physical barriers.
A number of submitters also expressed concern about doors being used as part of the pool barrier. I am advised that there are about 100,000 pools across New Zealand where having a door that requires automatic closing actually does apply now. The requirement, as some have wanted, to have four-sided fences for all pools is, in our view, not a practical approach across every property, of which there is a varied approach.
So, in summary, this bill will reduce unnecessary compliance costs and frustrations, particularly around the issue of spa pools and hot tubs that have child-resistant covers, which will not have to be separately fenced. In addition, because of the regular, mandatory 3-yearly inspection regime, this is a bill that will save young lives. I know the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have carefully and thoroughly considered the submissions received on the bill. I again thank them for their work. It is a better bill through their endeavours, and I commend this bill to the House.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. By my count, the next speaker will get less than a minute before they are interrupted, so I therefore seek leave for the House to now adjourn.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that course of action? As I said on one previous occasion, there is no one that foolish.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.