Ardern Jacinda: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and speak to the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and six other bills. We will be supporting these bills. I think it is important to point out the overall ambition of these bills and that is ultimately smoking cessation as we understand it. It is an increase in excise that is intended ultimately to have some public health good. There is an estimate though that this legislation will raise an additional as I understand it $528 million— 
Andrew Little 
: Over 4 years. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —over 4 years. But I think it is important to clarify that at least on this side of the House it is the public health measures—the public good that is done by trying to reduce smoking amongst our communities—that drive our support ultimately for this bill and the other bills. But is that what is driving the National Government when it comes to its support of this legislation? I think probably the easiest way to give us some sense of what is motivating the Government and driving it on these matters is voting record. That usually is indicative of where a political party’s ideological views you could say or you could say values stand on these matters. 
When we look at Labour’s history and record when it comes to smoking and smoking cessation I think it is a record that we can certainly stand on with some pride. That is of course because not only did we focus on excise as a way to address the issue but also we looked at how you create culture change. I think that one of the most significant moves in that regard was the legislation that was pursued and defended and rigorously developed by Steve Chadwick. That was I remember at the time extraordinarily controversial—the idea of removing the ability to smoke in bars and restaurants. It certainly came under heavy scrutiny externally from those in industry obviously but also from some in the hospitality industry. There was a view that it would bring down tourism hospitality—all sorts of messages were thrown around. But because our main driver was the public good and the public health good of these measures we pursued them with vigour. Obviously there is always risk attached when you do pursue such matters in that way but it was the right thing to do and I do believe it has made a significant difference. I have got nothing more than my anecdotal experience to say that I think it has made one of the most significant differences in recent times to shifting our culture to shifting the amount certainly that people are smoking but overall to try to move us closer to a smoke-free New Zealand. 
It is estimated that half of all long-term smokers die of a smoking-related illness and about 5000 deaths each year in New Zealand are directly attributable to smoking or second-hand smoke. It is unlike any other substance almost that we regulate in New Zealand because we know of its dire consequences. That does give it a slight difference than alcohol. But I will come back to that point. 
But let us look at National’s record on these matters when we took extraordinary urgency to increase the excise on tobacco in May 2000. Bill English—well the National Party—voted against those measures. But Bill English specifically said when defending his reasoning for not having voted for those measures: “The reason we voted against this measure was that the Government did not ever say that it would do it and that is the measure it set—not us. The Government did not say before the election that it would do it—that is the Government’s standard not ours. It is a tax increase. It is a tax on the poorest people in New Zealand it is an increase that is far too large and that is why we voted against it.” I want to try a little experiment here. Let us pretend that instead of this being a quote about an excise tax increase on cigarettes and instead of this being a quote given by a National member let us turn it into a quote about GST increases and let us turn it into something said potentially by a member of the Opposition. I think you would find that it probably would hold: “The Government did not say before the election that it would do it. It is a tax increase. It is a tax on the poorest people in New Zealand. It is an increase that is far too large.” I think that would be a much more fitting quote for the National Government’s increase in GST than it would be for an increase on excise around tobacco. 
And when it comes to increases in excise here is an interesting point. Are those things that one campaigns on? Well there is a reason why excise in many forms is often debated under urgency—you know last year’s sherry taxes alcohol taxes. There is a reason: you try not to encourage the enormous uptake of purchasing before you move an excise in a particular direction. It is a really practical reason. It is interesting I think that Bill English has though exposed at that time and perhaps even now where the National Government sits on these issues. Is it a tax grab? I would like to be slightly more generous than that. One thing I do know is that I have absolutely no doubt that the Maori Party has made a significant difference to the National Government’s positioning on smoking. It absolutely has and credit where credit is due. If Tariana Turia in particular was not driving this agenda on that side of the House I doubt we would have seen the measures that we have seen. Certainly plain packaging of cigarettes is an issue that Tony Ryall was very dismissive of—very dismissive. And I think when you pull out the record of the Government on issues like that it certainly exposes not only the Government’s lack of commitment overall but also the difference that a coalition partner has made. 
One of the questions I want to ask is this: if we know that higher prices are one of the most effective tobacco control measures that we have can we transfer that reasoning and rationale to the debate around alcohol? Both substances are associated with known harms. Obviously in cigarettes from the first smoke to the 10th smoke there is harm whereas with alcohol we are debating questions often of moderation but you could argue there is immediate harm depending on your age and your station and so on depending on who is consuming. Why then are we not having the same discussion around the difference that price points make for alcohol? Well there is only one reason why we are not having that debate. It is that the Government does not want us to have that debate and we should be having it. If the alcohol legislation that the Government is bringing before this House is the substantive opportunity that we have in this lifetime to change this nation’s culture around alcohol as with smoking price should at least have been part of the discussion. It should have at least been debated. The idea that we need to collect more data I am afraid just does not hold. 
But I want to acknowledge how far we have moved in this debate—how far even in my generation. I recall when I was at school for instance that my basketball coach—I did at some point engage in team sports which is something that would be known to be unusual if anyone knows me—told me that at one period during his life his doctor had prescribed him cigarette smoking as a way to deal with anxiety issues. He had prescribed cigarette smoking! That was my high school teacher. We have moved and we have come a long way but we must make sure that we do not lose our drive around dealing with this significant issue. 
The one final thing I wish to say is that we are dealing with CPI adjustment in this bill in a piecemeal way. Labour believes that the Government needs to undertake a review of the CPI and how it is used to index Government payments and revenue rather than fiddle with it in an ad hoc and potentially discriminatory way. I am pleased to be seeing a little more proactivity at this point and I hope we will be seeing a lot more.