Kedgley Sue: Public Health Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Public Health Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13849] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 It seems that there will be a consensus of support right across the House on this Public Health Bill. The Greens are delighted that this is so even though it is an incredibly complex bill of 259 pages dealing with all sorts of minutiae as the previous speaker said from hairdressers and shops to microwave ovens operating camping grounds mortuaries and many other details. Nevertheless it is an important bill and we are particularly pleased that this bill as it says in its explanatory note is addressing non-communicable diseases and environmental health issues—public health issues. It points out that the major causes of population ill health today and the major drivers of health care expenditure are those broadly categorised as non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease diabetes and so forth. We are very pleased that for the first time this public health legislation will address these major causes of population ill health and disease in New Zealand today although it is interesting to note having said that that only five slender pages out of an almost 300-page bill deal with this particular issue—that is the issue of what we loosely call non-communicable diseases. 
It is particularly appropriate that this bill is coming before the House now because the Health Committee has spent a year or more inquiring into the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics. We have heard compelling evidence over the last few years that the key threats we face in New Zealand—as elsewhere particularly in the Western World—are from the epidemics of obesity type 2 diabetes and so forth. We were informed by experts that if we do not deal with these epidemics these diseases will overwhelm our health system. We had many experts warning that if we do not change the eating habits of young New Zealanders in particular then young New Zealanders will be the first generation of children to die before their parents. We will not have a lot of money left to deal with waiting lists and other things because we will be spending all of our money trying to cope with the consequences of obesity and type 2 diabetes. That is the evidence we have heard over the last couple of years in the select committee. 
The reason for those epidemics is quite simply that we have created an environment in New Zealand where unhealthy foods are more heavily promoted more available and more accessible than healthy foods. There are overwhelming commercial pressures on our children to eat unhealthy food. The vast majority of submitters to the select committee called for changes to that environment. They said education alone simply would not work any more than education alone worked in terms of reducing smoking in New Zealand. It is not going to work. Changing the whole environment is like turning around a supertanker. 
The overwhelming majority of submitters said that we needed to change the environment and that education alone would not work. They said: “Please put in some provisions or regulatory powers to enable the Government to restrict for example the advertising of unhealthy foods to children and to put in some marketing restrictions.” The overwhelming majority of submitters called for these provisions. So we are delighted that there is a very minor provision in the bill which Tony Ryall referred to as that insidious paragraph (x) in clause 374. Thank goodness for paragraph (x) because that provision was what the vast majority of submitters and the majority of members of the select committee called for. Thank heaven that in 2007 in this Public Health Bill which is supposed to be primarily dealing with non-communicable diseases—the major cause of population ill health today—we have one little paragraph paragraph (x) which will allow us to look at this particular issue. 
It is interesting that the National Party members departed from the rest of the select committee who said: “Yes this is an overwhelming problem that is going to bankrupt the nation and overwhelm our health system and all our taxes are going to go up because we are going to have to cope with the consequences of obesity and type 2 diabetes if we do nothing and if we do not change the environment.” But the National Party said: “Yes we agree with all that but education is all we need. All we need is a little bit more education and everything will be fine.” That is nonsense. It is the do-nothing approach. It is basically saying “Let’s do nothing. Let’s allow the food industry to have absolutely unfettered powers to target our young children with unhealthy food. Let’s have no restrictions on the ability of the food industry to make profits from wherever they can.” Instead of being honest and saying “Our approach is that we do not want any restrictions on the food industry.” the National Party reframed the debate—as public relations people would say—and instead they said: “Oh we don’t want nanny State. We don’t want any restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy food to children because that would be nanny State.” 
Perhaps the next speaker from the National Party could explain to me whether the regulations that we have to wear seatbelts in cars are nanny State? I do not see National Party members standing up and saying they are an outrageous imposition and nanny State. We have restrictions that say we cannot sell cigarettes and alcohol to children in schools. Is that nanny State? Should that be allowed? Surely by the National Party’s logic we should get in there and sell alcohol and cigarettes because otherwise it is nanny State. It is a very clever reframing of the debate but I think people need to know that all this is about and what the debate will be in the select committee is whether we should allow the food industry the unfettered ability to target our children with unhealthy food and continue the problems we have such as the obesity epidemic and type 2 diabetes. National members will say: “Oh no it doesn’t matter if all our children are going to end up with type 2 diabetes as long as we do not restrict the ability of the food industry to promote unhealthy food to children.” [ 
Interruption 
] We are delighted with paragraph (x) which I can see is going to be the major issue of contention in the select committee. 
However we do have some concerns with this bill. We are concerned with the powers in this bill that will enable schools to be closed to or school attendance restricted for—basically—unvaccinated children. We think that there are significant issues here about the freedoms of people and particularly in this case of unvaccinated children. We think there is a debate to be had and we think that the vaccination groups in New Zealand will be very interested in some of the provisions in this bill. We will expect the National Party to support us strongly over these concerns. National wants maximum freedom and the minimum of intervention in our lives so I am sure it will support us over those particular concerns. Having said that we are very pleased with this legislation and like I think every other party in this House—although I am not sure of ACT but certainly the overwhelming majority of this House—will be supporting this bill. We look forward to its debate in the Health Committee and we look forward in particular to debating clause 374(x).