Woodhouse Michael: Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10578] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. At the outset I need to put on record that like my colleague Dr Jackie Blue I am also a former smoker. I gave up pretty much cold-turkey about 12 years ago; I did not use nicotine supplements. The mind-set change and the realisation that I came to was that when someone gives up smoking then he or she is not losing something but is gaining a heck of a lot. It was only when that mind-set change happened that I was able to sustain that very painful 72-hour period that nicotine addicts go through when they are withdrawing from the product but after that it does get easier and easier. I hope that those who are still addicted to nicotine and who are motivated by the changes in this bill will come to that realisation as well. I understand how hard it is to stop smoking and I am mindful of the comedian who once said: “Giving up cigarettes is really easy. I should know; I’ve done it about 25 times.” 
I am sure the House is grateful to my medical colleagues Dr Blue and in particular Dr Paul Hutchison for his graphic depiction of his time as a pathology registrar and the debilitating effects of smoking. But he also made the very good point that the medical fraternity was perhaps slow to pick up and develop an evidence base for the negative effects of smoking. There are even print ads from the early 20th century of doctors endorsing certain brands of cigarettes. I was smoking when I started work at a bank in Dunedin North and I remember now with some horror that as a teller it was the norm that when I was serving customers there would be an ashtray there with a cigarette burning such was the acceptance that we had of smoking as part of what we did. 
Opposition members can and have gently and lightly ribbed National members for opposing certain things when we were in Opposition but I think that as a society we have gone down a path of enlightenment. I suggest that that is what is happening with this bill. I was in the UK at the end of 1988 when workplaces went smoke-free and I well remember a colleague who was heavily addicted to nicotine and who smoked about 40 a day and who was so distraught by the change that she felt she would need to resign because she could not survive the day if it was not for the cigarette on the desk. But she got through that as well and I think we need to support those people who are addicted. 
The suggestion that this is some kind of tax for revenue-raising purposes and even worse to subsidise tax cuts I find very very hard to take. I am sure Iain Lees-Galloway had tongue in cheek when he said that. I also think the Hon Ruth Dyson made relevant comments about being careful about where the money goes in the public health initiatives that might be needed to support this legislation. But we need to remember as other members have said that maybe $1.1 billion of revenue is collected through tobacco excise but the total costs on society of smoking and in particular the costs that fall on our health sector comfortably exceed $1.7 billion and are approaching $2 billion. So it is really not accurate to say that somehow this legislation will be a great windfall to the Government. 
I also expect that the Quitline service which is not subject to fiscal constraints as I understand it will be flooded basically— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What do you mean “not subject to fiscal constraints”? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: There is no cap on the number of people who can go to Quitline and get the subsidised support that is available. I have no doubt there will be a huge increase in demand for its services. I certainly hope that is the case. 
But I want to focus on the case for using tobacco excise as an effective means for reducing the prevalence of tobacco smoking in New Zealand. We have talked about the positive effects of that. It is known in economics as “demand elasticity” and the best research suggests that the price elasticity of tobacco is probably about negative 4.8 or 5 which means that on average a 10 percent increase in the price would be followed by a decrease in consumption of about 5 percent. But of course that does not tell the full story and we need to drill more deeply into the research in this area. For adults who are addicted to nicotine the price elasticity is slightly less than that. There is definitely evidence that it will reduce prevalence in that group but I think what is really relevant to this is that if we look at the evidence for young smokers or young people considering smoking the evidence is extremely strong that the price elasticity in that group is much higher. It ranges from about minus 0.9 to 1.5. In plain English that means that young people are three times more likely than older people to stop smoking or to not start with this level of excise being increased. So they are far more price-sensitive and it is for that reason among all of the many good reasons for supporting this bill that I support it. 
It is also important to make sure that when we look back into history these increases in excise tax actually have had a positive impact and it is very important to note that we see a step-change that is positively co-related with the increases. It started with the smoke-free workplaces legislation in 1990; then there was an increase in the excise in the late 1990s and again in the early 2000s. All of those impacts are very very highly co-related and in my view causative of the reduction in smoking. 
Another way to drill into the prevalence data is through ethnicity and this is a really concerning issue that Minister Turia and others have talked about. Maori women in particular are smoking at the rate of nearly 50 percent of the population. Pasifika are also at a high level but not quite as high as that. What is interesting is the Asian statistics. Asian men smoke at about the national average but there is a dramatic reduction for women. Asian women smoke at the rate of about only 5.2 percent of their population. I am not quite sure what the cultural differences are but it could be an excellent body of research to drill into to find out the reasons why they smoke at a much lower rate than others. 
In summary this is an outstanding initiative. I think we will hear the inevitable retorts from the tobacco industry about why this will not be a good idea. I am encouraged that almost entirely this House will support this bill and ignore that rhetoric. This bill will have nothing but good things for our society and for our health system. For that reason I very strongly the bill.