Ryall Tony: Public Health Bill — First Reading 
Ryall Tony: Public Health Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13843] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The public will be wondering why Parliament is sitting under urgency to introduce legislation that talks about protecting our country from cholera yellow fever and the plague. I am reliably informed that the arrival of these diseases to our shores is not imminent but new public health issues are asserting themselves in this new century. Severe acute respiratory syndrome bird flu obesity and diabetes present actual or potential challenges to New Zealand’s public health. The updating of the Public Health Act is overdue and much of this bill represents improvement on the 1956 legislation. 
The bill moves beyond dealing with the prevention monitoring and control of communicable diseases such as TB and cholera. For the first time it is proposed that public health laws will include measures to deal with non-communicable diseases like obesity and diabetes. This is a significant step underplayed by the Minister. The National Party has considerable concerns about this proposal. In particular we question the so-called voluntary codes and the sweeping powers to regulate just about everything we do that are hidden in clause 374. Parts of this bill smack of nanny State gone too far. Communities and individuals want to be empowered to make choices to achieve their goals. New Zealanders do not want to be told what to do by some central agency and given no support other than to follow orders. 
New Zealanders are fed up with this Labour Government interfering in their lives and parts of this bill will hand control of many of our choices to the Wellington bureaucracy. Let me explain National’s concerns. The first is the issue of voluntary codes—the so-called voluntary codes. Clause 81(1) grants the Government the power to issue a code of practice or guidelines to a sector of a particular activity that the sector undertakes where the Government believes “that the sector can reduce or assist in reducing a risk factor associated with or related to an activity. Clause 83 spells out what a code can provide. It includes under subclause (2)(d) “the accessibility of specified goods substances or services to members of the public or to sections of the public in particular to minors:”; and under subclause(2)(e) “the ways in which specified goods substances or services are advertised sponsored or marketed (whether directly or indirectly):”. The Government also wants codes for the provision under subclause (2)(f) of “the information to be given to consumers of specified goods substances or services whether as part of any advertising sponsorship or marketing or as part of any packaging or labelling of goods or substances.” 
These are wide-reaching provisions. Although the ministry must consult with industry representatives prior to issuing a code the final decision will rest with the ministry. Further the Ministry of Health will have to report in 3 years on the effectiveness of these so-called voluntary codes and no doubt that will lead to enforceable codes. Our question to the Government asks: if these codes are voluntary and not legally enforceable why are they included in the law? If these codes are to be voluntary and are not to be legally enforceable why are they included in the bill? If this Government truly had no secret agenda then voluntary codes would be just that—voluntary and agreed cooperatively. Instead we have a Trojan Horse where voluntary codes can on the signature of a Minister become compulsory. 
Secondly our concerns focus on clause 374 and on paragraph (x) in particular. This clause completely undermines the Government’s argument that there are no coercive powers for its food police. This clause allows untold regulation in the name of dealing with non-communicable diseases such as obesity and diabetes. Clause 374(x) states that the Government may regulate in any way for the purpose of “reducing or assisting in reducing risk factors … associated with or related to non-communicable diseases:”. A “risk factor” is further defined in clause 79 as “a thing or substance that on its own or together with other things or substances or conditions may … give rise to or increase the incidence of non-communicable diseases … in the general population or in communities …”. Put together that means that the Government has an unfettered ability to reduce any risk factors associated with any non-communicable disease. It has carte blanche to deal with that. This clause gives the Government breathtaking powers to regulate what we eat what we see and what we choose. For example this clause will allow the Government to regulate what appears where on supermarket shelves. This clause will allow the Government to restrict the sale of fish and chips to adults only or to children accompanied by adults. This clause will allow rules being enforced in school tuck shops to be enforced in workplaces and homes throughout the country. 
Bob Clarkson 
: You’d better hurry; this is under urgency. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is being done under urgency but what is worse is that this provision this sweeping regulatory provision warranted fewer than seven or eight words in the Minister’s introductory speech. We also draw the House’s attention to clause 374(r) which allows the Government to halt at the border any products that it sees contributing to non-communicable diseases. Surely a Government must be able to achieve its goals for public health without telling its people how to live their lives or feed their families. 
The Government tells us that industry is working very cooperatively with it. The Government claims great progress. If that is true then these provisions are at best unnecessary or at worst Draconian. There is no doubt that obesity and diabetes are major challenges for our people and our health system. As National states in its health discussion document encouraging individuals and members of at-risk communities to adopt healthier lifestyles can make a big difference. Besides increasing awareness about health issues promotion should identify and target the sociocultural aspects of human behaviour. Our cultural hard drive has to alter so that healthy choices are preferred. A successful long-term approach will provide people with the education skills and desire to make healthy dietary and lifestyle choices and stick to them. 
People make personal decisions every day that affect their health and well-being—exercising drinking smoking and eating. Although these choices may be shaped by public health messages and cultural experience they are still choices that individuals are responsible for. The Government should be providing the information and support that people need to make healthy choices instead of making those choices for them. Surely we must have a country that can achieve its goals for public health without telling its people how they have to live their lives. 
National will support the passage of this bill to a select committee but we make it very clear to the Government and the Ministry of Health that we are not prepared to countenance the unfettered regulatory power that this bill proposes to give central government.