Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I thank the Associate Minister of Health Sam Lotu-Iiga for that contribution to the debate but what the Minister did not address was the core question that Annette King asked him which was: why so long Minister? Why has this bill taken so long to progress from when it was first proposed as an idea? The Labour Party proposed it back in 2011 the Hon Tariana Turia introduced this legislation in 2013—why are we now in 2016 only at the Committee stage? I would like to propose a few reasons why I think that is the case. The first is that the Hon Tariana Turia is no longer in this Parliament and is no longer the Minister in charge of this bill. National had no interest at all in legislation designed to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. For years and years and years it railed against changes that were made by successive Labour Governments. It did nothing to reduce the harm caused by tobacco when it was in Government in the 1990s and at every opportunity it campaigned against parties or MPs who introduced or supported legislation to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. That changed only when National entered a relationship with the Māori Party. Good on Tariana Turia for her efforts. She championed getting rid of tobacco displays she championed increasing the excise tax and she championed introducing plain packs or standardised packs as we now talk about. That all came to a halt when Tariana Turia left. That speaks loudly I think to National's lack of enthusiasm for reducing the harm caused by tobacco and the sorry state of the Māori Party now that its leadership has left the Parliament and it has far less influence in its role now. This was something that was a key priority for the Māori Party and it has gone right on the backburner since Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia left this House. I think the Māori Party frankly is a shadow of what it could have been especially in this area. Of course in the last few years National has professed to have had a road to Damascus moment and has supported all those pieces of legislation to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. But we know that deep down inside this is still not at its core. This still is not in its DNA. When you have got people like Chris Bishop saying that there are not any studies that suggest plain packaging will work or that it is stopping people from taking up smoking or helping them to quit smoking—that there is not one study to suggest that—you know that actually within the National Party caucus the members do not really believe this stuff. Shane Reti might. He is sitting very quietly up the back. I recall when Dr Paul Hutchison crossed the floor to vote with the Labour Government in favour of legislation to reduce the harm caused by tobacco and I am sure that if the roles were reversed and this was a Labour bill Shane Reti would be crossing the floor to support this legislation because I doubt that a National Party in Opposition would actually support this. It would use this to campaign and rail against the Government. The best indicator of future behaviour is prior behaviour and that is the behaviour that we saw from the National Party every time Labour tried to do things to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. Let us not forget of course the Boy Wonder" Todd Barclay. He had a lot to say about tobacco control before he came into the House as well. He was another one of those tobacco lobbyists. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well we have all said things before we came into the House.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry what was that Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well it is just—IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: He was the one getting into—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): What I would suggest—I suppose I should stand up if he is going to stand up. I would suggest that if we are going to keep it relevant what comments people may have said long before they came to Parliament—even in short lives—may not necessarily be applicable. The difficult thing is of course as Chair I do not get to make a speech; I would make a really good one on this.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that should also be applied to the Minister who made I think an unfortunate accusation against Barbara Stewart that she was going to be speaking on behalf of the tobacco industry. Of course as you know no member can be accused of being in the pocket of anybody.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Let us just—well interesting you should make that particular comment. Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I'll apologise.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Have you called upon the Minister to apologise?Hon Annette King: I can't do that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No? Well let us just leave it at that. Let us just say that we have a few slaps either way and let us just see whether we can debate the issue. Congratulations.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Ha ha! Thank you Mr Chair. Well I would just say that it was not that long before he came into Parliament—he is not old enough to have had long before he came into Parliament—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): You old sage.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —Todd Barclay was railing against the idea that there was evidence to support having plain or standardised packaging for tobacco products. So yes we do support this because the evidence is clear that every step we take to clamp down on the tobacco industry to reduce the prevalence and the visibility of tobacco products has an impact. As other members have said including the Minister there is no one silver bullet. No one claims that this is the silver bullet no one claims that excise tax increases are the silver bullet and no one claims that getting rid of advertising was the silver bullet but putting all those things together over years and adding in education—they all have an impact. This has always been the next logical step. I hate it when we are beaten by the Aussies. I enjoyed watching the Bledisloe Cup match over the weekend. I enjoy the fact that we have held the Bledisloe Cup since 2002. I love beating the Aussies and I hate it when we get beaten by them. It is sad that we as a nation that in the past has been at the forefront of controlling tobacco and that has taken huge steps to reduce the harm caused by tobacco allowed ourselves not just to be beaten by the Aussies but once we were beaten by the Aussies we then sat back and watched from a distance to see what they would do and what the impact would be on them before we as a nation had the courage to step up and actually do this. But it is good to see that this is being progressed. I would like to speak very briefly about the New Zealand First Supplementary Order Papers 198 and 199. These seek to have a long transition period between the current regime and when this regime comes into force. Actually I reiterate what the Minister said. The industry—both the manufacturers of tobacco which are large global companies that have the resources to change very quickly and the retailers—has known this is coming for a long time. It has known this was coming since 2013 and we have given it the transition period. We have given it plenty of warning by the Government dragging its feet on this legislation. In fact the bill as it is written gives it plenty of time to transition from the current regime to the new regime. If the industry is not getting ready for it now then it has got a problem and it is not paying attention. Anybody who works in that industry ought to be preparing themselves for the time when standardised packaging comes into place. So we will not be supporting New Zealand First's Supplementary Order Papers. We think the bill as it is drafted does a good job. We support the idea that we need to take one more step to reduce this harm. It is a product that kills 5000 people a year when used as directed by the manufacturer. We had lots of debate about lots of different substances—the harm caused by alcohol the harm caused by illicit drugs. The difference between those and tobacco particularly alcohol and tobacco is that alcohol is extremely harmful when abused. It is addictive lots of people abuse it and lots of people get addicted to alcohol but with tobacco this is a product that when used as the industry expects you to use it kills half of the people who use it and that amounts to 5000 people a year. So I am surprised frankly that any party is opposing this legislation. I am surprised that it has taken us so long to progress this legislation and I am proud to be a member of a party that promoted this idea early and that has a long track record of supporting legislation that reduces the harm caused by tobacco because anybody who opposes things that are proven to reduce the harm caused by tobacco has to seriously think about their priorities."