Dyson Ruth: Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10561] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the first reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill and to say that Labour will be supporting this legislation throughout its passage just as we support the urgency that has been accorded to it. 
I will begin by congratulating the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia who has just resumed her seat. This is a huge step forward in health promotion for all New Zealanders but particularly for Maori and I say to the Minister that I admire her ability to achieve this step. I am not quite sure how that has happened and I am not quite sure that the Minister knows how it has happened but she is certainly worthy of congratulations. It is an issue on which she has spoken passionately before as a former colleague of mine in Labour and also in this House. I genuinely congratulate her and say that Labour will certainly support this bill throughout its passage. 
The aim of this legislation is not to get more revenue although that will be the accusation levelled. One of the issues that my colleagues and I will be following throughout the Budget process is watching where the money goes. When we have an increase in revenue that is primarily focused on health promotion it is important that we can watch that money being directed into health promotion. I certainly wish all power to the Minister’s arm in ensuring that our health promotion activities will be strengthened by the increased revenue that results from this measure. 
But this measure on its own will be a health promotion because we know that when the price of tobacco increases the consumption of tobacco is reduced. Although we strongly support this move and think that the Government has a moral responsibility to pass on the increased revenue to health promotion we know that this measure on its own will decrease tobacco consumption and that is a very good thing. There is very clear evidence that an effective way to discourage the consumption of tobacco is to increase the price. The figures that I have heard quoted and used in the House in an earlier debate is that a 2 percent increase is equivalent to a 1 percent decrease. A 2 percent increase in the price of tobacco is equivalent to a 1 percent decrease in the level of consumption. That figure has been used before and I am sure that it has some validity. 
A combination of the increase in price the increase in excise duty more public spending on anti-smoking education programmes more support for people not to start smoking and become addicted and more support for those who want to quit has been maintained in New Zealand when different parties have been leading our Government. That combination has ensured that New Zealand like many other countries has been successful in substantially reducing the number of people who smoke in our country. But even with that success tobacco smoking is still the single largest cause of early death and more important of avoidable death within our nation. 
I took the opportunity just a few moments ago to look back on an earlier debate in which Sue Bradford spoke. I commend Sue Bradford and I bet that she is listening to this debate and wishing she were here. This will be one of the rare moments when Sue would wish she were back in the House. She gave a very strong contribution to that debate and I know that the Green health spokesperson Kevin Hague will do the same because he always does when he contributes to debates in the House. Sue Bradford in the debate on this very issue in 2000 talked about the link between smoking rates and people on low incomes including people who were beneficiaries people who had poor mental health and increasingly at that time young Maori women and Pacific Islanders. 
I remind the House of Sue Bradford’s contribution in that debate and also of the fact that her contribution remains relevant to this day. We have a higher number of people on low incomes people on benefits people who are in low-income work or in precarious employment situations and people with more mental health issues. They are the people whom this bill is designed to help. They will find it harder on a low income to purchase tobacco and they will have all of the resulting problems when they are withdrawing from addiction. It is in that regard that I urge the Government to ensure that support is given to people who are smokers to move off the consumption of tobacco. It is too hard for many people if that help is not given so I urge the Government to consider that as the next part of the package. 
I also had the opportunity to read a very interesting contribution in the debate in 2000 from the Hon Bill English. I will just take a little bit of the House’s time to share Mr English’s contribution in the debate. He began by saying— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: If the member is quoting from  
Hansard 
 then she must quote the page number and the volume. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In referring to what Mr English said I am quoting from  
Hansard 
 Volume 583 at page 1987. The volume is dated 4 April to 18 May 2000. Mr English stated: “Mr Speaker if you ask me to give you the reasons this bill was introduced I cannot think of any.” Then he explained that that was not his responsibility. But he went on to state that he wanted the Government “to explain why this is such an urgent vital matter of widespread public interest that this House has to take this legislation through all the legislative stages today. The Budget … will be in 6 weeks’ time.” He stated that maybe the work had not been done and was not ready to go in the Budget. He said that the legislation should not have been put through all stages under urgency but should have been put in Dr Michael Cullen’s Budget which was just a few weeks away. Well I am sure that when National members get to their feet to contribute to this debate they will be apologising for Bill English having such a shallow view on an issue that deserves the support of all parties in this House. Every member of this House should want to do everything he or she can do to promote better health for all our citizens. 
Mr English went on to say “The Government can tell us why this legislation did not wait for the Budget. Why is the Government not using the time of this House to further its programme? All these members could be in their electorates doing more useful work. Why does it not have in front of this House its widely signalled initiatives all the things it was going to do …”. Instead Mr English said that the Government was putting the legislation through all stages of the House. 
I know why the National Government is not using the opportunity of this particular debating time to further its own initiatives. The reason is very straightforward: it does not have any. That is the reason. But because this legislation increases the price of tobacco it is not just important but also a well-established tradition of this House that it goes through all stages under urgency. We know that some members of the House will have heard of the introduction of the bill and will now be up the road at New World stocking up—having had the advantage of advanced warning of the increase—as other people are also entitled to do. But that is the reason why we are putting all parts of the legislation under urgency. The legislation increases the price of a product that is publicly available. 
I will conclude by saying that about 4500 New Zealanders die every year from smoking-related diseases. Thousands more suffer the long-term health consequences of smoking. Thousands have heart attacks and survive but live with a lower level of capacity. They have strokes severe strokes and can be incapacitated for years. Many thousands of New Zealanders have to endure very painful treatment for cancer. We know the impact and the effects that second-hand smoking has particularly on children. When the Minister introduced this legislation she said that it was very rare for this Parliament to be considering an issue that was literally about life-and-death. But this is certainly one of those occasions. It is not about raising more money. It is not a tax grab from the Government. It is not often that I have good things to say about the current Government but I say that this legislation is not a tax grab; it is a genuine move to try to reduce tobacco consumption in New Zealand. It is a genuine move to improve the health of our citizens. I add once again my genuine congratulations to the Minister for pursuing this issue with such determination with such staunchness and for being able to achieve this result in our Parliament.