edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I'm reminded always when I listen to the Opposition in this particular debate of my mother's comment: if you can't do something and tell people what you've done then you should probably be worrying about why you're doing it. But perhaps I am speaking a little unfairly because I am someone who ran an election largely on the sale of jars of fudge made by my campaign manager Julie Rigger and the sale of $10 beanies also made by my campaign manager Julie and other volunteers. So perhaps I underestimate the delicate sensibilities of those who do receive these large donations and the even more delicate sensibilities apparently of those who give them but are too ashamed to do what they do out in the sunlight in public—again a very strange concept. I come from a small town a small city and in that city I meet many of the larger firms who are doing work for Government in construction and other matters. I've never found any of them who had any difficulty whatsoever in telling me what they thought of my political opinions or which side they support and yet they still continue to talk to me and to deal with the Government. Strangely they still continue to get contracts. So again a little concerned about the other side of the House and what they do in the shadows.But the fact is over on this side of the House we understand what the public feels about what is done in the shadows. We do understand that over 70 percent of the community in a survey recently were deeply concerned about the lack of transparency of political donations and they wanted to know what was being bought. And 85 percent of that same community survey found they wanted the reforms that are in this bill. People fear that large donors in the shadows may be buying preferential treatment or indeed policy. Let us show them that that is not so. Let us protect the incredibly fragile and important creature that is democracy. There is nothing more important that we do in this House to safeguard democracy and that is why we commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I want to respond to that particular speech because it concerns me. We are in a democracy it's true and I would stand by that member Joseph Mooney in saying that we actually live in a very good democracy; we are one of the great democracies of the world. When I look at where we came from from England I worry about the level of democracy there because of the pressure on the MPs through lobbying.We've done several things as we've evolved to really combat that. One thing we do is we pay MPs quite well; that actually stops people from being subject to lobbying. Another thing that we do is we disclose donations. And yes we have to evolve because we don't want to end up in a situation where those kinds of donations are putting pressure on people.Sunlight is an incredibly good idea in this situation. It is very important that we adjust the rules every now and then. There is nothing about this that is screwing the scrum; in fact I'd say that's getting close to crazy-making language. This is exactly the opposite; this is bringing transparency to the system.Actually the National Party as well as the Labour Party will look back at this day and thank God we did it because we do not want to end up in the camp of democracies that are so fragile and so eroded by the actual pressure of money and donations on them. I would remind the public to look at something like the United States and think that we are doing well. Let's keep doing well; let's make these changes. I commend this bill to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai e te Whare tēnā koe. Thank you for this opportunity to take a brief call. For the listeners listening in tonight to the debate I think they should pay close attention to how fiercely some parties are opposing this legislation that we're going to pass tonight. Evidence—I'll give you some evidence. A survey undertaken by Victoria University in 2021 found that almost 70 percent of respondents indicated that they do not have a reasonable amount of trust in party funding—oh he's walking out. He can't even hear the rest of my evidence. What then happened was that the Ministry of Justice undertook consultation. They consulted on reducing it from $30000 down to $1500 and where they actually landed—and what we heard in the submissions process—was $5000. So that is actually a compromise on what was initially taken out for consultation and the majority of the feedback that they received was actually in support of that. So unfortunately he didn't hang around to hear the evidence that supports why we are introducing these proposals. I commend this bill to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to give a quick call on what is a simple bill. It is a good bill and that's why I support it. But I want to push back on one particular idea which members of the National Party have brought consistently through these readings and it's that somehow the Labour Government is trying to change the way that we treat the comparison between donors and volunteers. Volunteers who rock up to support their political party whether that's on election day or whether it's in January to deliver some flyers—those people by their very nature are not anonymous. This is legislation which evens up the rules and makes sure that people who don't choose to volunteer but do choose to make donations also do so with their names published just like volunteers do. Their faces are out there and their names are out there. If your way to participate in your democracy is with your labour and to get on the doors or phones like I did when I was 15 you're doing that with your name on the public record and I think it's appropriate that donors donating over a certain amount also publish their names. That's why I support this and I would ask anyone doing this—we've heard on that side of the House that they don't want volunteers to be able to have that power. I say fill a shift. Tell them that you're going to use your labour to volunteer for the political party of your choice. Get in touch with your field organiser and make a difference.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Democracy is one of the most faith- or trust-fuelled activities that there is and because of that we have an obligation to protect the accountability mechanisms and the transparency mechanisms around it. What we know from research from Victoria University and from the Ministry of Justice consultations is that there has been a decrease in the trust in that system which is what this bill addresses and it is really concerning that the Opposition don't appear to be prioritising these fundamentals of democracy. It's also really concerning that my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith doesn't seem to remember the number of submissions that we received and pored through at the Justice Committee including a submission from the Privacy Commissioner who I will note didn't talk about issues concerning privacy when it came to lowering the threshold although he did address other issues. The Opposition speaker then talked about a taxpayer-funded system which this bill does not address. This is a bill that is about actual unlawful influence and ensuring that there is public trust in our system. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister
SpeechAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 11 to MinisterHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that action. Are there any objections?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In relation to question No. 11 from Simon Watts earlier this afternoon regarding advice I received from officials on 22 November after Supplementary Order Paper 285 had been tabled in the House to be clear on the scope of the advice—which was: clauses should be included in the Supplementary Order Paper if entrenchment were to occur—the advice noted that if entrenchment was to be effective both clause 116 and Schedule 4 needed to be entrenched because clause 116 states that a divestment proposal may only proceed in accordance with Schedule 4. The advice was technical and I did not forward it on.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call and to be the final speaker in the third reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill.I heard speakers from across the House. This bill is not a feel good"; it is a must do. It is a must do as we work towards the 2025 goal specifically to reduce the retailers that are making this product available. We heard on the Health Committee as members the number of submitters in South Auckland who represented many of the community groups who are running the cessation programme who are vulnerable community members and doing a lot of work in the motu. Tobacco is no good. This bill will help to bring forth healthier and better outcomes for our generations.I want to on that note thank the submitters thank the members of the Health Committee and thank the community organisations that came forth and spoke with courage and bravery around why tobacco is no good. And on that note I also want to thank the Minister for her bold and courageous move. I commend this bill to the House."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to take a call on the third reading of this important piece of legislation. We've heard calls from the other side that we need to do a cost-benefit analysis and we shouldn't pass this bill. And I would ask the question: what is more important than saving the lives of our children from the harms of tobacco smoking?I've had two people close to me die of lung cancer. They weren't smokers but they lived lives surrounded by the harms of second-hand smoke. I don't want that future for my children and I think that we deserve to give them the benefit of the doubt and use the science that we have and the evidence that we have to try and imagine a new world a new New Zealand where second-hand smoke and smoking does not affect our most marginalised communities make our people sick and lead to preventable deaths. I commend the Minister for bringing this important bill to the House and having the courage to imagine a better future for New Zealand without tobacco smoking.
SpeechDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you Madam Speaker. To that last speaker Brooke van Velden my son would say to me What a bunch of baloney". That was so hard to listen to and the outcomes that she was speaking to I would say as a clinician still working in South Auckland at our medical clinics—the outcomes we would see with this bill is less patients coming in with less respiratory conditions less cardiac conditions; it is long-term conditions that result from smoking. Māori and Pacific and vulnerable populations that have long-term effects from the smoking—this bill would make a huge difference for our communities. So I'd say to the last speaker that is just totally incorrect what that speaker was saying. I just want to acknowledge the Minister the select committee and the submitters: the Māori and Pacific organisations that came through ProCare the primary health organisations the medical the paramedics. They came through and said their bit about this bill that would make a huge difference to our vulnerable communities. And I want to say a huge mihi to our organisations that are up there: thank you so much for your advocacy your research your mahi in this space to help push this bill through and draft it to where it is today. Malo le tautua malo le tauivi. And on that note I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Penny Simmonds—five-minute call."
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. Every year 4.5 thousand people die from smoking so we can continue to talk about it ad nauseam—as my colleague Matt Doocey has just ably demonstrated—or we could actually do something about it. Ten years ago the Government set a goal that by 2025 fewer than 5 percent of New Zealanders would be smokers and this bill is the bill that intends to achieve that goal and improve the health and the health outcomes of New Zealanders. And it's really disappointing that National aren't supporting this bill—they say that they support the concept of smoke-free; they're just not willing to do anything about it and that sounds familiar doesn't it? But on this side of the House Labour knows that this is the right thing to do; it is a bold piece of legislation it is world-leading—the three elements of this bill work together in a way that will see it be successful and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mālō e lelei Madam Speaker. I rise to take a very brief call in support of this legislation. Can I acknowledge Associate Minister Verrall for her leadership in this space. Can I acknowledge colleagues on the Health Committee—which was able to scrutinise this piece of legislation—along with the advice of officials. Can I also acknowledge the many many countless submitters that participated in this process—individuals and collectives who care about the wellbeing and future of their whānau and of generations.I've made contributions previously so the only changes are tweaks through the committee of the whole House stage in terms of what the bill looks like before the House today. But this piece of legislation will take steps to prevent deaths which are—let's be honest—largely and hugely inequitable for our Māori and Pasifika communities and so this is a great step forward. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.
Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Wednesday 14 December for the third reading of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill; the first readings and referral to select committee of the Water Services Legislation Bill the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill and the Therapeutic Products Bill; and the third reading of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.
Seymour David; Rurawhe AdrianQuestion No. 4 to MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order  Mr Speaker. With great regret I raise this matter at the earliest possible convenience that I've been informed about it. At the end of question 4 the Prime Minister made an exceedingly unparliamentary remark which journalists are reporting from the on-demand video. I ask that you ask her to withdraw and apologise for that remark.SPEAKER: The member's well aware of the correct procedure of raising—if it's not raised at the time you know in my position now I'd need to go back and have a look at the record and then I'll make a decision about it.David Seymour: Point of order just to clarify—SPEAKER: A new point of order?David Seymour: Well—SPEAKER: Or are you just going to disagree with—David Seymour: Well I—SPEAKER: Well I follow what's recorded in the Hansard not what's reported to the House via the member from the media. You know if you're asking me basically saying Trust me; I'm going to do that on behalf of the House." well I'm not going to.David Seymour: Well Mr Speaker you're required to do that.SPEAKER: Yes and I've told the House that I will look at Hansard to deal with it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order. It's quite usual—SPEAKER: I've actually ruled so you can't speak to that point of order. If you're raising a new point of order you can do that.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I'm just being helpful Mr Speaker. I'm just letting you know that it's not uncommon in circumstances like this for the Speaker to ask the person accused of making the unparliamentary statement if they had in fact made that statement and to withdraw and apologise if they had.SPEAKER: That's correct and if the member looked across the House you would be able to see that I am not able to ask that member.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well—Hon Gerry Brownlee: No but it was an interesting response because I didn't want to talk about the Prime Minister not being here.SPEAKER: Yeah that's the last comment that I'm going to entertain. To do so would be to break the Standing Orders myself; I'm not going to do that."
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of the Free Speech Union requesting that the House remove clause 15 from the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Billpetition of Jake Roos on behalf of Low Carbon Kāpiti requesting that the House urge the Minister of Energy and Resources to drop plans for a proposed biofuels obligation.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2021-22 annual reports for the:Classification OfficeCadastral Surveyors Licensing Board of New ZealandNew Zealand Trade and EnterpriseOffice of the Children's Commissioner andClimate Change Commission 2022-26 strategic intentions for the Ministry of Health Notice of declaration of inconsistency: Voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001.SPEAKER: I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of amendments to annual returns and initial returns of newly elected members December 2022. I also present the following reports of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled:Observations from our central government audits 2021-22Insights into Local Government 2021 and Coordination of all-of-Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic to 2020. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on thepetition of Barnabas Fund New Zealandtwo petitions of Greenpeace Aotearoapetition of Nigel Woodleyreport of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Billreports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions ofDr Elizabeth KerekereAngelo DumlaoJan Logie MPJo Millar on behalf of Grey Power Otago IncorporatedMaarten WagenaarMaryam GhaderyPete YoungRobert ForsythVince Siemer andBrian Borlandreport of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General Inquiry into the Ministry of Social Development's funding of private rental properties for emergency housing.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The report on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
SpeechTUESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Wednesday 7 December 2022 (continued on Thursday 8 December 2022) - Volume 765
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand Labour 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Nicole McKee's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 316 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule agreed to.
Water Services Entities Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Entities Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 64.Noes 50New Zealand National 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Report of the Committee of the Whole House
SpeechREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Electoral Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and reports no progress—hang on; yes. I move that the report be adopted.SPEAKER: OK the question—sorry did we get two bills? There should be three altogether.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Apologies Mr Speaker and to the House. I will go back. The committee has considered the Electoral Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and reports no progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Thursday)
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much that's a great choice. Thank you very much. Look I want to talk to Dr Shane Reti's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 314. Once again you've got a hard-working Opposition MP who's doing all the heavy lifting around proposed legislation. You know it just beggars belief when we've just got a bloated bureaucracy of armies of officials that couldn't write the succinct drafting that Dr Shane Reti has. So when you look at SOP 314 it's looking at what we do first on that next step for Smokefree 2025.Now in the Government's view they want to reduce the number of tobacco suppliers through dairies from 6000 to 600 first. The reality is with this Government's soft on crime approach there's dairies closing down every day without this legislation because they just do not feel safe in their workplaces and that's an absolute blight on this current Government. But I would like to hear from the Minister why she would not look at and have interest in Dr Shane Reti's proposal in SOP 314 because I would argue it's actually a very pragmatic way forward. If we can look at reducing nicotine in cigarettes and use that as the heavy lifting of this tool to move forward for Smokefree 2025 then why would we not look at that for a period that Dr Shane Reti says for a number of months and then after that have a review around the implementation? Dr Shane Reti has very clearly said if denicotisation does not work then we would pragmatically look at the reduction of outlets for tobacco sales.But I think at a time when there is a lot of pressure on our dairy outlets and our small retailers—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to for me to report progress.Progress to be reported.House resumed.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Sure. Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to address—the Minister has said that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 315 is unnecessary because it is primarily just part of the ordinary business for the ministry. The simple response is: how's that going for us? Clearly not doing so well. And to address what my colleague was saying around the SOP not specifically mentioning funding my intention was for it to be inherent that of course there would need to be funding and resources to support the increased monitoring. But I take her point.Can I point for the first time to the Minister's SOP 313 which came into the Order Paper—gosh the ink was still drying on the second reading. On the website it's declared Proposed amendments" and I ask her to talk to that—why she felt this wasn't well covered in the Health Committee the changes that are there in SOP 313; particularly the commentary around the change to commencement for herbal cigarettes—where did that come from? I don't recall deep discussions in select committee yet suddenly mysteriously 24 to 48 hours after we've just had the second reading it is suddenly in her SOP 313. So can she talk to that please?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Matt Doocey—two minutes."
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you. It's good to hear the comments of concern around vaping from across the committee. I'm going to keep my comments with respect to the bill but I am very happy to talk in other fora about education that the Ministry of Health has under way on vaping and its monitoring and compliance work.With respect to advice on vaping I think two things. One it is true and advice has been correct—and we've heard statements to this effect in the Chamber today—that vaping is less harmful than tobacco but there have not been long-term studies because there has not been long-term experience with vapes. None the less the fact that vaping is addictive and that that changes the behaviour of young people in terms of seeking it out—we've heard from school principal that they're concerned about the behaviour of children and their ability to concentrate in class because of addiction. So I think that is the basis on which we can continue to work to address vaping-related harm.I want to come to Mr Utikere's comments about section 20M. Indeed that's correct that that was the recommendation of the Health Committee—as he would know he chaired the select committee—which was to reduce the retail reduction number which was initially proposed. The bill as originally drafted said that that should be done by regulation. This is now in the primary legislation as 600. That 600 number is one that I think reflects the intent when the bill was drafted but I believe some of the modelling supported an even lower figure than 600. I think one of the things in moving the number into primary legislation is that it's clearly less flexible it's a bigger deal to go back and fix it once it's in primary legislation. So the number of 600 being in there reflects the fact that one wouldn't want to overshoot and make it overly onerous so that's why the 600 has been moved into primary legislation. Indeed I am comfortable with the committee's recommendation on that. That is why it's reflected in the bill.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I am going to take Dr Shane Reti but I warn him that I will have to interrupt his speech if he's still speaking to report progress at 5 minutes to 1.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to put a couple of questions to the Minister in the chair Ayesha Verrall. But before I do I note the Supplementary Order Paper 313 in her name which seeks to amend clause 15A which I think ties in quite nicely with one of the issues that the Health Committee grappled with in terms of the internet connectivity to a particular site rather than it being a little bit ambiguous. So that seems like a sensible suggestion that the Minister has put forward.I do acknowledge that the Minister has given similar responses to what appear to be the same questions that have been put to her. I would however like her to reflect on new section 20M inserted by clause 13 and it relates to the retail premises. One of the changes in the bill is one where it moves the specified number in terms of the limit from regulation through to being specified specifically in the legislation. So I was interested in whether the Minister was comfortable with that particular change given that submitters had referred to that.The other is just the level of cap being set at 600 whereas the regulatory impact statement actually went a little bit more conservatively around that and went at a lower level from what I understand—so seeking a lower threshold. So I really in terms of perhaps when the Minister takes her call to answer the next batch of questions—if she could just reflect perhaps on the level of comfort around those changes in the bill.
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Let me perhaps just help the committee with clarity on the two different requirements for retailers. This bill introduces new requirements for tobacco retailers that include criteria on where smoke product retailers should be and include a specific requirement for the Director-General of Health in saying where tobacco retailers are to take into account geography. My reference to section 20P(2) is with respect to vaping store location. The director-general has the power to be able to act on other regulation to specify where specialist vape retailers are. So it is different in keeping with the desire to have risk-proportionate regulation given that tobacco is the product that has the highest risk to health. In fact it is New Zealand's leading cause of preventable death. That is why there is greater restriction on the sale of tobacco than on vapes but the power to do both vaping and tobacco store geographic restrictions if they're supported by regulations are present in the bill for both.Returning to some of the other comments around the number of retailers and the time to transition it is perhaps worth just taking the big picture here. The smoke-free goal was set in 2011 following the report of the Māori Affairs Committee into tobacco harm. Parties on all sides of the House have supported that goal since that time and we have as a country achieved a great deal of progress. The smoking rate—the only data point I have—is from 2016. Our smoking rate was 16 percent 10 years ago and it has now come down to 8 percent. So the point is that demand for this product has been going down over time and what we seek to do in achieving the smoke-free aim is go that final bit of the distance to get the smoking rate down beneath 5 percent for all population groups. So in the big picture this has been a long-term trend in this market the reduction of demand for tobacco. In addition to the warning that the setting of the goal in 2011 was to the industry there has been consultation on this bill. In 2021 we had a discussion document out. We received a wide range of feedback including from communities impacted by tobacco as well as retailers. This has been a measure that has been signalled really for more than decade and that is the reason why the time to introduce these measures and change is now.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd also note a little bit further around the removal or reduction of retailers from 6000 to 600—the industry has come back and said they would like more time on that. What engagement has the Minister had with small businesses in that regard and is she is open to any means to potentially extend that? I think they asked for a two-year runway just to give them a chance to adjust their business model. We know a lot of small retailers in New Zealand have taken a real pounding over the past couple of years and we certainly don't want to see another whole lot go down the gurgler. We obviously don't want their business model supported by tobacco but we have to be realistic. That's the situation we're in. I ask whether the Minister will be open to affording them a bit more time—two years—to adjust that.Another thing is around the proximity of vape stores which has come up and I speak here as someone who has smoked cigarettes and vapes—I think they're extremely addictive. I've personally found vapes to be a lot more addictive than cigarettes. They have disposable ones out now. They're $10. They're very cheap and very accessible. I went to a pharmacy the other day because I'm a healthy boy and I wanted to buy some vitamins to boost my immune system. And blow me down! Behind the counter there were vapes. They were selling vapes in a pharmacy and I was pretty shocked to see that. So I wanted to know what the Minister would do to limit the number of vape stores. The impression I got from that was that anyone could just kind of—it didn't seem to me that a pharmacy should be selling vapes; pharmacies are meant to be about health and there they were selling these products. I found that pretty concerning. So what limits as far as retailers or different sorts of retailers would the Minister look at in regards to who can supply vapes? I'd also echo the comments that my colleagues have made around what is really a vaping epidemic in our youth. For people who are elderly like myself and want to transition cool—quite good in that regard. But the uptake from young people they don't have to go through the punishment that smokers do with the smell and people looking at you like you're a bit of a social leper; they can sneak it in there and do it inside. I think there's a real issue there. And I just want to reiterate that the good points that Dr Reti has raised in his Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I would like to go back to the Minister in the chair's comments around drawing a parallel to Dr Shane Reti's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around proximity and how inconsistent that is with the primary bill before the committee retrospectively wanting to reduce the number of tobacco retailers from 6000 to 600. Because what this Government's got form on is that when the Opposition is right they start muddying the waters. So of course the bill we're discussing today is retrospective of reducing the amount of tobacco sellers from 6000 to 600. But of course Dr Shane Reti's SOP is proximity for future growth so it won't actually be reducing the number of vapes; all it will be doing is taking into consideration proximity for future growth. So I would ask the Minister how she draws a parallel between the SOP around proximity and a key part of the bill we're debating today around reducing from 6000 to 600. And is that a correct comparison?
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I thank members for those contributions. So the Government will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 312. The reason for that is that I don't believe it achieves what the purpose statement sets out to and therefore it is ineffective. So the SOP proposes a new section 20P(3) after paragraph (b). So that means that the Director-General of Health would only need to give regard to proximity when the lower total vape sales threshold is. So I think due to the technicalities of how it's been written up it wouldn't have the policy intent that the members proposes. There is still the ability for regulations to be passed about the location of vape stores so the ability to take that into account is a power that the director-general has.However I would just note that it is interesting to hear a discussion about the desires of communities to remove vape stores when we have heard in the debate on this bill previously that the desires of communities to have tobacco—which is far more harmful—removed from their communities through retail reduction is not supported by all members of the House. So I do think both for the technical way that it is drafted and the lack of consistency and the being tougher on a substance that is less harmful than tobacco that is why we won't be supporting SOP 312.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Thank you Madam Chair. A very interesting debate that we're having about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Dr Shane Reti. So I thought it would be worthwhile to add some Green contributions and perspective to this one and also just to ground what we're actually talking about.I think that actually in the bill as presented by the Minister there are new regulations proposed for vaping and for vaping retailers and there are new considerations for the Director-General of Health—for example as in the parts that Dr Reti's SOP 312 proposes.Currently already in the Minister's proposal there is a requirement for the director-general to take into account the geographic location of the retail premises and secondly the population in relation to which the retailer carries out their business and thirdly any criteria prescribed in regulation. I think it's important to note that what we're debating could potentially come out in the regulation process but also that there already is consideration of the geography and of the population.I do want to take on board however the points that have been made by Dr Reti about the fact that there is the opportunity to consider particularly proximity of other retail premises already selling these goods. To that effect I just challenge the logical consistency of the National Party here because just last night we were talking about local voice—we were talking about that in relation to another drug that causes quite a bit of harm in this country and we were talking about that in the context of removing special appeals processes for local alcohol policies which have of course allowed massive corporations to stymy local voice in the establishment of local alcohol policies. So I'm just asking for a little bit of logical consistency from the National Party there—hopefully not all too much to ask for.None the less I think that this is a question that still goes to the core of the Minister's contributions which I hope she'll soon stand and take a call which is just to really flesh out the concerns that have been raised by Dr Reti. I'm of two minds—I do feel as though making it explicit could be beneficial but I also feel as though it could potentially already be encapsulated by virtue of the drafting that's come to the Chamber today.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to acknowledge my learned colleague Dr Shane Reti the future health Minister of New Zealand who once again rides to the rescue of this Government. Let's remember when Dr Shane Reti went off round the world and came back with a medicinal cannabis framework that was better than the Government with their thousands of bureaucrats could put together. This is quite rightly Dr Shane Reti focusing in on vaping. And I agree with Dr Shane Reti that there is evidence that vaping can help those adults who are addicted smokers to transition to something that is not safe but less harmful and we welcome that. That gives smokers tools in their tool box to make choices for healthier lifestyles.Where we are very concerned is the number of young people who are taking up vaping and who have not been smoking traditional cigarettes before. Now this rings quite closely home to me. I had a constituent appointment recently with two mums who came to talk about their sons who were being sold vapes at an age they should not have been sold them. At their request I followed up with the local police who said this was not on their radar nor would they follow up on it—the selling of vapes to the under age. So I think this is very timely. It's come at a time when there does need to be some oversight. I'd ask the Minister whether she will support these two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) around proximity and ensuring those who should not be accessing vapes don't get access to them. So I'd like to hear from the Minister whether she and her Government will support these very good SOPs from Dr Shane Reti and if not why not?
Utikere Tangi; Verrall AyeshaSMOKEFREE ENVIRONMENTS AND REGULATED PRODUCTS (SMOKED TOBACCO) AMENDMENT BILL In CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. We begin now with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 53 and the Schedule which are the amendments to the principal Act. The question is that Part 1 stand part.TANGI UTIKERE (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. It is responsible for 15 percent of all deaths in New Zealand at the moment. This Government is determined to do something about it.
Salesa Jenny; McKee NicoleClauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3 the debate on the title commencement and the principal Act.NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 316 in my name. It amends the start date—the commencement date—of this bill by changing it from January 2023 to 31 December 2023. My reasoning for this is because election year is upon us. And while we understand that the Minister and the Government is looking for some transparency we also need to be able to have time for political parties to be able to get themselves in order for this.I would have thought—the ACT Party would have thought—that being able to implement a new regime especially in an election year which is upon us is rushed and unnecessary; that looking at the transparency that we need should be looked at for the 2026 election; and in fact that if we amend the date to 31 December 2023 we would allow all political parties a just way to be able to participate in the 2023 election without fear of fine or consequence.So Minister I'd like to know whether or not the Government would support my Supplementary Order Paper to extend the commencement date to 31 December 2023. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Just to acknowledge the member for her thoughts and considerations that have gone into preparing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 316. Two parts probably in my response before I inevitably let you down.First is that when we've thought about the design of this as the scheme for next year and how it might practically work I have confidence in the fact that in terms of the actual reporting—the system that's currently in place—there are very minor amendments that will be required to be understood by political parties I understand in terms of the way that the reporting is conducted.Then the actual returns for next year's general election won't be required until 2024. So there's certainly a sufficient amount of time to make sure that any of our political parties won't have to have fear of any negative ramifications as a consequence of stuffing up reporting. Got some confidence there.In terms of the way that really structured my views here the problem we've got is that if we were to adopt this type of approach it would be a two-stage commencement process for these political donations. In terms of what we're trying to do here I guess is enhance the public's confidence in the transparency of our system. This of course would create further ambiguity and probably would be counterproductive to the ultimate purpose that we seek to embed with these amendments.So we won't be supporting the SOP but we do have confidence that there will be enough time for political parties to be able to understand how to report and adequate timing by the time those annual returns are required to be in in 2024.
Salesa Jenny; McKee NicolePart 2 Other amendments CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 19 to 42 and the Schedule—other amendments. The question is that Part 2 stand part. NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister and the officials. I'm a little confused at clauses 19 and 20 which amend the same section. Clause 19 looks to amend section 80(1)(a) by replacing 3 years" with "6 years" and to amend section 80(1)(b) by replacing "12 months" with "4 years" but then clause 20 reverses them back again. I'm a little confused about that and I wonder Minister whether or not you could explain what's going on there. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes I can see why that would raise questions for the member. In brief the summary is that clause 19 deals with the extensions out to the 2023 election and in clause 20 those amendments extend the provisions out to the 2026 election."
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister my question here is on clause 8 which will be amending section 212. I'm going to be a little bit mischief here because I think you know if we're worried about political donations then we've got to think of the mischievousness that could evolve from that.Minister it's about the loans in clause 8(1) and it's about loans to candidates and loans to a party. In section 212 new paragraph (a)(i) talks about a loan for the use of a candidate's campaign needs to be divulged unless it comes from a registered lender—in other words like a bank.So my question—the mischief question Minister—is what happens then if a candidate or a party then gets a bank loan but a potential donor pays off that bank loan rather than giving their money to the political party? I just wonder whether or not that had been considered. What are your thoughts on that?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes that's a mischievous question. I can confirm—I've just confirmed with my official—that that is something that they contemplated and it would be considered a political donation by which it would need to be disclosed.Part 1 agreed to.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.