Roy Heather: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Heather: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9219. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I take exception to some of the things the sponsor of the bill Steve Chadwick has just said. I want to come back for a moment to the contracts that we have heard so much about over the last couple of weeks. The dishing out of $2.1 million to anti-smoking groups to lobby MPs to support smoke-free legislation is an abuse of power. There is no getting away from that. It is a blatant attempt at political manipulation and a misuse of taxpayers’ money. 
My colleague David Carter said before the dinner break that he would not be surprised if the amount was actually more than the $2.1 million that Rodney Hide was quoting last week. We know that the groups Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore the Smokefree Coalition and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) have contracts that are very specific about what their duties are particularly in relation to this bill a member’s bill and that lobbying is being paid for with taxpayers’ money. We know that in the last financial year $13.7 million was actually allocated to various groups for the specific purpose of reducing smoking in this country. That in itself is a good thing and will have beneficial health outcomes. But we know about only those three groups; how do we know that the amount is not in fact more than $2.1 million? It might be much closer to the $13.7 million that we know has been spent on lobbying. 
We have all seen the T-shirts the advertisements in the newspapers and the long list of groups that are involved in the anti-smoking lobby. Most of them receive large sums of Government funding. It does raise more questions. We know about only the contracts with those three groups—ASH the Smokefree Coalition and Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore. We do not know about any of the others and I suspect— 
Hon David Carter 
: There are lots more to come. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I suspect Mr Carter is quite right. When the evidence comes out and we see the other contracts what are they going to tell us? 
I go back to the contracts. Mr Prebble read out what was in the Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore contract before the dinner break but there are two others. ASH is required to appear on television or radio or in newspapers at least 50 times a year to publish and distribute “media and political updates at least six times a year” and to “liaise with members of Parliament and political parties”—its people did not bother coming to me; I suspect they knew they would be wasting their time—“to raise awareness of tobacco-related issues and developments”. I move on to the Smokefree Coalition. I can see Steve Chadwick shaking her head; “What does that matter?” she says. It matters because it is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about. The Smokefree Coalition is required to “create a climate of support for amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act.” Well it cannot get much more blatant than that can it? It is spelt out very clearly in that contract that that organisation is to lobby MPs to advertise and to write letters to the editor using taxpayers’ money. That is unacceptable. It is to lobby policy makers make submissions issue media releases and write letters to the editor as I said. 
Just as bad is the fact that these supposedly independent interest groups which always claim they are independent—and we just heard Steve Chadwick say they are independent but who do we believe—are not allowed to criticise the Government. They are not allowed to criticise the Government without first discussing it with the Government and vice versa. They have a very cosy little arrangement. Neither will say anything without first consulting the other. These groups get their stories right then go out and say how independent they are. Taxpayers’ money has been paid in an attempt to silence these lobby groups. 
It was different with Kit Richards. The Prime Minister Helen Clark declared it completely unacceptable within a public sector organisation for him a Timberlands employee to send an email to lobby groups advising them to target certain Ministers. What happened to Kit Richards? He lost his job. That was it—kaput. What is going to happen to the ministry officials who were responsible for formulating these contracts? Nothing. They will stay there on their cosy salaries and they will stay there for a good long while yet while this Labour Government is in power. Kit Richards lost his job but no they are fine. We now have ministry officials paying interest groups to lobby certain MPs. It is a misuse of health funding a breach of the public service code of conduct and more rank hypocrisy from this Government.