Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15405] 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is food a “risk factor” for non-communicable diseases such as obesity which could be restricted by regulations made under clause 374(x) of the Public Health Bill? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes—obviously it is difficult to be obese without eating food. However the Government has no plans to regulate food at this time. At the same time the current Act has been in place since 1956; it would not be responsible to undertake a once-in-a-generation rewrite without appropriately future-proofing the bill. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the nanny State Labour Government seeking such wide powers that would even allow the Government to halt at the border any foods the “food police” object to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can do no better than to quote the  
Herald on Sunday 
 which 
said that the Opposition’s position on this bill will have to do a lot better than making it up and dispensing “smart one-liners”. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Government has no plans at this time to regulate food why is it proposing wide regulation powers that would enable the nanny State to ban all food and alcohol sponsorship of sports teams to tell all restaurants what food they can serve and to ban fish and chips after 8 p.m. at night—yet more typical nanny State Labour interference in the lives of New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Again to quote the  
Herald on Sunday 
: “the bill provides for voluntary codes and even allows that non-voluntary codes would for the first 3 years be non-binding. It is hard to think of a less hard-line approach to a crisis. For a crisis it is.” Forty percent of Pasifika people in South Auckland are obese. What policy does National have to solve the obesity epidemic? 
Jo Goodhew 
: Why does the Government want regulation-making powers that could make it compulsory for every school in the country to stop kids from bringing a birthday cake to school because the nanny State’s “food police” object? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She flogged Gerry Brownlee’s afternoon tea. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Bummer! The logical flaw in the Opposition argument is that that birthday cake incident is in the past tense. The bill is in the future tense and that incident therefore could not have relied upon the bill to have occurred. In other words it is a sad waste of Gerry Brownlee’s lunch. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why then is the Government proposing such broad unfettered regulation-making powers which would allow it to ban birthday cakes in every school but could also require a picture of fat bellies or gangrenous toes on every packet of potato chips—because that is exactly the powers that this Minister and this nanny-State Government want to give to themselves in the Public Health Bill? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: When I look at the member opposite I have no worries at all that the Government is going to be returned. He stands under his personal dark cloud while 60 percent of the Counties-Manukau population are at risk of having type 2 diabetes. National is bereft of policy except for putting up general practitioners’ fees.