McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm not sure where to start to be honest. It is a sad day it's a dark day it's been a terrible day for this Parliament and it's been a terrible day for New Zealand. Why I'm not so sure where to start is because I just listened to the previous contribution and I expected something a little bit more passionate from a cancer researcher. I remember sitting by Hamish Campbell the member who has just resumed his seat at the Christchurch Cancer Foundation pre-election where not one single mention of repealing this legislation was made. In fact when I look back I remember him feeling a bit sheepish and I remember the good people of the Christchurch Cancer Foundation being very specific and being very exercised about what might happen if this lot took Government—and hasn't that just come to fruition because National didn't campaign on this. They didn't campaign on it because it wasn't a priority for them at the time. It wasn't a priority for them at the time because it wasn't until afterwards when New Zealand First and ACT got in on the act that they realised that they now had to fund those tax cuts somehow. So all things were now on the table weren't they?When I think about the legislation that's being repealed I remember my time as the chair of the Health Committee listening to the submissions and all of the experts who lent their time who gave us their expertise who were very passionate about not only their lived experience but their life experience as experts in this area. If we recall as our contributions that have come before us have done so about the three legs to this piece of legislation that's now being repealed: reducing the outlets reducing the nicotine in cigarettes and actually creating a smoke-free generation. It's like a three-legged stool: each of those components was part of taking the next step forward.It is true that smoking rates have reduced—fantastic. That's happened over time but now comes the gnarly bit where we have to get to the tough-to-reach people. Now comes the bit where we don't just say to ourselves We're dealing with the people who are over 18 and under 100 today." because people age into this cohort. Every year those young people are growing up and they're growing into the cohort that we are talking about. It's not going to end unless we do something more and this was a really really good piece of legislation that's now being repealed. It was regarded as being world-leading.How did we go from literally talking about end game for the tobacco industry in New Zealand to now talking about "Wow! What an influence the tobacco lobbyists in New Zealand have." We've caved into them. We're protecting people who by virtue of selling smokes—as long as you take it as directed—will kill half of the people whom they're selling to and all the time just to fund tax cuts. It's just incomprehensible to me. I don't see many people on that side of the House who can actually look straight and go "We knew that this was going to happen." You didn't know this was what you were going to do. You didn't know this was what you were going to have to sit there and defend but that's what you do.I think about all the people who made submissions to the Health Committee and in particular some of the experts who have spent their life whether it be in behavioural science whether it be in economics whether it be in health research—people with various expertise different modalities and different methods of getting to the nub of the facts and they all were so excited. Almost all of them had to get up in the middle of the night to submit to the Health Committee because they were in the Northern Hemisphere and they couldn't wait to do so because they were so pleased that New Zealand was making this move. We had media from all over the world talking about what good legislation this was going to be and we know that officials and people within New Zealand within the ministry within advisers—many many people who brought a whole expanse of their expertise and their evidence to pass and it just seems like such a shame.When we talk about the smoke-free generation in particular it was said by Dr Humphrey who was the then chair of the New Zealand Medical Association organisation that the best way to become smoke-free in Aotearoa was to prevent our tamariki taking up smoking in the first place. That just seems like a no-brainer doesn't it?It makes me think about the Minister now being faced with an opportunity to make some compromises. I just can't get it through my head why those compromises wouldn't be undertaken. Look I understand you've got to save some money to make tax cuts work. But why can't some compromises be made? There were compromises offered to the Minister to introduce a purchase age of 25 which was not ideal but it still would have saved some lives and it still would have saved some money; there were compromises being offered to the Minister to introduce a nicotine limit of 1.3 milligrams per gram which was a little bit more than the 0.8 that we were aiming for but an awful lot less than the 15 that exists at the moment; and there were compromises offered to the Minister to consider maybe even a higher cap of 600 outlets maybe a few more maybe a sinking-lid policy. There were plenty of things on the table but they were all turned down because by hell or high water this was going to go through. When situations arise to that effect you've got to wonder—as other contributors have said today—who's actually running this show. For whose benefit is this repeal? This is just the tobacco lobbies and this is just for tax cuts and you know it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just take a moment here. We looked up a Speakers' ruling earlier and I just want to make it very clear for the House because we'll have a committee of the whole House stage coming up soon but under Speakers' rulings 55/5 and 56/1 a member can say that the Government has been influenced or was given advice from outside. That's fine but I just want to let people know before anyone steps over the line that it's not in order to say that the Government has been dictated to or subject to outside domination or has received instructions or directions. Just so members know where we stand on that one at this point in time.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Thank you Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not suggesting that the member has gone over that line.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Point taken—point taken. Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm happy to move on. I'm absolutely happy to move on.One of the other things that we've heard in the contributions that have been made to date is this bogeyman of the illicit tobacco trade. Again this is something that came up in select committee. I remember the New Zealand Institute talking about "Black markets black markets". So afterwards we asked researchers "Give us everything you know about that. We need to be informed." They came back and said "Not so much so." There wasn't any hard evidence to justify those lines. Then when you look at it and you look at the academic study just a quick Google search five minutes ago shows the British Medical Journal in 2019 did a comprehensive study looking at all of the different research that's been done—that which was commissioned by the tobacco industry versus that which wasn't—and it just showed up that tobacco industry data on the illicit trade of tobacco is not reliable the methodologies aren't good there are lots of different ways in which it's not robust and that is the conclusion. So if that's what you're basing your arguments on the black market and the illicit trade it's a white elephant and it's not good enough.We've also heard about the cost-benefit analyses and all of the other things that made sense with the previous legislation that's now being repealed. We heard that the New Zealand health system stood to save $5.25 billion in health spending with these repeals in place not to mention the $6 billion in increased productivity over the lifetime of the New Zealanders who were alive in 2020 and that's not to be overlooked.What we've also heard is that whilst the Minister has said "We're still committed to reducing smoking. Everybody's committed to reducing smoking." no one has come up with a plan and if this was something that they were hellbent on doing if this was something that they've got their mandate from why haven't they done the policy work? Why do we have to sit here today and have this repealed without any idea of what's yet to come? It's because the policy work hasn't been done because it's an afterthought.We also know that despite all those well-meaning wishes of how the Minister would like to see smoking continue to be reduced and how it's only just a matter of continuing on with the status quo even though that trajectory hasn't been played out in real life we know that the reduction in those rates won't be achieved until 2061. How many people die in between that year—2061—and when we would have achieved that?Look honestly National and the Government have death on their hands. I just think it's a shameful shameful day when after we have just sat through a day and a half of listening to the vacuous arguments about repealing the Māori Health Authority we're now doing exactly the same thing for a piece of legislation that collectively we all should have been proud of but because someone's got to get $2.50 a week for tax cuts we have to see it repealed. I think it's a very dark day indeed."