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:10581] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to stand again in support of not just the progress of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill but also the progress of this bill under urgency. I will begin as I began my earlier contribution in this debate by congratulating the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia. She just concluded her statements in what I know was a genuine contribution. She has had real drive for this issue. Minister Turia said at the outset of this debate that it was not often that the House gets to debate what is literally a life-or-death measure. For us to have the opportunity to improve someone else’s health in part is a huge responsibility and I am so proud to be part of the movement that will progress so many people’s health in our nation. This is a significant health-promotion measure. It is fantastic that the New Zealand Parliament has got to the point where we have almost unanimous agreement on the promotion of this measure. 
I could not understand Roger Douglas’ contribution earlier this evening. That is not unusual. For probably 30 years it is quite consistent that I have been unable to understand his contributions even though I know that he makes his contributions genuinely. I chuckled given how much debate we are having at the moment about the impact of the increase in GST at Roger’s passion—his outrage—that we were introducing a regressive excise tax. He is the man who designed and introduced GST so his contribution was extraordinary. Nevertheless I am sure that his contribution was genuine. 
We know that increasing the cost of tobacco has a more negative impact on low-income people because we have more low-income people who smoke. It is not a good enough reason to say: “Therefore we shouldn’t help reduce the amount of tobacco consumption.” It is disproportionately borne by people who are on low incomes people who are on benefits and as I said earlier in this debate people who have a mental illness. Those people deserve our support as a Parliament to stop smoking or even better as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said to not even start. It is a big step. We have had a lot of confessions from members of Parliament about their journeys through tobacco smoking to being smoke-free. A lot of people find it really really difficult. The more support we can give people through a variety of ways the easier it is for them to be smoke-free. We want to make that passage as easy as possible. We need measures like this legislation which will be one of the biggest contributors to a reduction in tobacco consumption. If we put the price of tobacco up by 2 percent it reduces tobacco consumption by 1 percent. The figures are on the public record and are easy to see. As soon as we put the price up we see a dramatic decrease in tobacco consumption but we have to keep putting the pressure on because the reduction flattens out after a while and slowly starts to increase again. 
This measure cannot happen in isolation. We need to make sure that nicotine replacements and advice through Quitline are all accessible and affordable for people. That is part of the package. Of course there is the health-promotion message of making sure that people understand that if used as prescribed and as intended cigarettes kill half the people who use them. I invite members to imagine if a breakfast cereal was developed and the inventors of this fabulous new breakfast cereal said: “Here is the breakfast cereal for you. If you eat it”— 
Simon Bridges 
: “Killer Kelloggs”. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Very good; give a gold star to that young man. If “Killer Kelloggs” were invented and the person who invented it said: “Eat this in an appropriate amount everyday and it will kill every second person.” how many people would race to the supermarket to buy a pack of “Killer Kelloggs”? Unfortunately there has been the attraction of cigarettes. The portrayal in movies—long before Mr Bridges was born; I say to Mr Bridges that this was in the olden days although he might not believe it—was that smoking was glamorous. 
Simon Bridges 
: You weren’t born then were you Ruth? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Thank you Mr Bridges. Two gold stars and for that man. Smoking was portrayed as very glamorous. Huge amounts of money went in to advertising tobacco products and there was a huge concentration and focus on making sure that young people were addicted early and stayed addicted until their death which occurred 15 years earlier on average than it would have had they been smoke-free. This issue was not something that evolved; it was a deliberate campaign to ensure that the people who produced and sold tobacco were made wealthy by the illness and premature death of others in our society. 
We have learnt a lot about tobacco over the years since it first came into prominent being in our society but we have had a lot of very contentious debate even in the last few years in this House. When Labour introduced the smoke-free environments legislation there was debate akin to the sky falling in on civilised society as we knew it. Not very long ago when Tukoroirangi Morgan followed up by Steve Chadwick introduced legislation that banned smoking in bars and restaurants apparently it was going to be the downfall of civilised society. I have not noticed much of a change except for the better. I was at Astoria on Lambton Quay for breakfast and as I left people outside were smoking. I walked through a lot of cigarette smoke as I left. I reflected on how recently it was—it was in my lifetime—that that smoking would have been inside where people were eating. Again I say to Mr Bridges that he is very fortunate that he has probably never known that in his lifetime but it truly happened that people would be smoking at the same time as other people were eating. 
Other measures that have been introduced are sometimes very contentious and sometimes receive a broader range of support across the House. They have all contributed to New Zealand having a healthier population and to fewer people having massive heart attacks as a result of smoking and either dying far too early or being severely restricted in their ability to contribute. A lot of people who have strokes die immediately afterwards or are very severely impaired and unable to communicate walk or move their arms. That is a very debilitating condition that can happen after a stroke and it is often caused by a person smoking. We know that between 4500 and 5000 people in New Zealand die prematurely every year because of cigarette smoke. Tonight this Parliament will take another step forward towards addressing that so that more of our family members can live longer and live healthier. I think we can all be extremely proud of that. 
Members will recall that at the beginning of my contribution I mentioned that Labour supports not only the legislation itself but also it going through under urgency. I think that is another example of the maturing of our Parliament. The last time that Parliament was in extraordinary urgency and was increasing the price of tobacco we had a similar debate but our party was on that side. It was a mirror image. Members get the general gist of the situation. Bill English who is now the Minister of Finance was outraged. I recall the debate. He was absolutely outraged that this Parliament was going into extraordinary urgency to increase the price of tobacco. He said it was an outrage because it was only 6 weeks until the Budget. He challenged Labour as to why we had not included that increase in tobacco pricing as part of the Budget. Well let me think. How long is it until Mr English’s next Budget? It is on 20 May and today is 28 April. It is half the time between this day and his Budget than it was between that day and Dr Michael Cullen’s Budget yet it caused him such outrage that we had not included increasing the price of tobacco in our Budget. We have decided that we are not going to play those sorts of tricks. We understand that the reason this legislation is coming in now is that the last thing Bill English wants is his Budget to be described as the Budget that increased tobacco tax. We support not only the urgency but also this legislation. I once again say well done to Tariana Turia.