Anderton Jim: Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10571] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 This bill the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill which increases the excise duties on tobacco products is being introduced under extraordinary urgency. I understand that. The House therefore understands that this issue is urgent that no public debate is allowable and that there is to be no select committee consideration. I happen to agree with what the Government is proposing and I will support it. 
This bill highlights the reasons why this step in particular is being taken—that is to increase the price of a legal drug that is dangerous to the health of any New Zealander who partakes of it. The reason this bill is being introduced is that the price effect in terms of tobacco is significant. If we increase the price of tobacco we reduce the volume of tobacco that is smoked. 
There is a linear relationship and many studies all around the world will show exactly the same thing for product after product. Unfortunately if we look at the supermarkets of New Zealand we see that Coca-Cola is cheaper than water or milk. People buy Coca-Cola. Why? Because it is cheaper. It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it—and it is—but nevertheless because it is cheap people buy it. That is why the price effect will be relevant in this case. 
I have to say however that just 24 hours ago within minutes of the Law Commission’s report on alcohol being tabled in the House the Government immediately through Simon Power the Minister of Justice reacted and said it would not put up the price of alcohol. The Government did that immediately. It did not give any consideration to the report. The ink was not dry on the report when we were told that no the Government would not increase the price. 
Would a price increase for alcohol reduce alcohol consumption? Yes it would. It is a very effective means of doing so. I know that because I introduced a bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits—at 23 percent proof—which target young people. I was lambasted by the industry. Full-page ads were taken out against me personally but sales of light spirits reduced by 85 percent and they went off the market. That does not mean to say that alcopops and stuff like that are not still available but those light spirits were lethal. They were 25 percent proof alcohol drinks with vodka brandy gin whisky and so on. So we know that this 30 percent increase in the price of tobacco will be effective. 
Mr Power said that a change in the price of alcohol would be unfair to all the people who drink alcohol. Well I presume that an increase of more than 30 percent in the price of tobacco will be unfair to some of the people who smoke tobacco. I still agree with the increase but it is amazing that one day an attitude can change from one position on the issue of alcohol to another position on the issue of tobacco where we can really have a crack at them. 
Chris Tremain 
: You might find that a significantly larger proportion of the population enjoy a glass of wine. What a stupid thing to say! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Oh I see. We will hear this. Here is the industry line. I can hear it. Mr Dunne is not here so we have plenty of acolytes in his place. They are spouting the industry line. 
It is true that 5000 people die in New Zealand every year from tobacco smoking and that makes this kind of measure significant and important. But what is there about the social economic and health problems associated with alcohol that makes alcohol different from tobacco? Is it a significant social and economic health cost? We just heard Dr Blue say that the cost of tobacco-related harm is $1 billion to $2 billion. The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year. That is at least as much as smoking and could well be more so there is no problem about it being a significant cost. 
Is drinking alcohol a health risk? Yes it is. It is a very serious health risk and the jury is coming in on that all the time. Are between 60 to 80 percent of all police arrests to do with alcohol abuse? Yes they are. Are 60 percent of the people who are in our prisons affected by alcohol? The answer is yes. Yet we are told that we desperately need to pass through the House under extraordinary urgency a tobacco-related bill—which I personally support—a day after we were told that the price effect is not to be contemplated in terms of alcohol when demonstrably all the effects of tobacco use plus some additional effects are there in evidence before us. 
The Government has had a knee-jerk reaction. Why is that? Well the tobacco industry is on the ropes so people are brave now. Dr Blue has said that she did not use to believe the philosophy behind this bill and there are plenty of people like her on the other side of the House. Helen Clark pushed for a change like this when she was the Minister of Health and she was pilloried for doing it. When was that—in 1990? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Yeah—20 years ago. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: That was 20 years ago. She did not have too much support then but now it is a brave thing to do. Why? Because practically everything has been done and the tobacco industry has given up. It knows that it is a done deal. 
The liquor industry has not given up. It is really into this issue and it will fight it tooth and claw. The brave Government will take on the on-the-ropes tobacco industry but it will not have a bar of taking on the liquor industry which is now a much more significant and important problem than ever before. Will raising the price of tobacco reduce smoking levels? Yes it will. Will raising the price of alcohol reduce the volume of alcohol consumed? Absolutely it will but we have seen no courage from the Government on that issue. So under extraordinary urgency we are passing this bill. 
As for the Government’s opposition to raising the price of the most dangerous drug in New Zealand I have a word I could use but I am not allowed to use it in this House. So I will say that it is one of the most significant acts of double standards I have ever seen. One day a serious drug is not to be touched in terms of price even though the price effect will be very effective—and I acknowledge that—and the next day an industry that really does not have a feather to fly with will be clobbered into the ground. The brave Government will take it on after all the hard work has been done but it will not take on an industry that is still fighting tooth and claw to hang on. 
I heard a representative of the hospitality industry this morning on  
Morning Report 
. He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry. He said that. He said: “Yeah it is a vested interest of the industry. I admit that. Yes that is too and that is too.” The interviewer asked him whether there was anything that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with. The answer was no. Oh well we understand where the industry is coming from. But Mr Dunne did not. He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times and he was not sure what they meant. He knew what Doug Sellman meant and he would not meet with him at all. 
I support this legislation but I have contempt for the Government. It is bringing in this legislation one day after it backed off completely from doing the most effective thing on alcohol. I have contempt for it—I am telling members now. To do something yesterday would have been an act of at least some responsibility. This bill about tobacco is an initiative that needed to be taken and it needs to be taken regularly. I support it but I contrast it with the completely mealy-mouthed approach we had yesterday on alcohol and I am ashamed of the Government for that.