Robertson Grant; McLellan Tracey; Belich CamillaHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): This is going to be a very rare occasion where I disagree with my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty—who's distracted which is a good thing because he didn't hear me say that—because while I think his amendment to clause 1 is a good amendment I think I've got a better one. So the tabled amendment in my name—that is here—is also to clause 1. Rather than after the word Products"—to insert Mr McAnulty's idea—I am suggesting including the words "Raising Tax Revenue".I am serious about this because again a bill should describe the purpose of the bill in its title. The former Minister Mr McAnulty went to some of the operational activities of the bill but not the purpose of the bill. We are absolutely clear on this side of the Chamber what the purpose of the bill is because the Government's told us. The Government has told us—in the form of the finance Minister Nicola Willis—that this legislation will raise revenue for the Government. I don't have it in front of me but I believe it was an interview on—today of all days to even mention this—Newshub's Newshub Nation show in November when the then about-to-be Minister of Finance was asked about what she would be doing to make up for the revenue that was lost from the foreign-buyer ban no longer being available to fund the Government's tax cuts. She said "Well we have to bear in mind the amount of revenue that the Government was going to forego as a result of the changes that Dr Verrall brought through in the smoke-free legislation." So that's why I think a more appropriate title for this bill is my amendment to insert the words "Raising Tax Revenue".Now it has become clearer to members in this House exactly how much tax revenue that is which is another justification for why we should change the title—and that is in the form of an Official Information Act request that my colleague Barbara Edmonds tabled in the House today. That was information from the Treasury which actually quantified exactly how much money the Treasury thought would be raised in additional tax revenue from the amendments that are in this piece of legislation. That is an estimate of around about $500 million a year or $1.5 billion because it rises up over the forecast period.Now that's a significant amount of money. It's a significant amount of money that would otherwise not have been in the Government's coffers. I might add in square brackets "not enough to make up for the foreign-buyer ban disappearing". So the numbers still don't add up but it does indeed raise tax revenue as I say in the title of my bill.While I say that I'm fully aware that the costs to New Zealand are of course much much higher in terms of lives lost and in terms of the damage that it will do to New Zealand's health system. But I do believe inserting in clause 1 after the word "Products" the words "Raising Tax Revenue" would actually make the title of this bill representative of the real purpose of it.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Whilst I've just listened to my colleague Grant Robertson give what I thought was an excellent suggestion for the title of this bill—nothing against my colleague Kieran McAnulty's also very excellent suggestion and my colleague Rachel Boyack's excellent suggestion as well I wonder if Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello would consider—I don't have a tabled amendment so I'm just putting this out there for her to consider. We've talked about the fact that the bill should do what it says on the tin: it should describe the intent of the bill. Whilst I agree with Hon Grant Robertson that the purpose of the bill clearly is to raise revenue—and I won't repeat all of the reasons that he gave for that and all of the evidence that he provided to show that that is very true indeed—I was interested with what my colleague Kieran McAnulty said about the more operational nature of it. I wondered if the Minister was interested in looking at outcomes because I've often heard that the Government is all about outcome—measuring outcomes striving for outcomes; all sorts of things to do with outcomes. And I wondered if we could perhaps consider the "Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Extending Smokefree Targets to 2061)". Because that's an outcome; that is what is actually going to be achieved. Again like I said I didn't have the foresight to table an amendment but I'm asking the Minister now whether that's something she would like to consider.CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought that I was going to miss out on my opportunity and I do have a number of new points to raise in relation to actually all three of the operative parts of these clauses that we're debating at the moment: the title commencement and indeed the amendment of the principal Act. I might do it in reverse order for a change. So in terms of clause 3: clause 3 states it appears quite simply that the Act amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990. Well we know that this is true. The first part of the bill does amend that principal Act. However half of the bill is focused on amendments to other enactments and regulations. So I want to ask the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello whether she would consider a more accurate description in clause 3 which actually reflects the contents of the bill.You'll be aware of the debates that we had in relation to Part 1 of the bill and Part 2 of the bill. Part 2 of the bill has the schedules it has the new forms—it's a substantive part. It's not reflected in clause 3 although of course except that it's a principal Act but it doesn't only amend that section.Tim van de Molen: No—that's why it's "Principal Act" not "All Acts".CAMILLA BELICH: So that's my first point. Second point—I do understand what the principal Act says.Tim van de Molen: Ah well it doesn't sound it like from the member's contribution.CAMILLA BELICH: Well I'm happy to have a debate with you on that. So it does say "Principal Act" but then underneath the title clause 3 "Principal Act" states "This Act amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990." Well it does but that's not the only thing it does. Half of the Act—Tim van de Molen: Correct—that's why it's the "principal" Act.CAMILLA BELICH: Yes I just responded to that point in fact that it says "Principal Act"—anyway I seem to not be able to get through to my colleague unfortunately. So that is my first question.The second question that I have is in relation to commencement and I actually have an amendment in my name on this point. So my amendment with respect to my colleague Tracey McLellan's amendment is probably a bit more of a compromise and I wondered if the Minister wanted to consider it—and that is to amend clause 2 to replace "on the day [of] Royal assent" with "1 January 2027". That is because we haven't had a select committee process and a number of the things that are being repealed in the Act are not yet enforced.If we were to draw it out until 2027 we would actually see whether the things that are proposed to be amended in the primary piece of legislation—what they actually do. It would give us a much better time frame to consult. As I've said this is a complex piece of legislation and it repeals a number of things that are not currently in force which makes commenting on them quite difficult because they don't appear in the primary piece of legislation until they're in force which is quite difficult for members and also for the public when looking at it. So I wondered if the Minister would consider that much smaller extension of time compared with my colleague Tracey McLellan.This is another point in relation to Royal assent. I favour certainty when it comes to legislation. I think the principles of legislative drafting mean that we should have certainty in relation to the effect. The day of Royal assent is very difficult to ascertain when you're reading back on a piece of legislation because it's sometimes difficult to know without reading the exact movements and passage of legislation through the office of the Governor-General exactly when Royal assent took place. So there are in my view many advantages with having a specific date. The date I proposed under my amendment D is in the future.Another alternative open to the Minister would be to in fact put another date which was even closer to today or the day of Royal assent to provide that certainty. So two points there really. The first is an extension of time which may allow for better lawmaking and allow for more commentary around the impact of the bill and the second point is more certainty around the Royal assent.So I haven't even got to my third point around the title but I do think it's important to reflect that this isn't really a smoke-free environments bill; this is actually about increasing or de-regulating the smoking market.Because we've had so many Acts—and I've mentioned that in the complexity of the repeal that we're looking at—that have constantly made steps towards a more smoke-free country I think it inconsistent that this uses that word."