Seymour David: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionSeymour David: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11429. Text is subject to correction.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill although I have to say somewhat regrettably. If there was a bit more talent on the other side of the House I would probably cross the floor and join them but sadly that is not the case right now.I am voting for this bill because it is a Budget measure. But let us be very clear that it is another public policy abomination. If you want to analyse a policy here are three questions that you might ask: what is the intent of the policy—what is it supposed to do; will it be effective and what evidence do we have that it might be effective; and what might be the unintended consequences of the policy?Well the intention of the policy is to stop other people smoking. It is not a case of alleviating the harm done by one citizen to another because smoking by and large harms only the person affected—the person who does it. This policy is about trying to stop other people doing something that they would like to do because we do not like it.The objective is to reduce the number of people smoking. We might ask ourselves whether it will be effective. Well if we pick up the regulatory impact statement the evidence is supposedly that every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes will lead to a 2.5 percent decrease in the number of people who smoke. One might just ask oneself how effective this policy has been for the last 5 years because we have actually raised the tax on tobacco by 10 percent in every one of the last 5 years. So did we get a 2.5 percent reduction in smoking for every one of the last 5 years? No we did not. Five years ago the rate was 16.3 percent; it is now 15 percent. If we had had a 2.5 percent reduction in smoking for every 10 percent increase it would now be around about 14 percent. So it has not worked even by the standards that the regulatory impact statement sets out.So it will not be effective in achieving its goal but what about the third question? What about the side effects? The biggest side effect is that we now take an additional half a billion dollars a year in excise tax and I can understand why the Minister of Finance does not mind this policy so much. We take it overwhelmingly from the poorest people in New Zealand. You are 3.38 times more likely to be from the poorest decile than the highest decile of income amongst New Zealandersif you are a smoker. We are taking half a billion dollars or 2600 bucks from the average smoker who smokes 10.6 cigarettes a day. That is one of the unintended consequences of the tax to date.When we pass this bill when it becomes law the tax will go up another $1200. That is $3800 out of some of the poorest households in New Zealand to achieve a piddling reduction in smoking rates that is lower than the regulatory impact statement accompanying the bill predicted. What a disaster.What about some of the other unintended consequences? A brick of 10 packets of cigarettes will now be worth over $300 at the end of this policy and how much—how much—more worthwhile is it going to be for people to steal perhaps in an aggravated fashion a brick of cigarettes worth $300? Go and tell the petrol station owners; go and tell the dairy owners that every one of those bricks is worth $300. There are going to be people getting hurt because inevitably when you drive something underground you create a black market. If you doubt that go and ask the people in central Canada; go and ask the people in Australia. That is what you do when you have an excessive excise tax; you create a black market.In summary this is a public policy with no justification and with a shonky regulatory impact statement. It is a policy that has not achieved what it is supposed to achieve demonstrably over the last 5 years. This is a policy that will have unintended consequences such as impoverishing the people in New Zealand who need help the most by an additional $1200 a year by 2020.The Associate Minister of Health sits there. He knows it is a joke. He cannot justify his policy but he has had to do it for a coalition deal which is much the same reason why I am voting for it and the only one I can assure you.