Hague Kevin: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: 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:11438. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to pick up on one of the points made by David Clark in his recent contribution. It certainly is a pleasure to see Chris Bishop and Todd Barclay voting for the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. I want to recall Budgets of years gone by. I remember sitting next to the radio listening to finance Ministers from the past reading out the Budget. Very often there was a measure to increase an excise tax on tobacco or alcohol that would typically take effect pretty much immediately. The House would move immediately to debate a bill that would take immediate effect. For bills of that nature of course there was a reason for urgency.I am wondering what the reason is for taking urgency for this bill. This bill actually does not take effect until the beginning of next year. It seems to me that there would have been an opportunity to hear submissions from the public and submissions from the experts who could tell us whether or not this was an adequate measure. They could perhaps assess this measure against the progress that New Zealand is making towards the goal of smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025 that the Government says it has. I was reminded—this is the second reading—that in 2012 when the Government introduced its last round of excise tax increases on tobacco products in fact we did have a select committee process. The Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill did go to a select committee and we heard some fascinating submissions.I want to refer to some of those submissions because they relate directly to the issues that are the topic of this bill also. In the debate that we have had so far today we have heard one or two speakers in particular David Seymour from the ACT Party in his extraordinary contribution suggesting that there was no evidence of effectiveness. Well experts at that select committee brought forward incontrovertible evidence of the effectiveness of these kinds of measures.Just as one example—there was the evidence of increased calls to Quitline that were associated with successive excise tax increases on tobacco. We know that calls to Quitline are associated with quit attempts and the more quit attempts people make the more likely it is that they will stop smoking. It is very clear indeed that these excise tax increases will increase quit attempts and that will result in more people stopping smoking and additionally we know that excise tax increases that put up the price are a very effective way of stopping people from starting to smoke. Younger people will tend not to become smokers because of the higher price.One of the other pieces of evidence that submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee raised in relation to that bill which as this one does proposed successive 10 percent increases was that a jolt in the first year would actually produce a much more effective bill. I have no doubt that that would be the case in this case also. If one takes for example that effect of discouraging younger people from starting smoking then actually a 40 percent increase in the excise tax which is what the public health community and the research experts were telling the select committee we ought to do would have a disproportionately beneficial effect. That evidence seems to me to be also appropriate to this bill. None of the Government speakers have commented on why the Government is not choosing to introduce a jolt—a much bigger disproportionate increase in year one for example.The other evidence that we heard in that select committee was from very many Māori and Pasifika organisations. They came to the select committee specifically because some people had been saying “Look this bill is going to have a detrimental effect on the poorest New Zealanders—on Māori on Pasifika on low socio-economic status Pākehā—and therefore we should not do it.” Earlier in this debate Louisa Wall actually detailed some of the research that makes the very clear point that the disproportionate gains to those very New Zealanders outweigh the disproportionate cost. That is what those groups were saying to the select committee.I want to go on to comment on the other thing that those groups said as a bit of a qualifier to their support for the bill. They said: “Yes the disproportionate gains outweigh the disproportionate costs and so we definitely support it but we want to ensure that the revenue that the Government takes in from this increase in excise tax is then channelled towards ameliorating the negative effects on our community.” Ameliorating the cost supporting increased quitting services and supporting health promotion services around tobacco for our communities—unfortunately that is not what Minister Lotu-Iiga has actually said that the revenue is going to be used for. He has talked about the bowel-screening programme; he has talked about increased elective surgery.Well actually what that really means is that the revenue from this excise tax is going to be channelled into the consolidated account and will substitute revenue from that account that would otherwise be used for ordinary health services. That is not what submitters supported in relation to the 2002 Act. That is not what we support. We believe that this bill should be used entirely for the purpose of getting us towards that goal of a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025 and achieving that goal for all groups not only middle-class Pākehā who are already on track for it but also Māori Pasifika and low socio-economic status people.So the Green Party continues to support the bill but encourages the Government to actually do the responsible thing which is to use the revenue not for the consolidated account but for enhancing the smoke-free programmes. Thank you.