Lees-Galloway Iain: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5726. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Actually often what the Opposition does in these debates is we offer alternative titles to the bill—what it might more appropriately be named. But in this case I think this is an appropriate title. In fact the title reveals what the actual intentions of the Government are in this bill because specifically it is about excise tobacco products and Budget measures. It is a Budget measure. The Budget measure of course that this bill relates to is trying to find ways to fill the hole left in the Government’s revenue sources both through its inadequate work on the economy and through its unaffordable income tax cuts that it made which it told the nation were going to be fiscally neutral but have actually left a huge hole in the Government’s revenue. As the debate has gone on tonight we have come to understand the real significance of this legislation because it does two things—in Part 1 and Part 2. 
 The first part is a massive increase in revenue for the Government to make up for some of that lost revenue with no hypothecation into any smoking cessation measures or any treatment of diseases that are related to smoking. Part 2 of course limits the Government’s liability for paying out benefits not just the sickness benefit and invalids benefit but also pensions also payments to people who are caregivers and also to people who receive a veterans pension. So actually as much as we on this side of the House are really pleased to see the Government doing something—we know one of the results of this bill will be to have an impact on the number of people who are smoking and the amount that they smoke—the more and more that we analyse this piece of legislation the more it is revealed that this has got more to do with trying to increase revenue for the Government and limit its costs than it has with anything to do with health. 
Let us look at the facts. It was not introduced by the Minister of Health. It did not go to the Health Committee. In fact if it had gone to the Health Committee perhaps some more of the changes that would be useful in this bill would have been recommended because it would have been viewed through the lens of a health initiative rather than a financial initiative and rather than a tax bill which is simply about increasing revenue and limiting liabilities and costs for the Government. So indeed the title of this bill and in fact the purpose of this bill as well are absolutely accurate—they are absolutely accurate—because the bill makes no mention of health measures it makes no mention of trying to reduce the incidence of smoking it makes no mention of trying to ensure that fewer people die of tobacco-related diseases every year it makes no mention of improved funding for tobacco health initiatives—it makes no mention of any of that. All this bill does is increase revenue and reduce costs. 
Also if this was a health initiative and the Government was focused on ensuring that everybody every smoker was going to be properly impacted on by this legislation then we would not see the deliberate targeting of people who receive a benefit in the way that we see in Part 2 of this legislation. The Government had an option. It had the option to remove the tobacco excise increase from the CPI calculation for everybody but it did not do that. It could have but it did not. It chose instead to deliberately pick on people who get some form of Government assistance whether it be through Working for Families whether it be through a veterans pension whether it be through superannuation or whether it be because that person is a caregiver. For a whole host of reasons if that money came from the Government then that is the person that the Government has chosen to pick on. It did not need to do that—it did not need to do that—and that is what this bill is all about.