Clark David: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionClark 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:11435. Text is subject to correction.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to take a few minutes at the start to respond to a couple of the speeches that have happened so far in this debate. Mr Lotu-Iiga right now has failed to give the assurance we sought that the money from this bill would be put back into public health.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: More surgeries.Dr DAVID CLARK: He has talked about meeting inflation pressures. He just said “More surgeries.” as though that was public health—as though that was addressing those drivers of cost in the sector which we all know about that have such significant consequences. The member clearly does not really understand the issue and that is frightening because this is the Minister responsible for introducing this bill. He does not seem to know what he is doing on this topic. He was not able to give the assurance but he thinks he has which is the frightening frightening thing when we are in this House and he is the Minister responsible for this legislation.We have heard from Mr Brownlee various conspiracy theories including that the scientists and academics who speak out on this topic have a vested interest and that the scientists and academics who speak out on it somehow will not have a job because the Government has been so successful in this regard and therefore they are against the Government because of the Government’s success. I suspect he has probably got another theory about the man on the moon and a few other things but frankly this claim just does not stack up. I do not think anyone in this House believes there is a great conspiracy amongst the lethal left-wing academics out there to try to criticise the Government because it is so successful. The claim is ludicrous. It was an entertaining speech from Mr Brownlee but that is not really why we are here.We are here to actually put through a measure that will make a real difference and we will be supporting this measure because putting an excise tax in place does make a real difference—we know that—in terms of smoking cessation. But we also know that what the academics say is right which is that the 2025 target is a pipedream without other measures. If that money is not put into smoking cessation programmes and if it is not put into Quitline and so on the devices that help people quit the 2025 target will simply not be achieved.Another interesting thing that I have learnt in my research recently is that the behaviour of tobacco companies when they are given a lead-in time like they are being given in this legislation is to push the cost on to premium products rather than gateway products. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will be looking to ensure that this tax is covering all tobacco products in an even way across the market. I look across the House and hope that the Minister is able to give that assurance in his next address. Otherwise what we are doing is simply putting a whole lot of excise tax on to the luxury cigars that are bought by people for whom money is no object and not on to the gateway products—those cheap cigarettes that first-time smokers use. So I would like an assurance from the Minister. He may be able to give this assurance that it will be applied evenly across all products.Why we need such a lead-in time is not clear to me. If it is so that tobacco companies can reorganise their affairs so that they will be minimally affected by this I will be disgusted and I think every other member in this House would also be disgusted to learn that. I want the Minister to consider this again—perhaps have a look at what public health actually is and see whether he can give an assurance that this money will actually go into those things that would help us to achieve the 2025 target for quitting.I did not hear Mr Seymour’s contribution. I was called away on urgent public business and was very disappointed to miss his response because I was looking forward to the tortured explanation that he was going to give about why he does not support this measure at all but is going to vote for it in the debate in support of the Government. I think from colleagues who were in the House who have briefed me the basic logic was that it was a failed measure that will not work but he will support it because it is a Budget measure. That equates to he will support it because it means he will get a quid pro quo. He will get some corporate welfare out of it. He will get to put in another charter school that is funded at five times the rate of our public schools. I think that is why that member is supporting the bill in this House. He speaks about nothing but corporate welfare that man—the man from ACT. He has this stance that the Government should spend less money but when it comes to his mates the Government should spend more money. It is unfathomable that he can stand up and say that and do it without breaking down into some kind of—I do not know—self-immolation or something. It is unfathomable that something strange does not happen in that kind of circumstance. It is a very very tortured logic but something though he seems to be perfecting.But I will look forward. No doubt he will speak further in the debate and we will hear more about the tortured logic as to why he should support the bill even though he opposes the whole idea—that is what we have got here in this House. Actually this Government has very few principles. We can see that in what it is doing. It is treating this as a revenue grab. It is a good measure and we will support it for that reason but the Government is not putting the money back into the public health-care that this country needs. The Minister is not prepared to give a cast-iron guarantee that this money will not go into flag projects—let us have another flag referendum!The Government is not able to give a cast-iron guarantee that it will not do another deal like the Skycity deal which again was another form of corporate welfare where it handed out money hand over fist because it did a bad deal behind closed doors which the Auditor-General criticised. The Government cannot give a cast-iron guarantee it is not going to do another Saudi sheep deal where it is giving money to Saudi businessmen and providing documentation and advice out of New Zealand Government agencies that will not even be released to the New Zealand public.The Government will be bailing out someone else—MediaWorks; who knows what—next. That the Government does and it will not give a guarantee that this money will not go to those kinds of deals. That is what the Government does sadly. We want to see of course that money go into public health. We are concerned of course across the Budget as we have seen this health care underfunding issue continue. There is $1.7 billion in underfunding using Treasury’s figures and analysis from Infometrics—independent analysis that shows that with rising inflation and cost pressures you need to put more money into health each year.The Government has underfunded over the last 6 years by $1.7 billion. It is no wonder that New Zealanders are missing out on the services that they require. We have seen in the latest round that there are 15 district health boards (DHBs) that will not receive enough money to meet the funding pressures. The real losers in this round are Canterbury District Health Board which will be $33 million underfunded Waitematā District Health Board at $27 million underfunded and Counties Manukau District Health Board at $18 million underfunded. But there are 15 DHBs that again are not funded for cost pressures in the Budget. Of course it is a bit more than the Government has put in in previous Budgets.The Government wants the DHBs to get closer to their targets this year because election year is coming. There are no surprises there. The Government is putting a bit of lipstick on for election year. It wants the DHBs to have smaller deficits. It wants one or two even to reach surplus. The Government is dressing it up for election year. This is the year that the Government has decided to put a little bit more into health but it will not be enough to meet all those cuts that have already been made—we know that; we know that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to this.Dr DAVID CLARK: Back to the issue at hand in terms of whether this measure is bringing in money for the general pot to be spent on flag referendums and so on or Skycity deals or whether it is being spent on public health as it should be. Unfortunately the Minister has been able to give us absolutely no assurances whatsoever in that regard.When tobacco companies get that lead-in time as I mentioned earlier they adjust the range of their products on the market. I do look forward to the Minister’s assurance that the excise tax will be spread across all products not just across different providers in the market but across individual products. Therefore providers cannot rearrange their ranges to maximise their profits—keep the gateway products cheaper so that they can apply the tax to the luxury products at the top of their market. We know that is their behaviour.The Government has two former tobacco lobbyists and they will certainly know the answers if the Minister does not have that answer at the top of his head. I wonder why the Government has not taken stronger measures on smoking cessation. Perhaps the answer does lie in the fact that the Government has two former tobacco lobbyists amongst its numbers. They will certainly be defending the interests of the industry as they understand it. This Government has failed to deliver on health for New Zealanders. Middle New Zealand is missing out. The Government seems much more interested in the interests of a very wealthy few at the top. When it comes to this measure it seems to be money coming in—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Get back to the bill.Dr DAVID CLARK: As I said it is money coming in so that the Government can dangle tax cuts next year money coming in that it cannot assure us is going to be spent on public health measures. We will support the bill because it is one of the most effective things that can be done to help smoking cessation. But the Government is not on track to meet its 2025 target. That is what the specialists say. The Government needs to put more in play if it is really serious about achieving that goal.