Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. My question for the House is: who asked for this? Because freely and frankly looking through the select committee submissions and the public outcry that we've seen in response to this track of agenda from this Government and the support that we saw when this world-leading legislation came in is that the only entities that we can identify who are asking for this legislation to go through the House today are New Zealand First and the tobacco industry. If that doesn't give you a clue of who this legislation serves then I do not know what does. The next question is: why is this legislation going through under urgency? Because we've had a lot of back and forth over the last few days about the fact that this Government is ramming through an agenda under urgency without any regard for convention or public input—the select committee process that would usually occur when legislation is before the House. The argument that we've frequently heard in response is Well there was an election. An election therefore means that you know with all of the things that we went out and said that we would do well we can just do that." without any regard for parliamentary scrutiny without any regard for due process or the usual protocols of this place. That kind of leaves us with the outlying question of whether it's the case that this Government sees that simply because there's an election every three years we can revert to authoritarian rule outside of that. Because that does fall as a question to the feet of this Government because what we have here is a piece of legislation that so far as we can identify has only been asked for by the tobacco industry and by New Zealand First. It is going through under urgency by virtue of the fact that that exists as a commitment in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement. The next question then becomes: what does this legislation actually seek to achieve? Because I've got to be honest with you that I've heard some really Orwellian and completely contrarian contradictory statements from the Government on this. They're saying that we're reverting back to a track by which we were already seeing a decline in smoking rates. That is what existed prior to this landmark legislation. But the really simple question for them which they have not been able to front up to and be honest with the New Zealand public about is that this legislation will—must by virtue of the evidence and the advice that they themselves have commissioned—result in a slower decline in rates of smoking in this country. What that means by matter of fact is that more New Zealanders will die as a result of this legislation going through the House. That is a fact. That is the evidence. That is a fact. It is irrefutable. I dare any members of the Government to stand up and say that to say the opposite. What this bill does is slow down the reduction in smoking rates therefore meaning that a product that kills 50 percent of its consumers will continue to do so while there are slower rates of people coming off smoking. We've also heard in question time just today that there was some apparent concern for the black market and for you know dairies. I just wanted to put actually in the public record—once again because you know facts do actually kind of matter when we're debating legislation not the least when they're doing this under the guise of urgency within less than 24 hours. There has been a lot reported on and a lot kind of undertaken by our investigative journalists in this country to get to the heart of the fact that the campaigns and the petitions that have been fronted by ostensible dairy owners have been backed by Big Tobacco which takes us back to the core point that the only people the only entities and organisations asking for this legislation to go through let alone under urgency—Tim Costley: You just held up a picture of dairy owners. What about dairy owners?CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —without due public process or scrutiny is the tobacco industry which will kill half of its consumers Mr Government member and New Zealand First. So we come back to this point around the black market. I was saying off hand just as I was leaving the Chamber before to another member of Parliament that evil and cruelty in a Government agenda does kind of frustrate me but more so than that the most fundamentally frustrating thing is inconsistency because we've heard this Government consistently say that they're concerned about the black market that's going to be generated by virtue of greater regulation in the tobacco space.Tim Costley: Are you consistent?CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I dare members of the Government to show any logical consistency whatsoever—Tim Costley: Smoking marijuana is fine; smoking tobacco is not! CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I am really glad that a member of the Government brought up cannabis because if we want to talk about cannabis and we want to talk about sensible regulations to cannabis you are saying that criminal prohibition of tobacco results in further issues with regards to people consuming tobacco. What we're saying when we're talking about regulation of substances with the Greens being the only party consistent on this is if you'll listen to me that at both ends of the extremes my friend criminal prohibition of substances results in extremes of harm. A completely legal free market results in extremes of harm. The reason for that is that whether you have commercial entities or criminal organisations who are responsible for the supply chain of these substances you have the maximisation of harm. That is because profit is the core motive. So my friend if you will listen to me and engage in a meaningful debate about evidence-based policy on substances and drug harm reduction in this country then get up and actually make a meaningful contribution. The point is that we have to take away from those extremes and get into a space of sensible regulation. That means that we do not have criminal prohibition and we do not hand over controls to an unregulated free market. So what the legislation did—which the Government passed through before there was this change of Government and now this unpicking shredding of all of the actions that were undertaken in the last six years—is that it would have reduced the number of retailers in this country who were selling tobacco. That would have resulted in less tobacco being sold and less tobacco being consumed.We have it here in black and white actually from an Official Information Act request through Treasury and a number of other Government officials who were asked to reflect on what the impact this might have for revenue forecasts for the Government. We have it on record as tabled today that half a billion dollars in extra revenue will be added to the Government coffers as a result of this change. Once again that gives us irrefutable evidence that there will be an increase in consumption of tobacco and as a result more New Zealanders will die. That leaves us with the final question of "why"—why the Government is doing this outside of the fact that New Zealand First and the tobacco industry have asked for it; why the Government is doing it under urgency without any due process for public scrutiny as is the typical convention in this place; why they're riding roughshod all over that; again that question lies at the feet of the Government. The kind of quite dark insinuation that you can draw from all of this is that this Government also is pursuing an agenda of austerity and of tax cuts. They are cutting public services—they themselves declared that in black and white—and they are pursuing tax cuts which we know again based on their own public statements will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest and the highest income earners in this country. It is not outside of the realm of believability because again it is in black and white here from Treasury and their own correspondence that this is going to add half a billion dollars in revenue to the Government's coffers because more New Zealanders will die consuming tobacco.It's really just that black and white and it boggles the mind that the Government is somehow trying to say that they're still really concerned about—in fact the Minister the Hon Casey Costello was saying that this is not a contest of who cares the most. Well Minister I would say to you that this is a contest of putting your money where your mouth is. This is a contest of actually following through with evidence-based policy. So far all I have heard is quite Orwellian statements akin to "War is peace." We are being asked to believe one thing one piece of rhetoric when the evidence just says completely the opposite. We are not even able to have a meaningful parliamentary process with select committee with experts coming in and telling us how this is actually meaningfully going to function.If that doesn't frustrate parliamentarians new MPs particularly on the Government side who came to this Chamber—I heard their maiden speeches over the last few months saying that they really care about this country. They really want to do this thing properly; they really want to reach across the aisle and do things for the future outside of the three-year cycle. Guys I hope you're waking up and realising that you're the bad guys. This is what happens when you railroad across democracy. You actually really not only frustrate those who would like to come forward and put their opinions forth and showcase what the evidence and data says but you also make the country a worse place.I've just got to say in summation that it's a dark day. It's really really gutting. It's really really gutting that in the blink of an eye—in the blink of an eye—we are going to undo some of the most evidence-based measures that any Government has taken on reducing substance harm in this country. Just finally I wanted to point out to what the former Minister the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall was speaking to with regard to how the framework that this Government is repealing is not criminal prohibition. The Greens fought really damn hard to make sure that the framework that the Government put in place just prior to the election was not criminal prohibition; it was sensible regulation and we do not commend this bill to the House."