Hague Kevin: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionHague 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:11425. Text is subject to correction.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green): The Green Party will be supporting this bill as we have supported the Government’s other measures it has taken towards smoke-free Aotearoa—though they are few in number. I do want to begin this contribution by particularly praising the contribution of the Māori Party because the Māori Party has consistently now for a considerable period of time provided leadership in this area of progress towards smoke-free Aotearoa. That inquiry of the Māori Affairs Committee which produced a suite of recommendations including increases in excise taxes such as this one was a very substantial step forward and its goal—the goal set out in the report of that inquiry into a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025—has been an important and galvanising goal for this Parliament and for the community seeking that end. However we are on track to achieve a smoke-free Aotearoa goal for middle-class Pākehā New Zealanders; we are not on track to achieve that goal for Māori for Pasifika for low socio-economic status Pākehā New Zealanders and for others and it seems to me that unequal achievement of that goal would be an unacceptable outcome.What we know about what actually changes health behaviour is that giving people information is not enough. There is the model of “Homo economicus” where people are rational decision-makers and so if you just give them the information about the pros and cons of differing possible courses of action that will be sufficient. They will weigh those up they will make the rational choice and their behaviour will change. Very clearly that is not the case with smoking. Very clearly it is not the case in many other areas of life. What we know actually works is changing the public policy that creates the environment around those groups. We know that what actually works is empowering the communities who are most affected by an issue. Environment and empowerment—that is the idea of health promotion.One of the factors that can be used as a tool in changing the environment is the price of a product. This is basic microeconomic theory: if one raises the price of a product demand for it will fall. It would be great would it not if the Government understood this in other areas and not just in the area of tobacco and alcohol. So a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages for example would be something that we could consider—in another debate because it does not relate to the excise tax on tobacco.The Green Party supports this bill. We ask as Marama Fox has just asked why this tax increase is not larger. As Stuart Nash indicated earlier there is considerable research to the effect that a larger tax increase—a bigger jolt in the excise tax—would achieve a disproportionately greater effect. If that is the case and there is no evidence to contest that why would we not do it? We would support a more ambitious bill.The issue of hypothecation has also been raised and I was concerned to hear on the television news last night speculation that the revenue that the Government received from this increase in the excise tax over the next several years would form part of the war chest that it would later use for tax cuts and the lolly-scramble Budget that I am sure we all anticipate for 2017. That is not the way to proceed. The evidence is strong in fact that the effect of this excise tax increase will be felt mostly by the poorest New Zealanders. That effect is of two sorts. It is the effect of increasing the price of a product on an already strained budget and so is an impact potentially on the affordability of other products and we are all concerned about that. But there is also a disproportionate benefit achieved by those New Zealanders. They stand to gain the most. They are also the most price-sensitive consumers of tobacco products. So these excise tax increases will produce disproportionate gain as well as an impact on affordability of other products.The way to actually assuage the problem of increased cost impacting on the affordability of other costs like food or housing is indeed to ensure that the revenue from this excise tax is recycled into further programmes to assist those New Zealanders to quit—more quit programmes more health promotion activities. That means social marketing campaigns that might be driven from Māori and Pasifika communities for example. It means empowerment programmes for those communities that are most affected. That is how we should be using the $425 million. That is how we should be using it not recycling it into Government coffers. With that comment I will bring this contribution to a close. I will add some more comments in the second reading but indeed the Green Party will be supporting this bill.