Street Maryan: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5591. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and support this bill the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Anything that curtails or curbs the consumption of tobacco in our society has to be a good thing. We have heard already many of the statistics around tobacco and tobacco consumption. We know that about 5000 deaths each year in New Zealand are attributable either to direct smoking or to second-hand smoke so this is about the environment around a smoker as well as their own consumption of tobacco. Five thousand deaths is a lot of New Zealanders. 
In fact if we have a look at the regulatory impact statement attached to the legislation we notice that Treasury in its inimitable style tries to quantify the impact of tobacco and the harm it does and tries to quantify the social costs of smoking. The regulatory impact statement says: “The social costs of smoking have been estimated at 62800 life years lost to tobacco-related premature deaths and 19000 quality adjusted life-years lost to tobacco-related illness.” “Quality-adjusted life-years” is a term that is used in the health sector. It does not mean a lot outside of that but basically what Treasury says in its own way is that people could have lived longer and they could have lived longer better if they had not been subjected to tobacco consumption or had not consumed tobacco themselves. 
It gives me particular pleasure to speak to this bill as Labour’s spokesperson on health. This bill has not come up as a health measure. This bill has not been introduced by the Minister of Health. This bill has not come to the Health Committee. So I am left with a question mark about the Government’s real motives. I wish there were a consensus. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway a moment ago referred to a truce between Labour and National over controls on tobacco consumption and smoking. I hope this is better than a truce. I hope this is actually an agreement on the negative health impact that smoking has on the lives of New Zealanders. But if the Government were truly convinced that this bill is a good health measure then surely the Minister of Health might have introduced it and it might have come to the Health Committee. 
In fact what I see is that we have an assessment—and this is Treasury’s assessment again—that this legislation will raise an additional $528 million over the next 4 years—$528 million over the next 4 years. I would have more comfort that this was a health measure and not a tax grab if there was any reference to the $528 million over 4 years being put into smoking cessation. The speaker who resumed his seat a moment ago Todd McClay talked about not having had too much trouble giving up smoking. Well that is not true for most smokers—that is not true for most smokers. In fact people who are addicted to nicotine do require support. So let us be clear that if we are going to curtail the consumption of tobacco we should have equal support measures put in place by the money raised from this measure. If this bill is going to raise $528 million over 4 years it would be a good idea if the Government could see its way clear to redirecting that money into health initiatives and into supporting further Quitline programmes nicotine substitutes and things that people need to reduce the harm and finally reduce their addiction. 
This is not an easy substance to deal with. Putting the price up is certainly one way of making it less accessible to young people and I support that. I support it as a health measure. I support it because the tobacco companies are known for their appeal their advertising angle to young people. Would they be putting so much money into their current television advertising campaign—AgreeDisagree I think it is called—around the plain packaging of cigarettes if they were not persuaded that advertising works? If we raise the price—and Labour supports that; Labour supports it as a health measure not as a tax grab but as a health measure—if we do that then let us make sure that we are helping people who will not be able to afford the one thing that they consider to be their stress relief which is a cigarette and help them to quit smoking and to give up that addiction. We are talking about an addiction here. This is not as the Government would have us believe simply a lifestyle choice. We know as one of my colleagues said earlier what the four major killers of New Zealanders are: cardiovascular diseases cancers respiratory illnesses and diabetes. We know that these four killers take 80 percent of the health budget. We know that most of the symptoms are preventable. Why can we not now have an agreed position across the House on what the major health goals ought to be for New Zealanders and why can we not work jointly as we are on this bill to reach them? 
I have to say that I am not yet persuaded that the Government has changed its mind over tobacco. If it has and if subsequent speakers from National can persuade me that they have changed their mind over tobacco I will welcome that. But I recall what Bill English said in 2000 when we in Government were looking to increase the excise on tobacco in 2000. Bill English said: “The reason we voted against this measure was that the Government did not ever say that it would do it and that is the measure it set—not us. The Government did not say before the election that it would do it—that is the Government’s standard not ours. It is a tax increase. It is a tax on the poorest people in New Zealand it is an increase that is far too large and that is why we voted against it.” That is the same man Bill English who went to the country in 2002 with a policy that said that the National Government would repeal the Smoke-free Environments Act. If there has been a change of heart if there has truly been a change of heart in the National Party I would like the next National speaker to get up and say so. If we are agreed on the health goals here then let us celebrate that and let us move forward. If this is simply a tax grab and if the money is going to paper over the holes that the Government’s economic policy has left then let National speakers say that. I am sure they will not but let them be challenged to say that. 
We agree on this side of the House that this bill is a good measure for health reasons. Let it be for health reasons. Let us agree on it for those reasons and let us pursue it and ring-fence some of the income from this increased excise to address the problem of smoking addiction. Thank you.