Mitchell Clayton: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionMitchell Clayton: 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:11450. Text is subject to correction.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the Committee of the whole House on this piece of legislation that we are going through under urgency. That would be my first question to the Minister: why are we sitting in the Chamber under urgency debating a bill that is coming in on 1 January? We have got 6 months in which we could actually have a select committee stage and hear from submitters and anecdotally we have heard evidence that two-thirds of the country thinks that this is nothing more than a kick in the guts. It is a “get stuffed” do-nothing “stuff it” approach whereby we are going to force people into giving up smoking.There is no evidence that suggests that that is actually going to take place by increasing the tax by 10 percent per annum. In fact it is more than 10 percent per annum—it is actually 10 percent plus the Consumers Price Index. So Minister Lotu-Iiga can you please answer the question for the people back home and those millions of people who are interested: why are we in urgency discussing this today when we have got 6 months in which we could actually run through a due process and hear submitters speak to the bill?I have a second question for you Minister. I have got some sort of clarification requirement when it comes to understanding or trying to understand the Order in Council provision that you have got. New section 79(3B)(a) in clause 4 says that it requires “every new rate of excise duty or excise-equivalent duty that the Order in Council imposes on a tobacco product is to be calculated by adding 10% of the existing rate …”. My understanding of that would be that by Order in Council you—the Minister—can make a decision to actually increase that excise at a later stage. Can you please clarify that for us? There is certainly some ambiguity in relation to that.There have been very few times in the House over the last 18 months when I could actually agree with the ideology if you like and theory of David Seymour. But I have to say that he is making sense in saying along with New Zealand First that this bill really is looking–Dr David Clark: Don’t go too far.CLAYTON MITCHELL: —I am pushing it I know; I am pushing the barrow right out here—like it is potentially going to increase the number of robberies and aggravated robberies by people who are in a very impoverished position as they try to support their habit. That is going to cause some serious concern.If the Government thinks that raising a tax on cigarettes is the answer and will stop people from smoking then like my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau has already said why is it not doing that with other things that are causing harm in society: fats in foods sugars alcohol and all these other things? This is nothing more than revenue collecting by this Government. It is trying to balance the books as we go into the 2017 general election so it can actually hand out a lolly scramble of tax cuts next year and say: “This is what we are here to achieve.”I have to say that if the ideology behind that increase in tax—that huge gouge into the working-class New Zealander and the middle-class New Zealander—is going to benefit them then surely we have to as a Government look at what it would do in reverse. If you are talking about taxing things that are bad for us what about taking tax off things that are good for us? What about taking GST—at 15 percent—off food? The actual cost of living has gone through the roof in this society because vulnerable people poor people and everyday New Zealanders are being taxed to live. If we are taxing cigarettes by 10 percent surely we should be taking GST of 15 percent off food. That would balance out the Government’s argument of why it is actually putting a tax on in the first place. How it cannot look at that is beyond us.New Zealand First has been advocating for that for some time now and every time we suggest it we hear the Government’s rhetoric: “We can’t afford to take it off. How are we going to afford it?”. I say to this Government: how can you afford not to take GST off food—15 percent—when you can sit here plain-faced in this Committee and say: “We are going tax smokers 10 percent because it is good for our health and the well-being of the future of our Government.”?Hon Maggie Barry: That’s the logic you have when your leader’s a smoker.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Maggie Barry you are not making any sense. I would just zip it right here.Hon Members: Oh!CLAYTON MITCHELL: She does not often.I have to say we will not be supporting this bill. This is nothing more than revenue collection of $425 million by this Government and it is not taking GST off food to balance out this ridiculous equation that is going to do more good than harm. Thank you.