edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
4. Question No. 4—FinanceRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) issued its latest quarterly predictions. The report says that recent developments have been mixed but generally point to further easing of inflation pressures in the New Zealand economy. The easing in capacity pressures has been a key driver behind this drop in inflation pressures in the New Zealand economy; in particular firms report a further easing in labour shortages and are now finding it easier to find both skilled and unskilled labour.Rima Nakhle: What does this outlook mean for monetary policy?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The NZIER report goes on to say that the key question for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is whether it is comfortable that this easing in inflation is occurring at a fast enough pace to get annual Consumers Price Index inflation back to within its 1 to 3 percent inflation target band. The RBNZ's monetary policy statement came out at 2 p.m. and I've been advised that the official cash rate has been held steady. This indicates that the bank does think inflation is reducing at a fast enough pace.Rima Nakhle: What does the NZIER say about the outlook for economic growth?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker—Rt Hon Winston Peters: It's better now that Grant's gone.Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That's right. The Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. Like other forecasters the NZIER is expecting near-term weakness in the economy but recovery over the longer term. The NZIER also highlights an increase in business confidence. It says that despite signs of weaker demand as the impact of higher interest rates left over from the last lot continues to gain traction businesses are feeling less pessimistic about the general economic outlook.Rima Nakhle: When will the next Treasury forecast be released?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The next complete set of Treasury economic and fiscal forecasts will be released with the Budget on 30 May. Data revisions and recent out-turns since the half-year update in December indicate that the economy is likely to be in a weaker position this year than was anticipated before Christmas. That will flow through to forecasts for tax revenue so I expect the Crown to be collecting less revenue over the next few years than was previously expected.
3. Question No. 3—Prime MinisterHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 3—Prime Minister3. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes and in the context they were given.Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that our focus is on making sure … we honour the Treaty." and if so will he ensure that the new fast-track consenting legislation will uphold the Treaty?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes I will.Hon James Shaw: Has he been briefed on feedback from mana whenua as Treaty partners on the proposed policy settings for the fast-track legislation and if so what was the feedback?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I understand that the Ministers have. If he would like to direct any questions to the relevant Minister he's more than welcome to do so.Hon James Shaw: Will the fast-track process give effect to the rights of iwi and hapū over natural resources as recognised in Treaty settlements?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.Hon James Shaw: Will the fast-track framework protect matters of national importance under the Resource Management Act by ensuring that projects will be declined if they undermine the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites wāhi tapu and other taonga?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again we haven't yet had a Cabinet paper or discussion about that in Cabinet yet but we will shortly.Hon James Shaw: Will he rule out the proposal by Trans-Tasman Resources for seabed mining off the coast of Taranaki from the list of projects in the bill in light of the Supreme Court ruling that this application needed to be reconsidered to take account of tikanga Māori?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said there has been no paper presented to Cabinet there has been no discussion at Cabinet and there's been no decisions made at Cabinet. That is yet to come."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That Rachel Boyack's amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now for Schedule 1 where there is no debate the question is that Hūhana Lyndon's tabled amendment to Schedule 1 deleting new clause 36(4) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come now to Schedule 2 also with no debate. A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 2 agreed to.
Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
Shaw James; Pugh MaureenSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you Madam Speaker. Given that it's 10 to midnight and we've just finished that item of business I wondered: could I move that the House rise rather than to start the next item on the Order Paper—which the Minister would find himself cut off in the middle of his speech?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Are you seeking leave?Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I'm seeking leave for the House to rise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I'll put the leave. Is everybody in agreement?Hon Members: No.
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I'm not sure what kind of world we're living in these days. It seems to be that we're now in the ultimate nanny State. That's what they want. They believe that the Government can just legislate and all the problems will go away. There's no responsibility on the individual! There's no personal responsibility! We'll just rule it out and turn on the blinkers. There's no black market"—clearly wasn't listening to her colleagues being emphatic the other day where Customs said the biggest issue they have on the black market is tobacco. They're asking for consistency and they want to have a smoke-free generation but the Green Party also want to introduce new drugs to smoke.I'll tell you what I believe in. It's not just in mucking around with supply. It's about killing the demand. It's about giving people the tools to actually tackle this. That's how we'll do it. That's what we're focused on. I commend the bill to the House."
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I just want to use one of these last closing calls from the National Party to pay tribute to Dame Tariana Turia and the work that she did 14 years ago with the Smokefree 2025 initiative and the work that she did with Bill English and John Key in that fifth National Government on Smokefree 2025 to halve smoking rates—and we've done better than that—the two pieces of landmark legislation in 2011 and 2014 under the National Government. In fact on 18 October in the New Zealand Herald: Dame Tariana Turia believes more can be accomplished for Māori health under National". That was the headline. So I want to pay tribute to Dame Tariana and the work that she did and to tell her that we will reinforce that work we will reinvigorate that work we will recharge that work and we will relaunch that work. We are committed to Smokefree 2025 and we're on track. I commend the bill."
Cheung CarlosDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): We want to make it clear this Government is still committed to the Smokefree 2025 goal. Just because we use a different approach doesn't mean that we can't achieve the same outcome. Our policy is to help people quit smoking and to stop young people from starting smoking and vaping. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. We have traversed the area multiple times today that before this previous amendment came into power we had already reduced smoking rates to a point where we have reached or nearly reached our smoke-free targets which is less than 5 percent. We will continue to support initiatives to provide people with practical tools and support to help them quit. You can choose to smoke; you don't choose to be a victim of crime. This bill changes the process not the goal and there are better ways to reduce harm. Prohibition approaches do not have the greatest track record. Therefore I recommend this bill to the House.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to rise on this third reading. Look we want to be really clear: we want to continue to bring smoking down in New Zealand. We've seen it drop significantly over the past 12 years from around 16 percent down to 8.6 percent last year to 6.8 percent this year. On the way we're going we will reach our goal of having the average under 5 percent by 2025. This Government is committed to that goal. I'd like to note that Action for Smokefree 2025 has said that the progress we're making is unprecedented. We want to build on what has worked. We are not going to take the punitive regulatory approach that the Opposition would like us to do; we're going to build on what has worked—what has continued to drive down smoking rates.Look no regulations or programmes that were in place before the election have been stopped. That is the reality. We're supporting a package of initiatives to make sure we ensure a smoke-free goal of 2025. I support this bill.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. If only you could ban misery. We haven't heard the Opposition give an intelligent reckoning with a second and third order of facts of prohibition of cigarettes on an emerging black market. I recommend this bill to the House.
Motions — Business of the House—Thursday 29 February
Bishop ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. Thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to determine the business for this Thursday.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you. I move That the business for Thursday 29 February be as follows: general business including oral questions; a general debate; and members' orders of the day Nos 1 4 and 2.Motion agreed to.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Costello Casey; O'Connor GregThird ReadingHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I move That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a third time.There has been quite a lot of emotion and debate around this bill. That is understandable; smoking is an emotive subject. People have spoken of their personal experience with family members dying from effects of smoking tobacco. I sympathise and I've lived the experiences. Smokers their families communities and our health system all benefit from a reduction in smoking. I want to see a reduction in smoking this Government wants it and members opposite want it. What we disagree about is how.I want to set out some facts for people listening to this debate. As I said this is an emotive subject on which we feel passionately and there have been some emotional statements so it is important that we are very clear about what this bill and this Government is doing. There are three key facts. Firstly this bill does not change a single regulation around smoking around the sale and use of smoked tobacco products that is in place today. Labour had plans to cut the number of retailers introduce a low nicotine limit and ban sales to all those born after 1 January 2009 but they were plans. One of those things was to happen later this year one was to happen next year and one was to happen in 2027. I reiterate: those changes are not yet in place. This bill reverses those plans and maintains the regulatory regime that is in place now and that was in place throughout Labour's term. We are not stopping anything that is currently helping to drive smoking rates down.Secondly New Zealand's smoking rates are falling rapidly. New Zealanders are quitting smoking. That is great news. In the last three years 229000 people have stopped smoking and more than a third of those who quit were Māori. I mention the three figures because Labour's plans and all the modelling that they keep talking about were based on figures from 2019 to 2020. Back then the smoking rate was 11.9 percent and the youth smoking rate was 10.3. The latest New Zealand Health Survey figures show an overall smoking rate of 6.8 and a youth smoking rate of 3 percent. When that survey started in 2011 to 2012 there were 119000 young smokers. Last year there was 19000.What that means and the third point I want to make is that smoking rates are falling because what we are doing is something that works. The regime that this bill keeps in place has seen smoking rates reduce and we're going to build on it. Our commitment is to provide smokers a range of tools like vaping that will help them to quit smoking. We will ensure the continued provision of effective stop-smoking services and supporting marketing campaigns and we will ensure initiatives are targeted at those who need it the most. This will include Māori and Pacific peoples who have higher smoking rates. Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move That debate on this question now close.
Tangaere-Manuel CushlaCUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair otirā tēnā anō koutou katoa. Ahakoa te pōuri rawa atu o te ngākau kei te kōrero mātou i runga i tēnei kaupapa whakahē whakaiti patu i te oranga hauora o ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa. Ehara ko ngā Māori anake.Ko tēnei te wāhanga tuarua i tēnei rā tonu kei te kōrero mātou mō tētahi take e whakaiti ana i te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Ko te āhua nei ko te whakaaro o tēnei Kāwanatanga hei aha te whakaaro Māori hei aha te mana Māori hei aha te oranga Māori.[Thank you Mr Chair indeed greetings to you all. Despite the deep sadness of my heart we are speaking about this action that condemns that insults that attacks the health and wellbeing of all people of New Zealand. Not just the Māori.]This is the second section today where we are talking about an issue that denigrates the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal. It appears that the opinion of this Government is don't bother with Māori perspectives don't bother with mana Māori and Māori health doesn't matter.]I'm saddened to be here on a day where two times in one day we are discussing items which have not been heard by the Waitangi Tribunal though there are claims before them—in particular a claim by a group such Te Rōpū Tupeka Kore o Aotearoa which holds so much authority in this kaupapa in Aotearoa is not being given the chance to be heard. Kei te hārapa haere tēnei hoiho. Parahutihuti ana te haere o tēnei hoiho. [This horse is galloping away. This horse is really flying.]Why is this important kaupapa being rushed? Don't get me wrong the word urgency"—the irony is not wasted on me. The sad part is that the urgency on this side of the House is the urgency to save lives and to prevent us going back and making mistakes that we know we've already lived. I have several questions but number one: why once again is this process being rushed and Te Rōpū Tupeka's claim before the Waitangi Tribunal not given the opportunity to be heard before this bill is passed? And tuarua why not wait for that determination? Kei hea rā te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi i tēnei rā? [Where is the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal today?]It's sad—you know already the precedent is being set by this Government that the tribunal is a "nice-to-have" but when we feel like it. He whakaiti tērā. He whakaiti i te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi he whakaiti i te mana Māori he whakaiti i te hauora o ngā tāngata katoa. [That is an insult. It is an insult to the authority of the Waitangi Tribunal it is an insult to Māori authority it is an insult to the wellbeing of all people.] When I talk about urgency and the desire not to take a giant leap backwards let's be clear that it's not just for Māori. Although there's been a lot of kōrero about how Māori feature highly in the negative statistics as do Pasifika it's not just Māori; we all know that tobacco is harmful to everybody in this beautiful country of ours. Thank you for the reminder Mr Chair. Ko taku pātai—what is the rush? And why can we not wait until this has been heard by Taraipiunara o Waitangi? Tēnā koe Mr Chair."
Fleming GregGREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): I move That debate on this question now close.
Costley Tim; O'Connor GregTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Now I'm just going to remind people that the relevance repetition and participation of the Minister are three of the factors that are taken into account.
O'Connor Greg; Brooking RachelCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): [Facing Rachel Boyack] Rachel Brooking.Rachel Boyack: Which Rachel?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Rachel Brooking. There was a 50:50 chance.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just going to take a tiny moment to deviate from the title of this bill and note that I was on campus recently in the beautiful electorate of Dunedin and some students came up to me and said Is the House full of Rachels? Is every MP called Rachel?" But there's only been two and both are Rachel Bs—both in the Labour Party.But I want to talk about the title and respond to the Minister's response—and I thank her for that response—to my colleague also from the great city and environment of Dunedin Ingrid Leary where she made a contribution the first contribution on these clauses on the title and commencement and made some suggestions around the name.Then the Minister responded and said "Well I can't"—I apologise for not being word-perfect with my summary but basically: "It has to be called the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act because"—inferring here—"it's related to the primary legislation so it can only be called that name in reference to the primary legislation." When of course we know that there are many examples where that is not the case and that amendment Acts can in fact include things like brackets with other words. We heard Mr McAnulty—he touched on this topic as well.But I just want to go to Part 1 of this very bill where of course the bill itself amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products—bracket—Smoked Tobacco—bracket—Amendment Act 2022. There's another one just like that about vaping which I don't happen to have in front of me. But that is a perfectly normal drafting technique: to use brackets to explain the type of amendment that you are doing.We've heard many speeches on different suggestions on what should be included in those brackets—very good ones relating to finances and also timing. My one is also related to timing in that I'm suggesting that it should be that the Act is the "Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Not Meeting 2025 Target) Amendment Act 2024". I'm suggesting this because we've heard through the policy debates that we've had in the House today—and of course that we had in the House in 2022—that the point of the legislation that has been repealed was to make us achieve those targets and that the impact of this repeal will be that those targets will not be met. So that is my suggestion.Also I would like to speak briefly in support of my colleague Camilla Belich's suggestion of the commencement being at a later date. I think she suggested 1 January 2027. That would seem an appropriate date for this legislation to go through a proper process. Thank you Mr Chair."
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to propose a new clause 25 via a tabled amendment. As I do this I just remind this committee and the Minister that we're speaking here about a product that kills half the people who use it. Anybody listening to this debate at home would have heard me speak about the realities of funerals because when people die from a product there needs to be a funeral. So the amendment that I'm proposing is around compensation for victims.When I look at the wording compensation" is a bit of a difficult word to use because there is nothing that can compensate for a loss of life or for the health implications or for the loss of time that family members have when somebody's life is cut short or they are sick or ill or unwell or just not present because they're smoking.So compensation's not an ideal word but it's the word that I landed on and then the word "victims". The victims of smoking they are victims of many things. They are victims of tobacco companies. They are victims of the misinformation of those companies. They are victims of advertising of marketing. They are victims of insidious marketing through films—that has happened decades ago for some of the people who still currently smoke where there were pictures of people smoking on films—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could I just inform the member that that amendment was part of Part 1 and so if the member has any questions on Part 2—INGRID LEARY: Madam Chair if I may the proposed amendment inserts clause 24 and a new part 5 Subpart 8 and we have not as I understand it come to that part. So I have not had the opportunity to speak to this or for the Minister to consider this suggestion.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes it is Part 1.INGRID LEARY: Point of order Madam Chair. May I just ask for an explanation on that because my understanding is that this goes into a new Part 5 Subpart 8 which is not in Part 1 so I'm not quite clear on that.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You're talking about "Amendments to principal Act."Camilla Belich: Speaking to the point of order Madam Chair. I think the issue is that this is a new section that's been introduced by the member in her amendment. The primary Act finishes at clause 24. This is inserting a new clause 25. The existing clause 25 is in Part 2 and therefore the member didn't speak about the amendment in the previous part and intended to speak at the appropriate time in Part 2. I appreciate that it's difficult for members obviously not as expert as some of the Clerks in where their correct place is but I just—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I've just taken some advice. To the member regardless of how the amendment was worded if it relates to the principal Act it relates to Part 1 and that's the advice that I've received so yeah.Camilla Belich: Speaking to that point of order just to clarify I accept that if that's your ruling that the member can't speak on it. However the member perhaps was waiting for the appropriate time because clause 25 is in Part 2 of the Act and so it may be—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So it is my ruling that it does relate to the principal Act."
Abel Steve; Costello CaseySTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I specifically want to ask the Minister under Subpart 2 Amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations" about clause 35. There's already been some speakers point out the problem of taking away requirements on the testing but I specifically want to talk about removal of Subpart 2C which "sets out information that the manufacturer or importer must provide with an application for approval for sale import or manufacture of a smoked tobacco product." The question relates to—surely I want to have clarity from the Minister—what is the reason for removing a clause that gives clarity on the importation or manufacture and to what extent will that affect the monitoring and our understanding of what importers and manufacturers are doing in this country in terms of tobacco?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Abel I understand from the Minister that she's answered that particular question. There's quite a number of interchanges in the Chamber tonight where people are moving in and out of the Chamber so I would suggest perhaps you might want to look to a previous answer.STEVE ABEL: I have another question—[Interruption] I have another question. There's another question sorry.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry Mr Abel has still got the call at the moment. Hon Member: Sorry mate. STEVE ABEL: No it's fine. So it's related to a specific point that was asked already of the Minister but has not yet been answered which is as to the impact and the regulation of the impact of the waste tobacco product—my colleague Lan Pham asked about this—which primarily manifests in terms of the filters which are plastic and in their hundreds of thousands and possibly millions end up in the environment. Most of them end up getting washed down drains when people stub out their cigarettes on the ground and a lot of them end up in our marine environment and end up being consumed by marine life and fish and so forth. This is actually a major environmental problem—a major source of plastic pollution in the environment. I'd like to ask the Minister in terms of that question what her response is.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): As I've previously stated there was no filters restriction on the current legislation. That's not relevant to this amendment that we're seeking. There's nothing in there currently and we're not undoing anything that's in there."
Hamilton Ryan; Kuriger BarbaraRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move That debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to call Steve Abel but I'm going to be very vigilant. We have had some good questions in the last couple of calls but I'm going to be very vigilant about where we're going because we've had quite a bit of time on this part.
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to address Part 2 clause 29 as well which is repealing the smoke-free generation. I refer to my colleague Hūhana Lyndon's request or amendment to get rid of that. But while we're still talking about it I also want to congratulate the Government for their campaign slogan to get back on track" because it was sort of you know a good slogan and it got them elected. I'd like to give them a gift in relation to that. I think your new slogan has got to be—because it's such a good one—"Back on baccy". I mean "You can do this: back on baccy." You could heckle us with it because really that's what you're all about isn't it? "Back on baccy". "Back on baccy—let's kill a few more." So you know go for it guys!CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So now could we have a question for the Minister please?SCOTT WILLIS: You have a question. You have a question—my apologies Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No don't apologise. I'm just trying to keep the committee on track.SCOTT WILLIS: But the question I have for the Minister is: can she please explain the purpose of clause 23 which repeals section 105 which requires the ministry to conduct a review of smoke-free legislation and policy and prepare a report for the Minister no later than 2029?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Willis we're on Part 2 at the moment. Your question—SCOTT WILLIS: This question is relating to Part 2.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you please relate it to Part 2?SCOTT WILLIS: My question is: why are they scrapping the review and how will doing so allow for effective oversight of our smoke-free targets?Now this is really really important because it is the way we deliver evidence-based policy. We need to know what's happening. Perhaps our colleagues opposite might want to in addition to adopting "back on baccy" adopt the other slogan they could throw at us that "ignorance is strength" because this is where they're going. They really do not want to understand the implications of what they're trying to do. So I am interested and I would like the Minister to address this. So just to repeat I am interested in: why are they scrapping the review of those changes and how will doing so allow for effective oversight of our smoke-free targets?This is really really important because if we don't understand what we're doing we can't review we can't change we can't change course we can't correct course—we're running blind. We are ignorant. We're supporting ignorance. I understand that our colleagues opposite disappointingly might prefer ignorance but we don't. I'm listening to such a learned expression of questions that we're just not getting any answer to from the Minister. This is really simple stuff. It should not be complicated. It's not rocket science; it's just basic policy. So could we please have an answer?"
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Chair thank you. Also in the regulations—and for the friends in the Chamber they are great reading. You can just google the amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 2021" and there is ample material in there that is being revoked in this bill and we have really got to do our diligence on it and go through all of it.In clause 35 we see Subpart 2C is being revoked. Of course friends will be well aware that that relates to the provisions around product information. Product information is incredibly important because it is the information that guides when harmful products are out on the market and then sometimes something was wrong in their manufacture "Oh we accidentally made a cigarette that kills you." says British American Tobacco "Oh whoops." They might find that they had constituents in there that weren't meant to be in there. They might have experiences where a product had been made incorrectly and therefore they would seek to recall that product. Product information is what you use to do a recall. A lot of the questions that I've tried to get answers to tonight—and I notice my colleagues in the Greens do as well—are related to the principle that you'd think would guide sensible regulation. Sensible regulation should be risk-proportionate. We've had questions about what the appropriate balance of regulations between tobacco and vaping is because regulation should be risk-proportionate. So it seems to me that this lack of provision around product information is bizarre because with cigarettes you breathe the smoke into your internal organs and yet if you are selling a pottle of yoghurt you need to have product recall information in there because it could give you an upset tummy. So where is the risk proportionality when it comes to removing product information provisions in regulations passed in 2021 from this bill when of course we know that those regulations are incredibly important. Minister this isn't a matter of tobacco control; this is a matter of consumer protection. So I'm uncertain why it is no matter what our different ideologies are about tobacco control that you've chosen to remove that. I'd really like to have information on that.I don't believe my earlier question about product testing was actually answered because of course nicotine is an element of the safety of the product. High nicotine of course can cause nausea and vomiting. There can be a very adverse reaction if the level of nicotine in tobacco is too high.So in clause 35 whether it relates to my current question which is about product information or my earlier question about product testing it seems like there is an unawareness of the actual implications of revoking these subparts and it really leaves consumers in New Zealand incredibly exposed to unsafe products. I would like to hear from the Minister on that matter."
White Helen; Kuriger BarbaraHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): My first point is actually one where I may just not be reading the papers right but I cannot for the life of me find Part 6A so I would like the Minister to look at clause 37. It says that it revokes Part 6A which sets out the requirement for the approval as a smoked tobacco retailer and if they can point me to where that is—it's been quite a difficult one to track down.I'd also like to ask the Minister to consider the unintended consequences of amending one part of a law that relates to two things—smoking and vaping. So I'd love to know what happens if you have created a regime that's actually more liberal in the smoking area than it is in the vaping and you get a sudden movement over into smoking because it's less regulated and you get more people going into the smoking space which would be absolutely terrible.I take this matter extremely seriously because I see it as one of the things that may be happening as a consequence of a rush and not looking at unintended consequences not having the usual processes we have the comments that we would get in the select committees the overarching time to consider something like this in the structure of the bill pulling out part of it and leaving the other and coming up with an unintended consequence.I'm going to put this as gravely as I can and I don't think I'm being melodramatic. If we have a surge of people dying and an upsurge in smoking is the Minister prepared to resign? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could I just clarify for the member that Part 6A is in the legislation and it covers the requirements for approval as a smoked tobacco retailer which is—yeah it's in the regulations.Helen White: Part 6 is in the regulations?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.
Lyndon Hūhana; Costello CaseyHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I'd like to speak to a tabled amendment on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. This proposed amendment relates to clause 29 on page 7. I seek for the Associate Minister of Health and for the committee to consider deleting clause 29 page 7 lines 1 and 2 and that relates to our smoke-free generation. I struggle to understand the benefit of removing the protections for the smoke-free generation. I asked the Minister questions related to this in terms of what cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken by the Minister and her officials into opening up really exposure to the smoke-free generation. I build and I tautoko the sentiments of my colleague Lan Pham in trying to understand what analysis has been undertaken on potential health system costs for the repeal and in considering the smoke-free generation now being exposed to tobacco related harm.Further my last question for the Minister—and I hope we can get some authentic responses—in repealing clause 29 and considering the revenue that will be gained the revenue from this tobacco excise as a consequence of the repeal have you given any consideration to the casualties of this legislation and the repeal that there might be some equity shown to our low socio-economic communities who will take the impact on the front line from the repeal of the smoke-free legislation rather than just tax cuts for a particular ilk of friends and taxpayers of the Government?So those are my questions and I hope that I can engage in that conversation because these are important matters as a mother and for the future of New Zealand. Kia ora.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just wanted to touch on the questions that came up before just in relation to the testing concerns that were raised previously by the member. Existing testing requirements remain as the concerns were raised.In terms of the environmental impact that was questioned before there were no restrictions on filters in the 2022 Act so there has been no change in that area.In terms of the smoke-free generation I think we've reiterated previously that we are down to 19000 young smokers and that's continuing to track down. I think we are achieving our smoke-free generation without the virtue of this legislation even being in place.
Verrall Ayesha; Costello CaseyHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): My next question relates to clause 36. Clause 36 amends the regulations passed in 2021 that enabled product testing for tobacco. So we're no longer talking about denicotinisation here. What we're talking about is testing on whether or not the product is what it says it is and it enables us to know how much of harmful constituents are in the cigarettes. I do want to know why it is that this section is being revoked.It seems to me that there are a lot of products on the shelves that are far less harmful than cigarettes that the Government does choose to regulate. So of course mussels would be an example. Now you might think mussels are harmless but they're filter-feeders and they can be full of viruses. So mussels that you eat in New Zealand have a product testing regime. And they get minced up at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in Porirua and cultured for viruses and other pathogens. But why is it that we're revoking product testing regulations for tobacco—for cigarettes? That seems very strange when cigarettes are far more harmful than mussels. How can this be the case?We must have product testing regimes for all sorts of things. Some members opposite may have had a career as a crash test dummy in the past—product testing for seatbelts. But it seems like that approach where we keep people safe keep consumers safe by making sure that the products have in them what they say they have—an approach that the Government is removing just for tobacco. So why is that the case? I think we need to have some answers there because it seems to me that all sorts of things could go wrong with cigarettes and they get inhaled right into a very sensitive part of your body. It's not like a skin cream or something. It just goes right into your internal organs and then it could contain anything.In fact we know that sometimes products do get spiked with things. We saw that happen with vapes in the United States and people went to the ICU because of this. So the way in which these products are used it goes straight into an internal organ it can be incredibly harmful and yet it seems like the Minister sees fit to remove processes for checking that these products are safe. I think I've heard multiple times that Minister say in the House that she has an approach that is empathetic to smokers and I do want to understand from her why is she putting smokers then in harm's way and taking away protections that would mean (a) that these products could be tested and safer from the perspective of consumers but also would have allowed enforcement of the denicotinisation regime that's in there. So I'm very interested to hear from the Minister on clause 36.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I can just provide assurance that clause 36 testing relates specifically to the testing for the low nicotine rates only.
Webb Duncan; Costello CaseyHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Yeah look just a short contribution around some of these repeals in Part 2. Really it's about what the Minister's done to address the lack of procedure due to urgency. We have heard her go around in smoke rings in terms of We're repealing it because we're repealing it." But this is about who she has talked to.Now prior to the election I have no doubt that she talked to retailers and their association and I suspect—and I would invite the Minister to stand up and say it's not the case that she spoke to the tobacco industry either through lobbyists or directly; and if she didn't do that stand up and say so. But since the election how has she balanced that one-sided view? Has she spoken in person? Has she received an oral submission from Action on Smoking and Health? Has she received an oral submission from the Cancer Society? Has she received a submission from schools? My colleague Chlöe Swarbrick mentioned iwi and hapū who are disproportionately affected by this. Has she received evidence about this reform in respect of women's health?So these reforms—particularly those ones in Part 2 which are rolling back the fundamental parts of the reforms that the prior Government put in place. So there's two parts to my question. Can you rule out the fact that you essentially are doing what you were lobbied to do pre-election by the tobacco industry? Rule it out if you didn't do it. Secondly since then what have you done to listen to the other side of the argument in terms of how you implement your election promises? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I'm more than happy to respond to the member regarding my engagement with the retail sector which I did have none in reference to that; I have not met with any lobbyists tobacco lobbyists or any tobacco organisations—and I provide that assurance repeatedly. I have met with Action on Smoking and Health on two occasions and I have met just this last week with the Cancer Society and I will continue to do so."
Uffindell Sam; O'Connor Greg; Robertson GrantSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is—Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry point of order. In fact I've just begun the process of voting so the point of order—I'll take the point of order. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you Mr Chair. I'm raising this point—and it's relevant to exactly what's just occurred—under Speaker's ruling 68/1 I believe it is. It's a ruling of Speaker Mallard—Dan Bidois: Ha!Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —around the closure motion. Is there a problem Mr Bidois?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Bidois points of order are heard in silence.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaker's ruling 68/1 and also Speakers' ruling 79/4 I believe it is—and this is partly a point of order to explain the interjection that it's clear the Minister didn't understand. There is a purpose to the change to the way that the committee of the whole House process is run—and Mr Chair I know this places you in a difficult position and I'm coming to the end part of my point of order in a moment. But to simply repeat a series of political lines in answer to a series of technical questions is I believe a breach of the Speakers' rulings around the committee of the whole House stage. I've listened to this debate upstairs I came down I've participated in it and throughout the debate questions have not been answered. So I know that you will make the final ruling that you will make Mr Chair but it places us in a very very difficult position when the committee of the whole House process fails to work and when we've had urgency that takes the select committee process out. So I just ask you to consider those Speakers' rulings that are relevant to the engagement of the Minister in the debate and I invite you to consider that in any future actions you may be about to take. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Thank you. I will address the point of order—we'll call it a point of order. It is that all those things you have brought up are legitimate and that's why we are still on this question at this stage. My decision will take all of those things into account. But it's nice to have them articulately laid out because I'm going to now put the question that the debate on this matter now be closed.
Fleming GregGREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): I move that debate on this motion now close.
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Mr Chair well thank you and I would like again to take that opportunity to go back and forth over the course of my time on this. We're talking about the approved retailer scheme in the Act and what I want to understand is not that it's being repealed because it's being repealed; what I want to understand is: why is it appropriate in the Associate Minister of Health's view—why is it risk proportionate that tobacco that kills half the people that use it does not need a retail premise to be licensed but for a less harmful product like alcohol it is appropriate that it be licensed?