Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health) Link to this
I move, That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. There are only a few matters before this House on which one could stand with one’s hand on one’s heart and declare that this was a life-and-death debate. The rationale for increasing the tobacco excise is very much in this arena. It is purely and simply about saving lives.
I come to this bill with many mixed emotions. As an Associate Minister of Health, it worries me greatly that about 21 percent of all New Zealanders over the age of 15 years are smokers, and that many smokers are younger than that. In basic terms one in five New Zealanders are regular smokers. It is irresponsible to dismiss this as a recreational pastime, to minimise the impact of the harm caused by justifying tobacco use as a private pleasure that one should be free to indulge in in the privacy of one’s home, and not to acknowledge the addictive nature of this tobacco use. Exposure to smoking in the home and tobacco use itself result in a staggering figure of around 5,000 deaths a year. In graphic terms I can put some names to these numbers, simply by walking along the gravesides of our family urupā.
The focus of this legislation, tobacco use, is the single-largest cause of preventable death and chronic illness in this country. It would be a foolish Government that ignored the economic and social repercussions of this relentless killer, yet for too many years it appears that we have been prepared to turn a blind eye to the crisis that afflicts our communities right throughout this land. Actions have been infrequent and erratic. Years have elapsed while we have debated minor changes. In all that time the death toll has kept on rising, with New Zealanders dying prematurely from smoking-related illnesses that show no mercy. We cannot stand by and be oblivious to the pain that strikes too many families. These early deaths are completely preventable. The science tells us that on average, a smoker loses 15 years of life.
It is no news to anyone in this House that tobacco is the leading cause of the life-expectancy gap between Māori and non-Māori. It is soul-destroying to know that one in two Māori women smoke. The disproportionate impacts of heavy use of tobacco on Māori are etched into the lives of many w’ānau. During the period 2000 to 2004 lung cancer was responsible for over 31 percent of Māori cancer deaths. During that same period cardiovascular disease, including heart disease and strokes, resulted in Māori death rates that were twice as high as those for non-Māori, and deaths due to respiratory disease were three times more frequent in Māori than non-Māori.
It is impossible, in that context, to come to this debate with views about the nature of the product per se. Day on day, approximately 13 New Zealanders die from smoking. They die from lung cancer. They die from heart disease, from strokes, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, from emphysema, from chronic bronchitis, and from cancer of the mouth, pharynx, and oesophagus. They are dying from a habit that we can do something about, so today we are taking this action in order to save lives.
I was by my mother’s side when we received the diagnosis that her cancer had progressed to such a stage that she might have 6 months to live. My mother had been a heavy smoker for some 40 years, but even though we all understood the risk that comes from smoking-related illness, there is nothing quite as traumatic as having to sit and watch the life of a loved one slowly drained. My cousins and I were raised by my grandmother. Every single one of those cousins has died from smoking-related illness. I am the only one still alive of those who were raised by my grandmother. This story—my story—is not an isolated, individual case. For the sake of our future, we must act.
This bill is part of a coordinated range of measures that target tobacco use as a leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. Independent research studies have established the impact of price rises on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Raising the price of tobacco is probably the most powerful tool to reduce smoking. International organisations, from the World Health Organization to the World Bank, recommend that countries use tobacco taxes to increase the price of cigarettes and counter the global smoking epidemic. It is very simple: all smokers who buy tobacco will face price rises. The more that someone smokes, the more that he or she will pay, and the bigger will be the incentive for him or her to quit. The Government is concerned that cigarette prices have plateaued in recent years and that the reduction in cigarette consumption has also stalled. That is why we are putting up the tobacco excise in three steps of 10 percent over the next 2 years.
The Government is also concerned that roll-your-own tobacco is increasingly being seen as a cheap alternative. That is why we are putting up the excise on loose tobacco by an additional 14 percent, to equalise the excise weight-for-weight with that payable on manufactured cigarettes. Roll-your-owns are no safer than tailor-made cigarettes, and may indeed be more harmful, because roll-your-own smokers will often inhale deeper than others in order to make the cigarettes go further—or so I am told.
This issue is of such severity that we must accord it urgency. I personally regret, given the circumstances, that I have been unable to give other parties sufficient advance notice prior to the introduction of this bill, but I feel assured from previous statements made by the parties around this House throughout the years that all of us understand the perilous situation that we face. The stakes are too high. We must act decisively, and this bill is an important step on the pathway forward. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the first reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill, and to say that Labour will be supporting this legislation throughout its passage, just as we support the urgency that has been accorded to it.
I will begin by congratulating the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia, who has just resumed her seat. This is a huge step forward in health promotion for all New Zealanders, but particularly for Māori, and I say to the Minister that I admire her ability to achieve this step. I am not quite sure how that has happened, and I am not quite sure that the Minister knows how it has happened, but she is certainly worthy of congratulations. It is an issue on which she has spoken passionately before, as a former colleague of mine in Labour, and also in this House. I genuinely congratulate her and say that Labour will certainly support this bill throughout its passage.
The aim of this legislation is not to get more revenue, although that will be the accusation levelled. One of the issues that my colleagues and I will be following throughout the Budget process is watching where the money goes. When we have an increase in revenue that is primarily focused on health promotion, it is important that we can watch that money being directed into health promotion. I certainly wish all power to the Minister’s arm in ensuring that our health promotion activities will be strengthened by the increased revenue that results from this measure.
But this measure on its own will be a health promotion, because we know that when the price of tobacco increases, the consumption of tobacco is reduced. Although we strongly support this move, and think that the Government has a moral responsibility to pass on the increased revenue to health promotion, we know that this measure on its own will decrease tobacco consumption, and that is a very good thing. There is very clear evidence that an effective way to discourage the consumption of tobacco is to increase the price. The figures that I have heard quoted and used in the House in an earlier debate is that a 2 percent increase is equivalent to a 1 percent decrease. A 2 percent increase in the price of tobacco is equivalent to a 1 percent decrease in the level of consumption. That figure has been used before, and I am sure that it has some validity.
A combination of the increase in price, the increase in excise duty, more public spending on anti-smoking education programmes, more support for people not to start smoking and become addicted, and more support for those who want to quit, has been maintained in New Zealand when different parties have been leading our Government. That combination has ensured that New Zealand, like many other countries, has been successful in substantially reducing the number of people who smoke in our country. But even with that success, tobacco smoking is still the single largest cause of early death and, more important, of avoidable death within our nation.
I took the opportunity just a few moments ago to look back on an earlier debate in which Sue Bradford spoke. I commend Sue Bradford, and I bet that she is listening to this debate and wishing she were here. This will be one of the rare moments when Sue would wish she were back in the House. She gave a very strong contribution to that debate, and I know that the Green health spokesperson, Kevin Hague, will do the same, because he always does when he contributes to debates in the House. Sue Bradford, in the debate on this very issue in 2000, talked about the link between smoking rates and people on low incomes, including people who were beneficiaries, people who had poor mental health, and, increasingly at that time, young Māori women and Pacific Islanders.
I remind the House of Sue Bradford’s contribution in that debate and also of the fact that her contribution remains relevant to this day. We have a higher number of people on low incomes, people on benefits, people who are in low-income work or in precarious employment situations, and people with more mental health issues. They are the people whom this bill is designed to help. They will find it harder on a low income to purchase tobacco, and they will have all of the resulting problems when they are withdrawing from addiction. It is in that regard that I urge the Government to ensure that support is given to people who are smokers to move off the consumption of tobacco. It is too hard for many people if that help is not given, so I urge the Government to consider that as the next part of the package.
I also had the opportunity to read a very interesting contribution in the debate in 2000 from the Hon Bill English. I will just take a little bit of the House’s time to share Mr English’s contribution in the debate. He began by saying—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
If the member is quoting from Hansard, then she must quote the page number and the volume.
In referring to what Mr English said, I am quoting from Hansard, Volume 583, at page 1987. The volume is dated 4 April to 18 May 2000. Mr English stated: “Mr Speaker, if you ask me to give you the reasons this bill was introduced, I cannot think of any.” Then he explained that that was not his responsibility. But he went on to state that he wanted the Government “to explain why this is such an urgent, vital matter of widespread public interest that this House has to take this legislation through all the legislative stages today. The Budget, … will be in 6 weeks’ time.” He stated that maybe the work had not been done and was not ready to go in the Budget. He said that the legislation should not have been put through all stages under urgency, but should have been put in Dr Michael Cullen’s Budget, which was just a few weeks away. Well, I am sure that when National members get to their feet to contribute to this debate, they will be apologising for Bill English having such a shallow view on an issue that deserves the support of all parties in this House. Every member of this House should want to do everything he or she can do to promote better health for all our citizens.
Mr English went on to say “The Government can tell us why this legislation did not wait for the Budget. Why is the Government not using the time of this House to further its programme? All these members could be in their electorates doing more useful work. Why does it not have in front of this House its widely signalled initiatives, all the things it was going to do …”. Instead, Mr English said that the Government was putting the legislation through all stages of the House.
I know why the National Government is not using the opportunity of this particular debating time to further its own initiatives. The reason is very straightforward: it does not have any. That is the reason. But because this legislation increases the price of tobacco, it is not just important but also a well-established tradition of this House that it goes through all stages under urgency. We know that some members of the House will have heard of the introduction of the bill, and will now be up the road at New World stocking up—having had the advantage of advanced warning of the increase—as other people are also entitled to do. But that is the reason why we are putting all parts of the legislation under urgency. The legislation increases the price of a product that is publicly available.
I will conclude by saying that about 4,500 New Zealanders die every year from smoking-related diseases. Thousands more suffer the long-term health consequences of smoking. Thousands have heart attacks and survive, but live with a lower level of capacity. They have strokes, severe strokes, and can be incapacitated for years. Many thousands of New Zealanders have to endure very painful treatment for cancer. We know the impact and the effects that second-hand smoking has, particularly on children. When the Minister introduced this legislation, she said that it was very rare for this Parliament to be considering an issue that was literally about life-and-death. But this is certainly one of those occasions. It is not about raising more money. It is not a tax grab from the Government. It is not often that I have good things to say about the current Government, but I say that this legislation is not a tax grab; it is a genuine move to try to reduce tobacco consumption in New Zealand. It is a genuine move to improve the health of our citizens. I add, once again, my genuine congratulations to the Minister for pursuing this issue with such determination, with such staunchness, and for being able to achieve this result in our Parliament.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. As other speakers have said, this bill is an incredibly important part of the jigsaw puzzle of reducing smoking in New Zealand. I pay tribute to the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia for her long-expressed efforts in bringing this legislation to fruition today, and to the National Government. Cabinet has agreed to equalise the tobacco excise by weight, resulting in a one-off 14 percent rise in excise duties on loose tobacco, as used in roll-your-own cigarettes. It has further agreed to increase the tobacco excise across all tobacco products by 10 percent immediately, and then by a further 10 percent in January 2011 and January 2012. This amendment bill is sponsored by Tariana Turia.
It is interesting to note that “Tobacco taxation has been shown to be one of the most effective means of encouraging people to quit smoking, or at least to cut down.” Those were the very words of Annette King back in 2000, when a similar bill was passed under urgency. I note and acknowledge that the Māori Affairs Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry into tobacco control, and I understand that it has received many submissions that support the tool of an excise tax. Furthermore, the World Health Organization recommends that countries tax tobacco, to discourage tobacco consumption. There is a lot of evidence to show that this mechanism has worked, and in the past, if one goes through the various times when this has happened in New Zealand, one finds that there has been a decrease in consumption.
I think it is really important to recognise that the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants has become widely accepted in New Zealand, and that patrons largely welcomed those changes.
Hon Darren HughesDr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
I must say that I was very much for that move. People up and down New Zealand say that it is extremely welcome. This debate is not about choice; smokers will still have a choice to smoke.
It is worthwhile bringing in the libertarian argument, because there is no doubt that basic libertarian philosophy advocates as much freedom as possible, provided it does no harm. There is no question that not only direct smoking does harm but second-hand smoking does considerable harm. Therefore this legislation is one of the great public health tools that we can implement to cut down on a very, very concerning spectrum of conditions.
A combination of efforts has been made over a number of years and in a variety of ways in order to assist people to quit smoking. But the impact of an excise increase on tobacco is quite dramatic: a combination of triggering new quit attempts, preventing quit relapses, and dissuading new smokers. It is estimated that after 10 years there will be 40,000 fewer smokers and 300 fewer premature smoking-related deaths. After 20 years it is estimated there will be 80,000 fewer smokers and 600 fewer premature smoking-related deaths a year. It is interesting to note that the prevalence of smoking and tobacco consumption has dropped in New Zealand over the last 50 years. However, those declines have slowed significantly since 1990, and in the case of consumption have stalled since 2003. I again acknowledge that the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act was a challenging piece of legislation at the time, but it has been much accepted throughout this country. The present legislation is being welcomed, as far as I can tell, by all parties. It is very heartening to have heard Ruth Dyson say that she supports the Government in this initiative.
It is interesting, historically, that the link between tobacco, smoking, and disease was not proven until the 1960s, when Sir Richard Doll, an epidemiologist from Oxford University, came through with quite unequivocal, evidence-based research to show those links. More recently this link has also been shown with marijuana smoking. Smoking not only affects the respiratory system by causing lung cancer, pharynx cancer, and lip cancer, but also causes an increased number of cases of heart disease, an increased number of strokes, and it badly affects people who have chronic obstructive respiratory disease. It also affects unborn babies, who can be profoundly affected with intrauterine growth retardation, and, of course, young infants can have chronic chest infections made much worse if they are brought up in a smoking environment.
I saw this firsthand as a pathology resident in the United States. If anyone wants to see an image that will make them quit smoking or wants an abrupt session on the effects of smoking, I suggest that that person cuts open the body of a chronic smoker who has died from chronic obstructive airways disease. That person will see a black lung; it is a horrific sight. Later on, as a specialist obstetrician, time and time again I had the spectre of growth-retarded babies of mothers who had smoked heavily throughout their pregnancy, and, clearly, had given their infants a very poor start in life—they would be unable to achieve their full potential.
There is no doubt that the bill has a very, very solid basis behind its being introduced into the House today. There are concerns about whether it will affect lower socio-economic groups more than others. But the Government has put in place a considerable amount of money towards efforts to help people quit smoking. In fact, this year $57 million was provided towards tobacco control and smoking cessation services, including nicotine replacement products and prescriptions to help smokers quit. The bulk of this money funds Quitline and other specialist services targeted towards helping people to quit smoking, and focuses on Māori, Pacific, and pregnancy services. There is also funding for training, education, research, monitoring, evaluation, and media campaigns.
The financial costs associated with this bill are quite staggering. The health costs are billions of dollars every year, and of course the amount raised from the excise tax will go up to over a billion dollars a year. But the sad thing is that smoking continues, when quitting smoking would prevent a whole array of crippling conditions, such as the ones I mentioned before—lung cancer, strokes, and many others. Hopefully the provisions in this bill will stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place. It is an extremely positive move to help people stop smoking. Thank you.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate today in support of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. I commend the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia for introducing it into Parliament today. I acknowledge that she has been a long-time opponent of tobacco. She has fought for many years for measures to reduce the consumption of tobacco, and I congratulate her on bringing this bill to the House.
I also thank Dr Hutchison for his speech today; as a doctor he would be more aware than many others of the impact of smoking. But I do have one tiny little dig to say to Dr Hutchison—what a difference a day or two makes! He might remember that when I was the Minister of Health in 2000 and I introduced a bill to increase excise duty, he said “The real concern is that the bill was brought into the House by the Labour-Alliance minority socialist Government without any warning under extraordinary urgency.” That is just a gentle reminder to say that when a bill like this is brought in, it probably is sensible to bring it in under extraordinary urgency and pass it through all its stages. Otherwise what could happen is what happened once when a former National member of Parliament thought the price of petrol was going to go up, in a Budget. He rushed out to fill up his car with petrol, only to find that the Budget actually reduced the excise on petrol. So I think it probably is a good idea, I say to Dr Hutchison, to pass this bill under extraordinary urgency, which we are doing today, and which we are supporting.
Let me get back to the bill. I have been a long-time advocate for tobacco control, even in a time before it was popular. I think, probably, from a health background, I was well aware of the impact of smoking, and like Minister Turia I was also aware of the impact of lung cancer in terms of a family death.
New Zealand has been a long-time leader in tobacco control. In fact, we were one of a handful of countries that were leaders in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control at the World Health Assembly. I was fortunate over a number of years to represent New Zealand as we negotiated, and finally passed, that framework convention. New Zealand signed up to it, as did practically every country in the world, and we have put in place measures to reduce not only the prevalence but also the consumption of tobacco. I ask members to think back to the first real piece of legislation that tried to control tobacco. It was in 1989-90, when the Rt Hon Helen Clark as Minister of Health brought in legislation to restrict smoking in the workplace. That was seen to be a dreadful bill; it was campaigned against by many people, including members in workplaces themselves. If we move forward 20 years to see what a difference there is today, we see that it is widely accepted that smoking cigarettes is bad for you and bad for the population. What a big change in attitude over that time!
Although as a country, and in an international forum, we have been strong in terms of our advocacy against the consumption of tobacco, unfortunately we still have a very high rate of prevalence and consumption of tobacco in New Zealand ourselves. When we compare ourselves with our neighbours in Australia, we see that our smoking rates are still considerably higher than those in Australia. We have seen a slower drop in both consumption and prevalence than we would like, particularly amongst Māori and Pacific people, and that has to be seen as an area where we need to do a lot more work. I think Minister Turia is correct when she says she hopes this will have an impact, particularly on Māori in terms of reducing their smoking.
When we look at the prevalence of smoking, we see that in 1986 about 30 percent of New Zealanders were smokers—prevalence referring to those who were smoking in the population. In 2008 it was 22 percent. That was not a big drop over that period of time from 1986 to 2008, and that is one of the things we are concerned about. Also, when we look at tobacco consumption, which is the amount that is being smoked, we see there has been little drop since 2003—it almost flat-lined in terms of prevalence. Then if we look at when we did have some drops, and I suggest that people who have not read the Social Report from the Ministry of Social Development should do so—in fact, it does look at the matter, under cigarette smoking—they will see that in 2000, when we increased the excise on tobacco, there was a marked drop in the consumption of tobacco. It then slowly crept up again until there was the second excise increase under the previous Government, and once again it dropped, and then it just flat-lined. So since about 2003-04 there has been almost no change in the amount of tobacco that New Zealanders are consuming. I think that shows pretty clearly that it is price sensitive. If we increase the price of tobacco, people will stop smoking.
What is good about this bill is that the price is being increased over a period of years. It is not a one-off hit; it will increase over a number of years. It will be on loose tobacco. An issue has been that we have concentrated on tailor-made cigarettes and have not put the same emphasis on loose tobacco. This is an increase on loose tobacco, and there will be a series of increases over a number of years.
The truth is—and I think these are some of the really sobering facts about smoking—that around 5,000 people die from smoking-related diseases annually in New Zealand. In fact, all cigarettes are deadly for New Zealanders if people take them as prescribed on the packet. If people take them as prescribed on the packet, then every single one of them is deadly. It is not quite the same as one alcoholic drink that someone might have. Alcohol is a big problem for New Zealanders, but every cigarette a person has, as it is prescribed on the packet, is bad for him or her. The children of parents who smoke are three times more likely to be smokers. If we can stop people smoking or get them to give up before they influence their children, then their children are more likely to not smoke.
It also robs our loved ones of 15 years of life if they smoke—15 years. As people get a little older, if they are lucky enough to have grandchildren, they realise how precious 15 years would be in terms of seeing that grandchild, or their grandchildren, grow up, and being lucky enough to be involved in their lives. People are robbed of 15 years if they continue smoking. As I have said, roll-your-own cigarettes are just as deadly as tailor-made cigarettes.
So the price is able to reduce the prevalence and consumption of tobacco. Hopefully, this will help do that. But it also means that we will have to keep up the fight against smoking. This is not a panacea. This is just part of the number of tools that we would use against smoking. I was very pleased that when Labour was in coalition with the Green Party we were able to bring in smoking-cessation programmes, particularly around nicotine patches and so on, that were affordable to New Zealanders, to help them.
If I remember correctly, and Minister Turia can correct me if I am wrong, about 30 percent of people who smoke are addicted to tobacco; the rest are heavy smokers. For those who are addicted, they need help. That is why in our tool box we need to have the excise increase, assistance for people who want to give up smoking, and ongoing public health education. I think that that three-pronged attack will help bring down our smoking consumption in New Zealand. I do not believe that many members of this House today would not support that. We want to see New Zealanders live longer. We do not want to continue to see the cancers, respiratory diseases, and cardiovascular diseases that come from smoking, along with things like sudden infant death syndrome, which is related to smoking, and the respiratory problems we see in children.
I commend Minister Turia for bringing this to the House. I know that it is not the end of her work, and that she will be very happy when we also control the display of tobacco in dairies and supermarkets.
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this
I begin by learning from Paul Hutchison’s experience, and saying that the Green Party understands the reasons for extraordinary urgency on this occasion and supports it. It will be my great pleasure to support the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Bill. It is an honour to speak in the same debate with the Hon Tariana Turia, the Associate Minister of Health—and I congratulate her—and the Hon Annette King, who also played a really important role in this country’s progress against smoking.
Other speakers have commented on the size of this problem. We are talking about the single greatest cause of premature death in this country, causing somewhere between 4,500 and 5,000 unnecessary deaths each year. I take the point that Ruth Dyson made about the increased morbidity associated with smoking. I live on the West Coast and I have had responsibility for the West Coast’s health services. I report that the West Coast has one of the highest rates of cigarette smoking in New Zealand. When I was responsible for the West Coast health services, there was constant frustration for me that so many people were dying unnecessary premature deaths. Much of our health service resources needed to be invested in caring for those people, and were therefore unable to be used for other purposes. I am sure that the West Coast will welcome this move.
I also comment on inequalities. The incidence of cigarette smoking is a major reflection of inequalities in New Zealand. According to data from last year, our overall smoking rate amongst adults is 21 percent, but for Māori it is over 45 percent, and for Pacific people it is over 31 percent. That is a major reflection of inequalities in this country. Further, in relation to socio-economic status, people in the most deprived areas are more than one-and-a-half times more likely to be smokers than those in the least deprived areas. So smoking is a major reflection of socio-economic and ethnic gradients in this country.
There is some good news: overall, smoking rates are declining. Consumption of tobacco products reduced by a third in the period from 1997 to 2008, which the Hon Annette King referred to. That is good news. Also, half of 15 to 19-year-olds in 2008 had never tried smoking. That was a very significant increase on the 39 percent in that category just 2 years earlier, in 2006. We are making some really good progress, so now is the time to ramp up our momentum, not to ease off; I commend the Associate Minister of Health for her initiative in this area.
We are also learning a lot about what makes a difference and about how to do this better. Certainly, nicotine replacement therapy, as the Hon Annette King just referred to, is one of those things that makes a difference. On average, a person will make seven attempts to quit before he or she is successful, but each of those attempts is twice as likely to succeed if nicotine replacement therapy is used. That is a really important piece of information. In relation to this bill, we know that price is an effective mechanism in changing demand. On several occasions now we have referred to the 2000 increase—Paul Hutchison and Annette King referred to it. In 2000 the excise tax was increased by 20 percent and smoking rates dropped by 18 percent. That was a very clear demonstration of that link: increasing the price is effective in reducing demand.
As Annette King talked about, we know that other things would also be successful. I certainly look forward to this House debating a comprehensive range of measures to effect the biggest hit that we can possibly make in tobacco control. The display of tobacco products is an issue that would clearly make a significant difference. The restriction of outlets at which tobacco products are available would also make a difference, as would the extension of the Smoke-free Environments Act into other areas. All these areas would make a significant difference, and we should be debating and pursuing them. Interestingly, the content of cigarettes is also an area that could make a significant difference.
I particularly pick up on Paul Hutchison’s reference to the Doll and Hill study from, I think, 1956, which made the conclusive link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Effectively, that was the birth of a health education approach for our modern era to try to deal with some of the health problems we face. It seemed kind of obvious: if a behaviour is the cause of ill health and other behaviours are available to a person, then if we provide more information about the positives and negatives, and more education, people will choose the healthier option. That is the theory, and it is completely wrong. It kind of works for those who have a greater sense of control over their own lives; certainly since 1956 we have seen that in the higher socio-economic grades. Amongst Pākehā New Zealanders, for example, smoking rates have declined extremely substantially, but less so amongst Māori, less so amongst Pacific people, and less so amongst those who are the most socio-economically deprived. Why is that? It is because this behaviour is not really a choice, as with so many of our behaviours.
Health status reflects a couple of things. It reflects the level of empowerment of a particular community, and it reflects the kind of environment that surrounds that community. Health promotion says that if we want to make a difference we need to empower communities, especially those that are the most deprived, and we need to create environments that facilitate better health outcomes. We do that through community development, we do it through creating healthy public policy such as this bill, and we do it through personal skills and reorienting health services. I look forward to those things being included in our comprehensive approach.
The other point to make is that although we are adopting this approach to tobacco in the House today—and it seems that we might have a near consensus on that point—tobacco is one of three big issues that have a really huge effect on New Zealanders’ health status. One of the other two that I draw attention to is the kinds of foods that we eat and the exercise that we do, which contribute to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and many other causes of ill health and death. The other is alcohol. It is an extreme irony to me that in the House today we are debating a systematic approach of increasing the excise tax on tobacco, which we know will have an effect on tobacco consumption and will improve New Zealanders’ health status, on the day that the Minister of Justice has ruled out an increase in excise tax on alcohol. We know those excise tax increases would reduce alcohol consumption and would improve New Zealanders’ health status. There is an irony. I hope that as a Parliament we are able to learn from this case study and to extend that approach of regulation—a regulatory approach to improving health—to those other areas. If we can learn, then the gains that we can make will be extremely substantial.
I again congratulate the Minister and the Government. The Green Party will support the bill.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
In the 2008 election campaign, one line in the Māori Party policy statement established a precedent for this legislation today. That commitment was to introduce a “Tobacco out of Aotearoa Bill”. Today the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill expresses our heartfelt commitment to saving lives. I congratulate Tariana Turia on having the courage and foresight to do what she knows is right, to do what we all know is right. It is not right to lose our loved ones prematurely, to chop 15 years off their lifespans—lifespans that in the case of Māori are already less than they should be. It is not right that too many children are growing up vulnerable in their own homes to the impact of smoking-related illness and premature death. It is not right that too many babies are being exposed to tobacco-related harm in utero. The bill is long overdue.
The Māori Party celebrates the fact that we know of the amazing potential this bill offers for Māori communities to benefit. The rate of smoking amongst Māori is about double the rate for the rest of the population, and a disproportionate number of Māori die prematurely. Māori in all age groups have higher smoking rates than non-Māori. In particular, Māori women have the highest smoking rate of all groups, at 49 percent.
Another interesting fact that emerged from last year’s study of Māori smoking and tobacco use is that 73 percent of Māori smokers use roll-your-own tobacco. The Associate Minister of Health has spoken of roll-your-own tobacco being seen as a cheap alternative. This bill now puts a stop to that perception. Roll-your-owns will now face the same tax rate as tailor-made cigarettes.
I have no doubt that, given this profile of Māori smokers, today’s moves will not be universally popular within our constituency. Indeed, no doubt I will have a job to explain this development to my own son and daughter, who are smokers. I am not sure that the answer “mother always knows best” will work with them, nor might that other well-known slogan “it is for your own good”, but we are standing right behind the Minister and the Government on this move because of our great love for our people. This policy places love on the agenda.
This policy places bread and butter on the agenda. If we assume that the average smoker smokes about 4,000 cigarettes a year, quitting completely would save that smoker around $2,100 a year now and around $2,700 in 3 years’ time. That means more money for kai for the whānau. But it is about more than what money can buy. The whole purpose of this legislation is that people will be prompted to stop smoking. Even if an average smoker who cannot quit was to cut down by just one cigarette a day today and eventually up to three fewer cigarettes a day, then that would offset the price rises.
As I said before, however, we are not just talking about having more cash in the pocket; there is a massive cost to the system, as well. An estimate in a 2007 study on tobacco taxation in New Zealand suggested that the cost of smoking to the health system was between $300 million and $350 million per year. However, I understand that some more recent estimates have put that figure up as high as $1 billion to $1.6 billion per year. That massive cost to taxpayers could be put to a much better use than seeing good money literally going up in smoke. But it not about just how much this will cost. The Māori Party supports an increase in the price of tobacco first and foremost because of the substantial health gains that can be achieved. We will support any intervention that reduces the number of premature deaths, illnesses, and hospitalisations related to tobacco use.
A decade or so ago our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples was the poster boy for a campaign called “It’s about whānau”. The campaign featured 12 ex-smokers describing their motivation for giving up. The campaign focused on the well-being of the whānau by supporting whānau members who smoked to quit and to stay quit. I can remember Pita’s advertisement in particular. It described his reasons for giving up as being all about his mokopuna. It is a powerful message that we must continue to uphold. Our marae are deprived of far too many Māori leaders, of kuia and kaumātua. We lose our people too early and, with that, we lose the transmission of vital knowledge about whakapapa, our cultural heritage. We must be smoke-free if we are to fully explore our potential.
There has never been a better time for this tobacco tax increase to happen. The support and strength that whānau will need to live a healthy, smoke-free lifestyle is totally consistent with the need for investment in whānau that we see associated with the flagship policy of this Government: Whānau Ora.
The Māori Party acknowledges the significance of the whānau and the importance that Māori place on the maintenance of our whakapapa as a very powerful resource in helping whānau to be auahi kore. To my son and my daughter, I say that it is all about whānau. Together, we can support each other to quit and support our rangatahi to never start. We must ensure that smokers are part of the solution, and ensure that we restore to our whānau the respect that we must place on the first breath of life. It will not be easy, but who ever said that sitting by a hospital bed and watching a relative suffer from lung disease was easy? Where is the joy in counting off the cousins with cancer of the lung, head, neck, oesophagus, pancreas, and cervix, and with heart disease? The key challenge for us all across this Parliament is to get in behind this new bill and promote the value of staying smoke-free.
The Māori Party believes that the Government has a vital role in encouraging New Zealanders to quit smoking. I recall that a survey from the Health Sponsorship Council in 2008 found that some 63.9 percent of all people and 29.5 percent of current smokers agree that the tax on cigarettes and tobacco should be increased and that all the extra money should be used to help smokers who want to quit. We want to see funding for smoking cessation services increased to help smokers to quit, including specific services designed for Māori and Pasifika peoples.
This is a very important day for all our whānau. It is a day on which we live up to the promise that is in all of us for a healthy, smoke-free future. We are proud to support this bill.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
I am proud and privileged to rise to speak to the first reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Bill. As a former doctor and an ex-smoker, I think this is a courageous and bold step by the Government. I congratulate Minister Turia and the National Cabinet on agreeing on this bill passing through the House, and I am delighted it has the support of other colleagues in the House.
Colleagues will be interested to know that I started to smoke when I was 16 and I eventually stopped when I was 30. I smoked through university, I smoked through medical school, and I smoked through the hospital wards. I stopped by the time I was a general practitioner. I had cancerous and diseased lungs paraded in front of me when I was a medical student, and when I was on the hospital wards I saw emphysemic patients and patients dying of lung cancer. That did not stop me from smoking; that is what addiction does to people. I turned a blind eye. Of course, this all happened around the 1970s. Some warnings were coming to the surface but addicts ignored them and carried on puffing away. The warnings made me slightly uneasy, but I carried on. By the time I got to general practice, I decided it was time I should give up smoking and, fortunately, nicotine gum had come on to the market. Until then there was just cold turkey, and that was it. I had already failed on one attempt with cold turkey. To me, nicotine gum made perfect sense. We give the active ingredient of the addictive substance, which is nicotine, to smokers and we wean them off cigarettes, just as we do with drug addicts by using methadone. It made perfect sense, I took the nicotine gum, and it worked with me. Of course, it made me more proactive as a general practitioner when I had my patients who were smokers in front of me. I could relate to them. I knew what addiction was like, what the substance was like, and what it could do to someone’s mind.
I know that the Hon Annette King made comments that a lot of people are just social smokers and are not addicted. I say that most people who smoke are addicted. There are a few social smokers who can stop at the drop of a hat, but they are few and far between. I think that most smokers are addicted. I was very active in talking to my patients who were smokers. I said: “Look, smoking will catch up with you some way and some how in the future if you don’t stop.” That is true, as smoking harms every single organ in the body. We have heard tonight that it is responsible for up to 5,000 deaths per year and that includes those from heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, lung disease, and lung cancer. It damages the blood vessels and in particular the small blood vessels. It affects the blood vessels in the feet, it causes peripheral vascular disease, eye diseases, and so on. It affects every single organ.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) made a comment on one of its fact sheets that 50 percent of regular smokers are killed by their addiction and on average they lose 14 years of quality life. That is a staggering statistic—50 percent, or half, of all regular smokers will die from smoking and will lose quality years. Of course, we know that Māori are overrepresented in the statistics. Once again, I congratulate Minister Turia on pushing through this legislation, and the National Ministers who have supported her.
Then there is the cost of smoking to society and to New Zealand as a whole. In 2005 it was estimated that smoking cost almost $2 billion in lost production from early death, morbidity and illness, smoking directly, and healthcare costs. Fortunately I had nicotine gum when I decided it was time I had to practise what I preached and gave up. Now, there are many nicotine replacement options available for those who want to give up. There is gum, there are transdermal patches, and there are sublingual tablets, inhalators, and nasal spray. There are also subsidised pharmaceutical treatments. I am sure there are a lot more out there that need to be funded, and this bill may be the catalyst for that to happen.
In total, $57 million has been put into cessation products and organisations that help those who want to stop smoking. The research proves that increasing the price of tobacco is the single most effective way to get people to stop smoking or to not even start in the first place. This bill will increase the excise on tobacco in three steps of 10 percent over the next 2 years. We know that excise on loose tobacco has traditionally been much lower and that will also increase by 14 percent to bring it into line with cigarettes. This is not a revenue-gathering exercise—absolutely not. This is, as the Hon Ruth Dyson said, about health promotion, about changing lives, and about saving lives. I acknowledge the very important work of Quitline. I expect it will be very much busier as a result of this bill. People can phone or text the organisation, they speak to an adviser, and they get a quit pack and a quit card enabling them to get subsidised nicotine replacement from chemists.
This is a wonderful step. It was the most logical step for this Government to take. We know that the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants has been widely accepted. There has been a change of mood. People accept that. Most smokers now are not in denial, as I was for those 15 years when I smoked. Most people accept that cigarettes are harmful to them and cause illness and death. The sincere hope from this Parliament tonight is that increasing the price of cigarettes will stop people smoking and stop young ones from starting to smoke in the first place. I am delighted to speak to this first reading. It is a wonderful step by this Government. I congratulate Minister Turia and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) Link to this
This bill, the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill, which increases the excise duties on tobacco products, is being introduced under extraordinary urgency. I understand that. The House therefore understands that this issue is urgent, that no public debate is allowable, and that there is to be no select committee consideration. I happen to agree with what the Government is proposing, and I will support it.
This bill highlights the reasons why this step, in particular, is being taken—that is, to increase the price of a legal drug that is dangerous to the health of any New Zealander who partakes of it. The reason this bill is being introduced is that the price effect in terms of tobacco is significant. If we increase the price of tobacco we reduce the volume of tobacco that is smoked.
There is a linear relationship, and many studies all around the world will show exactly the same thing for product after product. Unfortunately, if we look at the supermarkets of New Zealand we see that Coca-Cola is cheaper than water or milk. People buy Coca-Cola. Why? Because it is cheaper. It may well be disastrous for the teeth of the children who are drinking it—and it is—but nevertheless, because it is cheap, people buy it. That is why the price effect will be relevant in this case.
I have to say, however, that just 24 hours ago, within minutes of the Law Commission’s report on alcohol being tabled in the House, the Government immediately, through Simon Power, the Minister of Justice, reacted and said it would not put up the price of alcohol. The Government did that immediately. It did not give any consideration to the report. The ink was not dry on the report when we were told that, no, the Government would not increase the price.
Would a price increase for alcohol reduce alcohol consumption? Yes, it would. It is a very effective means of doing so. I know that because I introduced a bill that increased the price of so-called light spirits—at 23 percent proof—which target young people. I was lambasted by the industry. Full-page ads were taken out against me personally, but sales of light spirits reduced by 85 percent, and they went off the market. That does not mean to say that alcopops and stuff like that are not still available, but those light spirits were lethal. They were 25 percent proof alcohol drinks, with vodka, brandy, gin, whisky, and so on. So we know that this 30 percent increase in the price of tobacco will be effective.
Mr Power said that a change in the price of alcohol would be unfair to all the people who drink alcohol. Well, I presume that an increase of more than 30 percent in the price of tobacco will be unfair to some of the people who smoke tobacco. I still agree with the increase, but it is amazing that one day an attitude can change from one position on the issue of alcohol to another position on the issue of tobacco, where we can really have a crack at them.
Chris TremainYou might find that a significantly larger proportion of the population enjoy a glass of wine. What a stupid thing to say!
Oh, I see. We will hear this. Here is the industry line. I can hear it. Mr Dunne is not here, so we have plenty of acolytes in his place. They are spouting the industry line.
It is true that 5,000 people die in New Zealand every year from tobacco smoking, and that makes this kind of measure significant and important. But what is there about the social, economic, and health problems associated with alcohol that makes alcohol different from tobacco? Is it a significant social and economic health cost? We just heard Dr Blue say that the cost of tobacco-related harm is $1 billion to $2 billion. The cost of alcohol-related harm to New Zealand is indicated by reputable economists and analysts to be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year. That is at least as much as smoking and could well be more, so there is no problem about it being a significant cost.
Is drinking alcohol a health risk? Yes, it is. It is a very serious health risk, and the jury is coming in on that all the time. Are between 60 to 80 percent of all police arrests to do with alcohol abuse? Yes, they are. Are 60 percent of the people who are in our prisons affected by alcohol? The answer is yes. Yet we are told that we desperately need to pass through the House, under extraordinary urgency, a tobacco-related bill—which I personally support—a day after we were told that the price effect is not to be contemplated in terms of alcohol when, demonstrably, all the effects of tobacco use plus some additional effects are there in evidence before us.
The Government has had a knee-jerk reaction. Why is that? Well, the tobacco industry is on the ropes, so people are brave now. Dr Blue has said that she did not use to believe the philosophy behind this bill, and there are plenty of people like her on the other side of the House. Helen Clark pushed for a change like this when she was the Minister of Health, and she was pilloried for doing it. When was that—in 1990?
That was 20 years ago. She did not have too much support then, but now it is a brave thing to do. Why? Because practically everything has been done, and the tobacco industry has given up. It knows that it is a done deal.
The liquor industry has not given up. It is really into this issue, and it will fight it tooth and claw. The brave Government will take on the on-the-ropes tobacco industry, but it will not have a bar of taking on the liquor industry, which is now a much more significant and important problem than ever before. Will raising the price of tobacco reduce smoking levels? Yes, it will. Will raising the price of alcohol reduce the volume of alcohol consumed? Absolutely, it will, but we have seen no courage from the Government on that issue. So under extraordinary urgency we are passing this bill.
As for the Government’s opposition to raising the price of the most dangerous drug in New Zealand, I have a word I could use but I am not allowed to use it in this House. So I will say that it is one of the most significant acts of double standards I have ever seen. One day a serious drug is not to be touched in terms of price, even though the price effect will be very effective—and I acknowledge that—and the next day an industry that really does not have a feather to fly with will be clobbered into the ground. The brave Government will take it on after all the hard work has been done, but it will not take on an industry that is still fighting tooth and claw to hang on.
I heard a representative of the hospitality industry this morning on Morning Report. He admitted that every single thing in the alcohol legislation that he agrees with is a vested interest of the industry. He said that. He said: “Yeah, it is a vested interest of the industry. I admit that. Yes, that is too, and that is too.” The interviewer asked him whether there was anything that was not a vested interest among the measures he agreed with. The answer was no. Oh well, we understand where the industry is coming from. But Mr Dunne did not. He had to meet the representatives of the industry seven times, and he was not sure what they meant. He knew what Doug Sellman meant, and he would not meet with him, at all.
I support this legislation, but I have contempt for the Government. It is bringing in this legislation one day after it backed off completely from doing the most effective thing on alcohol. I have contempt for it—I am telling members now. To do something yesterday would have been an act of at least some responsibility. This bill about tobacco is an initiative that needed to be taken, and it needs to be taken regularly. I support it, but I contrast it with the completely mealy-mouthed approach we had yesterday on alcohol, and I am ashamed of the Government for that.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) Link to this
I start by congratulating the Associate Minister of Health on the reasons she gave for introducing the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. The reasons she gave to justify the increase were based on health improvements for those who quit smoking as a result of this bill, and I believe that in essence that is the only way we can justify this particular legislation. She did not attempt to bring in other claims that the money raised would off-set the costs incurred by smokers or to the public health system, etc., and it is good that she was up front and honest in that respect. Having said that, there are a number of reasons why some ACT members—not all ACT members—will vote against this bill.
Essentially the legislation is not really good public policy. It is very much a tax on the poor. Cigarette taxes are highly regressive, and they disproportionately hurt poor people—poor smokers, that is, who continue to smoke. I guess the Minister would say that to the extent poor smokers do not smoke, she has made them better off. But that is at the expense, I might add, of poor smokers who continue to smoke. I think we need to think a little bit about that. The fact is that we cannot justify this measure, as some people might want to, on the basis that smokers are not paying for the costs of the extra health care that they or others receive; they are already paying more in tax than the costs incurred. A report in 2007, showed tax income was, I think, $980 million, and the expenditure was $350 million.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS Link to this
Well, I will quote—and these are hardly biased people. The report I am holding is from the Smokefree Coalition and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). I am quoting their document, and I do not think they would underestimate these figures. The report states: “Without trying to calculate a precise estimate of ‘external costs’ it does seem reasonably apparent that the tax contribution of approximately $1 billion annually by smokers exceeds substantially the external costs of smoking …” etc. I do not want to place too much weight on that, but it seems to me that what it really comes down to is that we have to weigh up the benefits that might flow from this bill against the individual freedom of adults to make decisions for themselves. We also have to weigh up whether the objectives of the bill can be achieved in other ways.
It seems to me that the “I know what’s best for you” mentality is running out of hand in this legislature. Price increases aim to restrict the freedom of New Zealanders, especially the poor, to make their own choices on whether they smoke. We run campaigns and we try to influence them. We say that that approach has not worked as well as we had hoped, and therefore we will put up the price to a point where people cannot afford it. If we are going to do that, why not put it up by 600 percent? Why only 10 percent this year, 10 percent next year, and 10 percent the year after that? There is no logic. If that is the logic we are going to follow, why not put it up 500 or 600 percent? We would fix it at that point in time.
I guess why I come down against this legislation, and it really worries me, is that political life in this Chamber seems to be dominated by the view—held by many politicians in the National Party, the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party—that the purpose of Government is to solve private problems. That is what we are doing. We say that some New Zealanders smoke too much, and therefore we are going to put up the price of tobacco. The problem with that approach is that our flight from individual responsibility never ends; in this country over the last 20, 30, and 40 years we have seen a substantial flight from individual responsibility. I have praised the Minister, but it seems to me that the Māori Party runs the danger of affluent Māori being seen to be telling poor Māori that they are unable to make their own decisions. I think that a lot of Māori people and a lot of Pākehā people who are poor know what they are doing, and they make those choices. They may make them wrongly in our view, but in my view they have the right to do so.
PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this
The sudden end of the speech of the previous speaker, the Hon Sir Roger Douglas, took me a little by surprise. None the less this is a serious topic to address, and I am pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. I start by congratulating the Minister and the leadership of this Government on having the foresight to take this step. In congratulating the leadership, I also record my appreciation of the Labour leadership and that of the other parties for joining in supporting this bill almost with unanimity, and for expediting its passage through the House. When I congratulate the leadership I include the shadow Leader of the House, Mr Darren Hughes. I feel he let himself down in the leadership stakes during question time, but he has recovered.
I make just some quick observations. The first is that there has been some commentary by some of the speakers from the Opposition benches about previous stances of National on this matter. I think it is worth recording that this is a new Government. It is a Government under new leadership with an outstanding Prime Minister in John Key. It is a Government in partnership with the Māori Party, with which it is working to achieve excellent social, economic, and cultural outcomes. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that, since this matter was last discussed, in 2000—and I note that a couple of members from the Opposition have quoted the Hansard from that time—two-thirds of the National caucus are new members. So I think it is unfair to go “back to the future” in that respect. It shows, as Jackie Blue indicated in her speech, that people change their views on matters. In this particular case, this is a new Government, and it has new members who have brought new thinking. This Government listens to its caucus and its Government partners, and that is why we have joined in a new direction.
I congratulate, along with Minister Turia, her colleague Hone Harawira. I know that smoking is a matter very dear to his heart. The tobacco inquiry being conducted by the Māori Affairs Committee is in very large part due to his persistence in calling for the committee to show leadership in conducting that inquiry. So I think it is appropriate that we also recognise his contribution.
I think it is also appropriate to canvass what the bill actually does, because, from listening to the speeches, I do not think it has been canvassed as well as it might have been. I will take just a minute or two to reflect on that. There is a three or four-step process in this bill, and the first step in the process is to increase the tax on raw tobacco—roll-your-owns and the like—to align it with the tax on tailor-made cigarettes. Just to bring home the message, I have here a small amount of analysis of the submissions that we have received. In terms of aligning the tax on roll-your-own cigarettes, 48 percent of submitters to the inquiry being conducted by the Māori Affairs Committee submitted specifically on aligning the tax on raw tobacco with the tax on tailor-made cigarettes. That is not to say that other submitters did not oppose that alignment; it is just that 48 percent actually commented on it.
Having aligned the tax on tailor-mades with that on raw tobacco, there is then a stepped process of increasing by 10 percent from 1 January 2011 “those duties as in force at the close of 31 December 2010 and either with, or instead of, any CPI indexation … on 1 January 2011:”, and then with another step in 2012. In some ways, that again is supported very strongly in the submissions, to the extent that 68 percent of the submitters supported an increase in tax on tobacco per se, and there was a strong suggestion that that increase should implement the World Health Organization’s recommendations, which is an ongoing increase of 5 percent each year. So there is no doubt that in the submissions that the Māori Affairs Committee has received there is overwhelming support for this step by the Government.
I conclude—because I see time is running out—by saying that it has been a pleasure to stand on behalf of the Government to support the Minister and the Government, and also to acknowledge the leadership of the other parties, including Labour.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
It gives me a tremendous amount of pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill because we all understand—every member in this Chamber understands—that we need to do something to curb the prevalence of smoking rates in New Zealand. Labour is supporting this bill because it is an evidence-based bill. The evidence tells us that increasing the price of tobacco products through increasing the taxation of them does result in a reduction in the consumption of tobacco products, and that a reduction in consumption will result in a reduction of the harm and the appalling diseases that we associate with tobacco smoking.
I would also like to add my personal support for the bill, because like Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia and, I have no doubt, like many other members in the Chamber, I too have lost close family members and loved ones who have passed away far too early in their lives as a result of an addiction to tobacco.
It is worth reminding ourselves of just why we need to fight the terrible scourge on our society that is tobacco addiction. It is a proven cause of many cancers, not just lung cancer, although that is the most common and often the most aggressive and well-known cancer. But other cancers are also caused by tobacco smoking, as well as a whole range of other diseases. Cardiovascular disease, chronic heart disease, strokes, respiratory system harm, respiratory tract infections, asthma, and a whole range of diseases are related to cigarette smoking. Those diseases do not occur just amongst people who smoke cigarettes themselves; they also occur amongst those who are exposed to second-hand smoke—most particularly, and most sadly, the children of those people who are addicted to tobacco products. So it is important that we take this issue seriously, and that we do everything that we can to curb the prevalence of tobacco smoking in New Zealand. As I said, the evidence tells us that the measure that the House is undertaking this evening is a significant measure to achieve that.
But there is also a range of other significant measures that we could be considering at the same time as this measure. Indeed, a number of people, especially those who have recently been making submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee during its inquiry into the effects of tobacco on Māori—and I acknowledge Hone Harawira for his efforts in bringing that inquiry to the fore—have said that now is the time for a package of proposals. They point to things like banning tobacco displays and regulating, and indeed licensing, tobacco retailers. They look at the need for increased funding for cessation programmes, and at a whole range of different measures that we could also be looking at tonight. There is evidence to support our taking those measures, as well as this one. Perhaps it is a bit of a pity that we have a single-issue bill before us this evening, but as this is the only measure that has been put before the House, and as the evidence supports passing this bill, Labour will support it going ahead.
Of course, Labour has always supported the use of increased taxes to decrease the prevalence—
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
Taxes, taxes, taxes.
But I was interested in what some of the other members who are in arrangements with the current Government had to say on it, and I found a speech presented by the Hon Peter Dunne, who at the time—in 2000—found himself in an unusual position. He was in Opposition, but he is a man for all seasons. That time he found himself in Opposition, and he said: “One thing that needs to be said at the outset is that this is a most unusual situation. I can never before recall seeing the House take extraordinary urgency to allow the Government to break an election promise”. He went on to say that the then Labour-Alliance Government had only ever spoken about increasing the top income tax rate, and that increasing taxes on tobacco was a broken election promise.
Well, what an interesting statement that is, when we consider all the possibilities, all the options, that the Government has in front of it to deal with reducing the prevalence of smoking in New Zealand. They are things like banning tobacco displays, the possible licensing of retailers, and an increase in funding for cessation programmes. But of all the things that the Government had to choose from, it chose an increase in tax. Was National not the party that got into Government, that was elected, on the basis of its promises to cut taxes? Yet here we are tonight with the new-found National members revelling in the fact that they are increasing taxes. Although Labour members support that, we are slightly surprised that this is the first choice that the National Government has made in fighting the prevalence of smoking.
In supporting this bill, we must make the point that although the objective this evening is not to increase revenue, it is inevitable that revenue will be increased. So it will be important, as the Hon Ruth Dyson has already mentioned, that when we get to Budget time, we look at exactly what expenditure the Government will announce in relation to matters of smoking cessation and, particularly, of public health policy. Although it is important to focus on smoking cessation, it is also important to focus on ensuring that our young people do not take up smoking in the first place. It is fantastic if we can get people to give up their smokes, but it would be very much better if we could actually convince people not to start smoking in the first place. Once people are addicted, their ability to exercise personal choice and personal responsibility is absolutely diminished, so a far better option is to ensure that people do not take up smoking in the first place. I have no doubt that this bill, which is passing through the House under extraordinary urgency this evening, will assist in achieving that. But we can do more, and the Opposition will be looking to see what the Government does at Budget time to improve not just cessation programmes but also public health initiatives that work with doctors and nurses, and with other people in the community, in getting them out there to reach our young people and ensure that they get the message not to take up smoking in the first place.
It would be a real pity if this increase in the taxation of tobacco products simply mirrors the increase that will be experienced on GST: if it were simply used to mitigate the cut to the top rate of personal income tax—the cut to the tax that is paid by people who can most afford to pay tax. It has been mentioned tonight that this tax on tobacco products will affect a lot of people who cannot afford to pay it, and we hope that that will convince people to give up smoking altogether. But it would be a shame—it would be an absolute shame—if a measure that is being passed in the name of public health becomes simply an opportunity to increase revenue in order to make up for the revenue that the Government will lose when it cuts taxes for those who are the most capable of paying tax. I hope that that does not occur, and I will look very closely at what this Government does at Budget time.
I will wrap up my speech by saying the Labour members absolutely support this bill. We support the work of Minister Turia. We support the fact that she has been able to convince the National Government to do a U-turn on its previous positions. Even Dr Paul Hutchison has been prepared to make an absolute U-turn from his previous position, and he has been able to support the bill this evening. I support Minister Turia and absolutely compliment all members in the House, bar four, who are prepared to support this bill. It is a good bill, and I look forward to its progress through the House.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
I am delighted to rise in support of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. At the outset I need to put on record that, like my colleague Dr Jackie Blue, I am also a former smoker. I gave up, pretty much cold-turkey, about 12 years ago; I did not use nicotine supplements. The mind-set change, and the realisation that I came to, was that when someone gives up smoking, then he or she is not losing something but is gaining a heck of a lot. It was only when that mind-set change happened that I was able to sustain that very painful 72-hour period that nicotine addicts go through when they are withdrawing from the product, but after that it does get easier and easier. I hope that those who are still addicted to nicotine, and who are motivated by the changes in this bill, will come to that realisation as well. I understand how hard it is to stop smoking, and I am mindful of the comedian who once said: “Giving up cigarettes is really easy. I should know; I’ve done it about 25 times.”
I am sure the House is grateful to my medical colleagues Dr Blue and, in particular, Dr Paul Hutchison, for his graphic depiction of his time as a pathology registrar and the debilitating effects of smoking. But he also made the very good point that the medical fraternity was perhaps slow to pick up and develop an evidence base for the negative effects of smoking. There are even print ads from the early 20th century of doctors endorsing certain brands of cigarettes. I was smoking when I started work at a bank in Dunedin North and I remember now, with some horror, that as a teller it was the norm that when I was serving customers there would be an ashtray there with a cigarette burning, such was the acceptance that we had of smoking as part of what we did.
Opposition members can and have gently and lightly ribbed National members for opposing certain things when we were in Opposition, but I think that as a society we have gone down a path of enlightenment. I suggest that that is what is happening with this bill. I was in the UK at the end of 1988 when workplaces went smoke-free, and I well remember a colleague who was heavily addicted to nicotine and who smoked about 40 a day and who was so distraught by the change that she felt she would need to resign because she could not survive the day if it was not for the cigarette on the desk. But she got through that as well, and I think we need to support those people who are addicted.
The suggestion that this is some kind of tax for revenue-raising purposes, and, even worse, to subsidise tax cuts I find very, very hard to take. I am sure Iain Lees-Galloway had tongue in cheek when he said that. I also think the Hon Ruth Dyson made relevant comments about being careful about where the money goes in the public health initiatives that might be needed to support this legislation. But we need to remember, as other members have said, that maybe $1.1 billion of revenue is collected through tobacco excise but the total costs on society of smoking, and, in particular, the costs that fall on our health sector, comfortably exceed $1.7 billion and are approaching $2 billion. So it is really not accurate to say that somehow this legislation will be a great windfall to the Government.
I also expect that the Quitline service, which is not subject to fiscal constraints, as I understand it, will be flooded basically—
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
There is no cap on the number of people who can go to Quitline and get the subsidised support that is available. I have no doubt there will be a huge increase in demand for its services. I certainly hope that is the case.
But I want to focus on the case for using tobacco excise as an effective means for reducing the prevalence of tobacco smoking in New Zealand. We have talked about the positive effects of that. It is known in economics as “demand elasticity”, and the best research suggests that the price elasticity of tobacco is probably about negative 4.8 or 5, which means that on average a 10 percent increase in the price would be followed by a decrease in consumption of about 5 percent. But, of course, that does not tell the full story and we need to drill more deeply into the research in this area. For adults who are addicted to nicotine the price elasticity is slightly less than that. There is definitely evidence that it will reduce prevalence in that group, but I think what is really relevant to this is that if we look at the evidence for young smokers, or young people considering smoking, the evidence is extremely strong that the price elasticity in that group is much higher. It ranges from about minus 0.9 to 1.5. In plain English that means that young people are three times more likely than older people to stop smoking or to not start, with this level of excise being increased. So they are far more price-sensitive, and it is for that reason, among all of the many good reasons for supporting this bill, that I support it.
It is also important to make sure that when we look back into history these increases in excise tax actually have had a positive impact, and it is very important to note that we see a step-change that is positively co-related with the increases. It started with the smoke-free workplaces legislation in 1990; then there was an increase in the excise in the late 1990s, and again in the early 2000s. All of those impacts are very, very highly co-related and, in my view, causative of the reduction in smoking.
Another way to drill into the prevalence data is through ethnicity, and this is a really concerning issue that Minister Turia and others have talked about. Māori women in particular are smoking at the rate of nearly 50 percent of the population. Pasifika are also at a high level but not quite as high as that. What is interesting is the Asian statistics. Asian men smoke at about the national average but there is a dramatic reduction for women. Asian women smoke at the rate of about only 5.2 percent of their population. I am not quite sure what the cultural differences are but it could be an excellent body of research to drill into to find out the reasons why they smoke at a much lower rate than others.
In summary, this is an outstanding initiative. I think we will hear the inevitable retorts from the tobacco industry about why this will not be a good idea. I am encouraged that almost entirely this House will support this bill and ignore that rhetoric. This bill will have nothing but good things for our society and for our health system. For that reason I very strongly the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 118
- New Zealand National 58
- New Zealand Labour 43
- Green Party 9
- Māori Party 5
- ACT 1 (Boscawen)
- Progressive 1
- United Future 1
Noes 4
Bill read a first time.