Tobacco Point-of-sale Advertising—Effect on Adolescents

Does she agree with the Minister of Health’s statement that there is no international evidence that shows a clear link between banning tobacco displays and reducing smoking rates?

I am not responsible for the answers that the Minister of Health gives in the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have been through this on a previous occasion, whereby the Associate Minister of Health has clear, delegated responsibility for tobacco policy. This question is about the views of somebody else on tobacco policy. It does not matter that it happens to be the Minister of Health. It could be any person commenting on tobacco policy. For some inexplicable reason, the Associate Minister will not answer these questions that are being put down to her about tobacco policy. There is no reason for her not to comment on this matter.

Further to the member’s point of order, I think there is even more reason for her to comment on this statement than if it was from any other person, with due respect to my colleague. The Associate Minister is responsible for the collective views of the Government on this issue. If those views are not the same, if there is differentiation between the Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Health, then it is the direct responsibility of the Associate Minister of Health in this particular area to get the person who must represent her views in Cabinet on side. I have had complicated relationships with associates myself in the past, and it is very important for the coherence of government for those things to be resolved. In the end the responsibility rests with the person to whom that delegation has been given.

I thank honourable members. [ Interruption] I am still dealing with this point of order. I accept that the honourable member is responding to an interjection from the Hon Gerry Brownlee while I am dealing with this point of order. It is an interesting point of order. The dilemma I have, slightly, is that an opinion was sought and, therefore, the nature of the answer cannot be precise. But I think the Minister should have endeavoured to give a reply to the question, even though an opinion was being sought. It is valid to seek an opinion, but as to whether the Minister does not have any responsibility, I think there is some merit in the points that have been made that the Associate Minister has delegations in this area and, therefore, does have responsibility in this area. I invite the member to repeat his question, and we will listen to the Minister’s answer.

Does the Associate Minister agree with the Minister of Health’s statement that there is no international evidence that shows a clear link between banning tobacco displays and reducing smoking rates?

I repeat my answer from before, because I do not take responsibility for others who make comments in this portfolio. I am very clear that, yes, I agree with the previous question, and that is what I am responsible for—not for anybody else.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked the Minister to address the question. In her answer, she got up and said that she is not planning on doing that because she has no responsibility for it, and she sat down again. We are no clearer about what the Associate Minister with delegated responsibility for tobacco policy thinks about this comment.

I am very happy to take responsibility for the portfolio that I have and to answer on behalf of that responsibility. I am not prepared to be responsible for the answers that others give.

If members had listened to the answer that the Associate Minister gave, I think it was pretty clear as to what she was telling the questioner in her answer. It may not have been quite as precise as the member might have wished, but it was very clear to me what the Minister was saying.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was also listening to it very carefully. The Associate Minister actually said that she agreed with the question. That is capable of a lot of interpretation—

I have heard sufficient on this matter. I do not know what trouble members are having, but it was very clear to me what the Minister was saying and which view she was expressing.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find myself in a very difficult situation now and I seek your guidance. I attempted to submit a written question to the Minister of Health on this matter and on statements that he has made. The Clerk’s Office responded to me to say that I was not able to do that, and, in fact, the wording I used in this question is precisely the wording that it recommended I use to the Associate Minister.

A simple way of dealing with this would be for the member to ask a question of the Minister of Health, rather than doing this—[ Interruption] They know—

There is no excuse, just because those members have breached the Standing Orders, for the Minister to do so. I am listening.

I am making the point that the member should simply set down a question asking the Minister of Health what he thinks about it, if it is of such great concern to him. I think that the Associate Minister of Health has made her position abundantly clear.

The Leader of the House has been helpful, because it goes to the exact problem we have. The member concerned put down an oral question to the Associate Minister of Health asking about whether she agreed with the view of another Government Minister. The Minister refused to answer the question, using the same excuse that she has used today. My colleague put down a written question to the Minister of Health, who refused to answer the question and sent it back because he does not have delegated responsibility for tobacco policy. So today we put the question to the Associate Minister again, and we are in the same dilemma. The tobacco question, of course, is important, but the secondary issue here for you is how the Opposition can question the Government when different positions are expressed and Ministers say that they simply refuse to comment on what their ministerial colleagues are saying. We have this specific problem, plus I think there is a wider issue here as well for you.

I would simply refer the shadow Leader of the House to many Speakers’ rulings that were made during the period of 2002-05 that dealt with the extraordinary situation we had then, when we had members of the Alliance parading in the House as being part of some other party but holding ministerial warrants, with not one Minister wanting to answer any question that might offend the other. In this case, it is quite simple: the Associate Minister of Health has responsibility in this area and has made her views very, very clear to the House today. I ask how any further questions on what Government policy might be can be solicited from any other member, given that other members do not have the responsibility that she has.

Speaking further to the point of order—

I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes only a little bit further, then I will rule on the matter.

First of all, the Alliance party left Parliament in 2002, so I am not quite sure why checking the Hansard from 2002-05 would help in the way that the Leader of the House says it will. Secondly, those were questions about the administration of political parties and they are not allowed, regardless of whether or not a Government is cohesive. But this matter is about Government policy. Further, it is about an area where there is delegated responsibility from one Minister to another. The point we are making is that both Ministers are refusing to answer questions or are creating difficulty about answering questions in this particular respect, and that is where we need your assistance.

I do not need any further assistance on this matter. The primary question asked whether the Associate Minister had received any evidence that point-of-sale tobacco advertising increases the likelihood that adolescents will start smoking. If I recollect correctly, I think that the Minister replied “Yes.” to that.

Yes.

The Minister replied “Yes.” OK, that clears that up. Then the member who had asked the primary question, by way of a supplementary question, sought an opinion. We know that members cannot expect a yes or no answer on an opinion, but the Minister made it abundantly clear, I thought, to the House what her view was. Members cannot expect a yes or no answer, but in terms of the substantive issue that was laid down as a primary question, the House knows the answer to it. The Minister has been commendably clear and could not have been more clear. If all questions were as simple, and answers were as clear, then it would be very helpful. The Minister was commendably clear in her answer. One could argue, therefore, that there is not even any need for further supplementary questions, because supplementary questions are meant to elucidate primary questions. The member asking the question then went on to seek an opinion. The Minister was not quite so clear in answering on that opinion, although I think it was very clear what the Minister was actually saying. The member has a further supplementary question to ask, and I will not hear further points of order on the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect what you just said about not hearing further points of order on the matter, but you have explained, and we have been consulting here on, the exact meaning of “I agree with the question”. You said that that is absolutely clear, but we do not understand what that means.

If the member does not understand what the Minister is saying, then I cannot help him. It was abundantly clear to me and I do not intend to litigate the matter further. The Minister was obviously confirming what she said before, that in respect of the substantive question, she had evidence of that, and that is what she confirmed. Does the member wish to ask a further supplementary question?

Has the Minister of Health changed his position on tobacco displays since stating in the House on 4 March that “there is no international evidence that shows a clear link between banning tobacco displays and reducing smoking rates.”; if so, what is his current stance?

I do not know how the Minister can be expected to answer that, because the supplementary question was directed to the Minister of Health and the substantive question was directed to the Associate Minister of Health. The member asked whether the Minister of Health has changed his opinion. I do not believe the member can ask the Associate Minister that. Rather than penalise the member a supplementary question, I am very happy for him to rephrase it. [ Interruption] I am trying to deal with a difficult issue. Because this matter is not an easy one to deal with, I do not want to penalise the member a supplementary question and I am very happy for him to rephrase his supplementary question.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to relitigate matters. It is my submission to you that the Associate Minister responsible for this area, in the delegated responsibilities, could answer that supplementary question. If the Minister has changed his view and she is aware of that, she can say yes, or she can say no—

I do not want to take more of the House’s time. If the member had asked “Has the Associate Minister been advised …” then that would be fine, because it would then be a matter of whether she had received such advice. But to ask her point-blank about a matter relating specifically to the Minister of Health is clearly not something she can answer. The member can rephrase his supplementary question.

Does the Minister currently support a ban on point-of-sale tobacco advertising; if so, has she prepared any Cabinet papers or draft legislation to advance her policy position?

Yes, I agree with the question. I have been opposed to tobacco sales in the shops, and I have been discussing this matter with the Minister and also with the Prime Minister.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How are the supplementary questions for this being allocated? Can you assure us that they were held back from the quota that Labour used yesterday?

I can assure the honourable Minister that I am following the number of supplementary questions very carefully. At this point I believe that the Labour Party has used 31 out of a possible 33 supplementary questions.

Does the Associate Minister expect a Government bill to be introduced that would bring about the ban on tobacco displays?