Tuesday, 27 February 2024 (continued on Wednesday, 28 February 2024) - Volume 773 Sitting date: 27 Feb 2024 TUESDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2024 (continued on Wednesday, 28 February 2024) … SPEAKER: The House is resumed. We come now to oral questions. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and particularly this Government's plan to back our police to crack down on the gangs that peddle meth and misery within our communities. We promised New Zealanders that we would address the rampant lawlessness driven by the previous Labour Government's soft-on-crime approach, and our plan to reduce gangs' ability to intimidate and to terrorise our communities is just one part of that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his promise on bringing back semi-automatic firearms, "That is not going to happen. Not going to happen."; if so, why has Radio New Zealand reported that "Everything is on the table" when it comes to changing the current firearms licensing regime? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No papers have been received or decisions made in our Cabinet, but what I can say is that our Government is going to balance safety and compliance. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government will not bring back military-style semi-automatic weapons? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We will not be introducing any firearm types into this country beyond those that are currently available to licensed owners under current laws and regulation. Hon David Seymour: Is it the case that the Government has no plan to bring back semi-automatic firearms because there are already approximately 6,000 New Zealanders with a licence to have one and it's logically very difficult to bring back something that's already there? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is correct. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government intending to make any changes to the number of people who can access military-style semi-automatic weapons? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As that member knows, our coalition agreement states that we will rewrite the Arms Act to provide for greater protection for public safety—greater protection for public safety—and we're going to simplify the regulatory requirements and ensure very good, smart compliance. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won't he rule out liberalising access to military-style semi-automatic weapons when the police have made it very clear to the Government, both present and former, that doing so would result in more of those weapons getting into the hands of gang members and others who intend to break the law? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because no papers have been received, no discussion has been had, and no decisions have been made in Cabinet. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he intending to visit the Linwood mosque on 15 March; if so, will he tell the victims of that massacre that he is intending to change the law to make legal the purchase of those types of firearms again, given that the firearm used in that terrorist attack was legally purchased? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No disrespect, but I won't take any lectures from that member about that event. I was an employer of someone who lost an employee in that event, and I take that very seriously. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I asked him a series of questions about whether he was going to visit the mosque and whether he was going to tell the victims of that event that the Government was considering bringing back the very firearms that were used in that particular atrocity. SPEAKER: Well, the problem with the question—particularly the second part of the question—is that it's relying on an assumption that the member is making when, in fact, the House has just been told there are no proposals before the Government at the present time. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why will he not rule out liberalising access to military-style semi-automatic weapons? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I've said to the member there are no papers that have been received, there's been no discussion that's taken place, there have been no decisions that have been made in Cabinet. The second thing I've said is that we are a Government that's going to balance safe—[Interruption] Would you like to listen to the answer? We're going to balance safety, we're going to balance compliance, and we're going to make sure we have a good decision in Cabinet, and that's yet to happen. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister intend to ban coming to this House promising a bazooka but turning up with a pop gun? SPEAKER: Look, I'm sorry. I know that was that was by way of a question, but it wasn't a question that the Prime Minister can offer a view on. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, he can. SPEAKER: Well, really? I mean, it's a very serious issue, and there was kind of a trivial aspect to the question. So I think I'm going to rule it out. Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the year to December 2023, gang members carried out an average of 2.83 firearm offences per day, and does the Government have policies to deal to the illegal use of firearms that has mushroomed over the last few years under current laws? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I agree. That's what we won't be doing: we won't be making illegal guns available to criminals to actually drive violent crime in this country, because we're going to get tough on illegal guns—period. [Interruption] SPEAKER: All good, calm down. Thank you very much for your offering, front-bench members from the Opposition. Question No. 2—Justice (Firearms) 2. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): What law changes is the Government proposing in relation to firearms? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms)): This Government is committed to rewriting the Arms Act 1983. Rushed law changes by the previous Government have failed to make New Zealanders safer from firearms violence and have unfairly punished law-abiding licensed firearm owners. This Government is committed to creating an enduring Arms Act which increases public safety, simplifies regulatory requirements, and improves compliance. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. The noise is too much. It's a very serious topic, and it should not be a topic that ends up with a Minister shouted down. Questions can be asked in silence—that's the respect that the House shows to the questioner—but there should be a little bit more attention paid by way of simply listening to the answers being given by Ministers. Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Thank you. I've got two points of order, then, Mr Speaker. The first one was just around rulings about patsy questions being used to attack the Opposition, which was contained in the answer that the Minister gave in her primary response, and I just wanted to get your view on that. And the second one was just to kind of clarify what happens when a Government Minister is making policy statements on behalf of the Government when the Prime Minister has just said that there have been no papers received or discussions had. SPEAKER: Well, on the first point, I couldn't hear what was being said because of the noise to my left. On the second point, a Minister's answers are for the House to make a determination about, not for the Speaker. Mark Cameron: Supplementary. SPEAKER: Cameron Luxton. Mark Cameron: Mark Cameron—but thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Mark Cameron. Mark Cameron: Easy mistake to make! SPEAKER: My sincere apologies, Mark Cameron. Mark Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What immediate changes is the Government proposing? Hon NICOLE McKEE: The previous Government's over-regulation on clubs and ranges have forced several to shut down. It is imperative for New Zealanders to have access to secure venues for firearms usage. The absence of such facilities poses additional risks to the community. Therefore, we are dedicated to overturning these unnecessary regulations to ensure the safety and the availability of these important spaces. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has she received or requested any advice on increasing access to military-style semi-automatic weapons? Hon NICOLE McKEE: No. Mark Cameron: Which firearm laws is the Government going to review? Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Government will review the effectiveness of the firearms registry in enhancing public safety. Concerns raised by licensed firearm owners regarding privacy breaches and unjustifiable costs warrant a thorough evaluation. The review will commence no later than June 2024. Mark Cameron: What steps is the Government taking to target gang members holding firearms illegally? Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government is committed to giving police greater powers to search gang members for illegally held firearms. This legislation will be introduced to Parliament within the first 100 days of Government, as outlined in the National-ACT coalition agreement. Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Just in relation to that answer and the one to the question before that, that does appear to contradict what the Prime Minister just said about no decisions having been made or any papers or discussions being read. And I just wondered if the Prime Minister might need to correct his answer to the earlier question. SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, that is not a point of order. That is a point that you are making. You've made the point. There's nothing further to be done about it. Mark Cameron: Will her Government allow competitive shooters to use semi-automatics for sporting purposes? Hon NICOLE McKEE: The coalition Government has yet to decide on this issue, but, currently, over 6,600 New Zealanders are licensed to possess semi-automatic firearms, and this occurred under Labour's regime. They were never banned under the previous Government. This Government is the adult in the room, and we are committed to finding a solution to this issue for the benefit of public safety and practical regulation. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and in the context they were given. Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that "our focus is on making sure … we honour the Treaty.", and, if so, will he ensure that the new fast-track consenting legislation will uphold the Treaty? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I will. Hon James Shaw: Has he been briefed on feedback from mana whenua, as Treaty partners, on the proposed policy settings for the fast-track legislation, and, if so, what was the feedback? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I understand that the Ministers have. If he would like to direct any questions to the relevant Minister, he's more than welcome to do so. Hon James Shaw: Will the fast-track process give effects to the rights of iwi and hapū over natural resources, as recognised in Treaty settlements? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. Hon James Shaw: Will the fast-track framework protect matters of national importance under the Resource Management Act by ensuring that projects will be declined if they undermine the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we haven't yet had a Cabinet paper or discussion about that in Cabinet yet, but we will shortly. Hon James Shaw: Will he rule out the proposal by Trans-Tasman Resources for seabed mining off the coast of Taranaki from the list of projects in the bill, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that this application needed to be reconsidered to take account of tikanga Māori? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, there has been no paper presented to Cabinet, there has been no discussion at Cabinet, and there's been no decisions made at Cabinet. That is yet to come. Question No. 4—Finance 4. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) issued its latest quarterly predictions. The report says that recent developments have been mixed, but generally point to further easing of inflation pressures in the New Zealand economy. The easing in capacity pressures has been a key driver behind this drop in inflation pressures in the New Zealand economy; in particular, firms report a further easing in labour shortages and are now finding it easier to find both skilled and unskilled labour. Rima Nakhle: What does this outlook mean for monetary policy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The NZIER report goes on to say that the key question for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is whether it is comfortable that this easing in inflation is occurring at a fast enough pace to get annual Consumers Price Index inflation back to within its 1 to 3 percent inflation target band. The RBNZ's monetary policy statement came out at 2 p.m. and I've been advised that the official cash rate has been held steady. This indicates that the bank does think inflation is reducing at a fast enough pace. Rima Nakhle: What does the NZIER say about the outlook for economic growth? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker— Rt Hon Winston Peters: It's better now that Grant's gone. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That's right. The Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. Like other forecasters, NZIER is expecting near-term weakness in the economy but recovery over the longer term. NZIER also highlights an increase in business confidence. It says that despite signs of weaker demand as the impact of higher interest rates left over from the last lot continues to gain traction, businesses are feeling less pessimistic about the general economic outlook. Rima Nakhle: When will the next Treasury forecast be released? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The next complete set of Treasury economic and fiscal forecasts will be released with the Budget on 30 May. Data revisions and recent outturns since the half-year update in December indicate that the economy is likely to be in a weaker position this year than was anticipated before Christmas. That will flow through to forecasts for tax revenue, so I expect the Crown to be collecting less revenue over the next few years than was previously expected. Question No. 5—Finance 5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What advice from Treasury, if any, has she seen on the amount of revenue that will be gained by the Government from the enactment of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I am advised that regardless of the enactment of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill, excise revenue is predicted to continue to gradually decline as smoking rates continue to decrease. In preparing the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update last year, Treasury did a rough estimate of tobacco excise revenue assuming the continuation of the current smokefree regime that has existed and been successful for many years. Their estimate was that maintaining the current smokefree regime involving regular increases in tobacco excise and which has seen smoking rates fall dramatically, would result in additional revenue of around $1.5 billion in total across the four year forecast period compared to the changes due to be implemented from later this year. I'd say two things to the member: first, those numbers are very rough and better forecasts will be included in the Government's books as part of the Budget update; and, second, that revenue, whatever it turns out to be, will go into the consolidated fund and be used for spending on hip operations, teachers' pay, and Working for Families, just as that revenue was used by the previous Labour Government. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the statement made by Nicola Willis, "we have to remember that the changes to the smokefree legislation had a significant impact on the Government books," in response to questions on how she will pay for tax cuts in the absence of the foreign buyers ban; if not, why not? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I tend to agree with myself, yes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she aware that the Ministry of Health modelling shows that an estimated $5.25 billion can be saved in health spending, and, if so, how can she justify her support for rolling back world-leading smokefree legislation when a simple cost-benefit analysis shows the cost to the health system outweighs the benefits of the revenue gained? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is sticking with legislation and initiatives that, with bipartisan support, have seen smoking rates drop by 60 percent in the past 11 years, and we are advised those settings will continue to drive smoking rates down. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she reconcile the Government saying, on one hand, "It is our intention to bring smoking rates down.", but, on the other hand, she needs smoking rates to stay the same or increase to bring in $500 million in tobacco excise per year to help pay for tax cuts? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because the member has got it completely wrong. We are expecting that excise [Interruption]—well, the member either wants an answer or she doesn't. We are expecting that excise revenue will continue to gradually decline as smoking rates decrease. And I have been specifically advised that there will still be a declining trend, and with the assumed decline in tobacco consumption more than offsetting the continued increases in excise revenue that we do on 1 January each year. Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is the priority for this Government: tax cuts funded by more New Zealanders smoking for longer or the health and lives of everyday New Zealanders? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The priority for this Government— SPEAKER: Just a moment. That question is not in order. I'm not going to rule it out; the Minister can answer, but you need to think about how much assumption is put into questions that Ministers are required to respond to. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, I'm very happy to talk about the Government's priorities, which are to strengthen the economy so that we can address the cost of living, which has been at a crisis for the past two years; increase the jobs and incomes available to New Zealanders; ensure they can keep more of their own money; deliver better front-line services in health and education, where attendance rates have plummeted; and increase law and order by delivering more police. Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware of reports attributed to Victorian police in Melbourne that last year 27 convenience stores were attacked with firebombings as part of stand-over tactics believed to be connected with the illicit tobacco trade, and if she has considered the impacts of illicit tobacco on both health and the Government's books, does she believe that it's actually time to bring a bit of reality into this debate? SPEAKER: That was also another interesting question that goes well beyond the responsibilities of the Minister. I know you couch it with "has she considered" and, therefore, it can go ahead, but I think you've got to be careful about how much assumption we put into questions. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order. I seek leave to table a Treasury Official Information Act request that documents the forecasting in relation to tobacco excise due to the changes in legislation. SPEAKER: Are you tabling a request or a response? Hon Barbara Edmonds: I'm tabling the response. SPEAKER: Is it publicly available? Hon Barbara Edmonds: Not that I'm aware of. SPEAKER: Well, OK. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Hon Member: Is it publicly available? SPEAKER: Well, is it? I'm asking the question. [Interruption] Hang on, I'll deal with this. I'm asking the member: is it a publicly available document? Hon Barbara Edmonds: Not that I'm aware of. SPEAKER: I'll put the leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not it's a fact that the success of the present Government's plan is in the forecasts of the tax for tobacco and cigarettes being hundreds of millions of dollars less than Grant Robertson was forecasting in 2020? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, look, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a good point, as did David Seymour before him, so I'm going to address both questions in one. I think that's a good way to do things. We do have to be very conscious of the black market, because what the regulatory impact statement— Hon James Shaw: Point of order. I just wanted to refer back to earlier Speakers' rulings around the use of patsy questions to attack the Opposition. SPEAKER: With regards to what? Hon James Shaw: The question that the Deputy Prime Minister asked then was— SPEAKER: No, sorry; it can't be a patsy if he's referring to Budget numbers. That's not an unreasonable question. Hon James Shaw: Well, I'll withdraw the use of the word "patsy". Nevertheless, the supplementary question that the Deputy Prime Minister asked was clearly an attack on the Opposition. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sorry; I didn't see it that way. So we'll finish that answer and then I'll have to go back to David Seymour because I managed to cut him off getting an answer. So he'll probably have to ask his question again, in a better way, I hope. [Interruption] No, no—hang on. We're not finished here. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, perhaps I can help the House by addressing two questions in one. Minister Seymour's question was about the black market, and this is a very real concern because the regulatory impact statement for the previous Government's legislation warned specifically that—quote—"The illicit market has been increasing, and recommended policy changes are likely to exacerbate this." I would point out that the only people that benefit from a flourishing black market are criminals and gangs. In answer to the Deputy Prime Minister's supplementary question, he makes a good point, which is that the revenue that the coalition Government is likely to receive from tobacco revenue in the forecast future years will be considerably less than was received by the previous Labour administration in 2020, where they earned $2.2 billion in tobacco excise revenue, which they happily invested in roads, hospitals, schools, and the like. SPEAKER: Thank you. I'm sure that satisfies you, Hon Seymour; it certainly satisfies me, which is all that matters. Question No. 6—Housing SPEAKER: The Hon—sorry, Miles Anderson. 6. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Housing: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the elevation in position. What announcements has he made about the Government's work programme in housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yesterday, I laid out the Government's work programme to fix New Zealand's housing crisis. Five interlocking actions: firstly, going for housing growth, to smash urban limits holding our cities back, fix infrastructure funding and financing, and introduce incentives to encourage cities and regions to go for growth; secondly, improvements to the rental market to make it easier to be a landlord and easier to be a tenant; thirdly, building and construction changes to improve competition, lower building costs; better social housing to look after those who most need support; and, fifthly, reform of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Miles Anderson: How will this agenda to fix the housing crisis improve the lives of New Zealanders? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the housing crisis that New Zealand has inherited from the last Government affects almost every aspect of New Zealand society. Young people don't have the opportunities to own their own homes in the way that generations before them have had, and, of course, the housing market consigns thousands of our fellow New Zealanders to live in motels for months at a time. Our agenda charts a realistic and achievable path out of this mess, and tackling our housing crisis once and for all. Miles Anderson: How will this agenda to fix the housing crisis improve the New Zealand economy? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the best things we can do to improve the New Zealand economy is to fix our housing crisis. For years, New Zealand has suffered from a productivity disease. In the 1950s, our GDP per capita was 125 percent of the OECD average, and it is now below the OECD average. Fixing this can be done through effective and efficient urban development, because cities are engines of productivity, and when we stop people building houses, we lock people out of cities, and that makes us all poorer. So we are going to allow our cities to grow up and out, and we're going to let people build more houses. Miles Anderson: What do his announcements yesterday mean for the local councils and the medium-density residential standards (MDRS)? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The first element of our package will require councils to zone enough land for 30 years of housing growth. We also heard the message from many New Zealanders and many communities that the MDRS standards were too blunt and one-size-fits-all, so as part of that, we are going to give communities and councils flexibility to opt out of the MDRS, striking the right balance between zoning for growth and the flexibility to decide where that growth happens. I also announced yesterday that in my role as Minister responsible for RMA Reform, I will be the decision maker on relevant district plan changes relating to housing, where the councils and the independent hearing panels do not agree, for example, in Wellington. Question No. 7—Housing 7. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that "The evidence is as plain as day: cities that make it difficult to build more housing have housing affordability problems"; if so, what advice, if any, has he seen on the impact on affordability of allowing councils to opt out of medium-density residential standards? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): To the first part of the question, yes; to the second part of the question, I've seen a range of advice on our Going for Housing Growth policy, which, as I've just mentioned, includes making the medium density residential standards (MDRS) optional, while also requiring them to zone for 30 years of housing growth. Our position is that the current rules are too blunt, too one-size-fits-all. We've heard the concerns from communities up and down the country, and we believe that our new approach strikes the right balance between zoning for lots of growth and flexibility. I'm still in the process of receiving advice on the design of how we make the MDRS optional; it is legally complex, as there are various councils in different stages of their plan changes. I haven't received specific advice on affordability to deal with her specific question, but I've been clear that councils won't be able to opt out of the MDRS rules until we're satisfied they are releasing sufficient alternative development capacity to improve affordability. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen—and if he has seen it, does he accept—the Sense Partners analysis of the medium density residential standards that showed the infrastructure costs of a house in a new greenfields area on the fringe of the city is nearly double that of an additional home within the existing urban area? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I've read the report. Yes, I accept that advice. That is why, as a part of our reforms, we are saying that greenfields growth will have to be paid for by that growth. So the infrastructure cost for that growth will have to be paid for as part of that growth. Hon Julie Anne Genter: So does he acknowledge, in light of that answer, that making medium density residential standards optional, all else being equal, will lead to less potential housing in the existing urban area, precisely where it is most needed and where infrastructure costs are lower? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That would be true if all else was being equal. The point is: it's not. We're making the MDRS optional at the same time as requiring councils to zone it for enough development capacity. The member needs to look at the policy in the round, not a particular one element or component of it. Hon Julie Anne Genter: How does he reconcile his plan to "legalise housing" while removing the very mechanism that was cutting council red tape, and making it easier to build more housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because we're being much more ambitious than the MDRS. In fact, if I could point to one example put forward by New Zealand First as a part of the coalition agreement, which makes its way in, which is to make it essentially legal, without a building consent or a resource consent, for granny flats of up to 60 square metres on a property, which I think will have a massive impact. We're also proposing strengthening the National Policy Statement on Urban Development so that mixed-use zoning is much more encouraged in our cities, and, of course, the much more ambitious target of smashing urban limits, which, as the member's former colleague in the transport space the Hon Phil Twyford once said back in 2017 and early 2018—which the last Labour Government was going to do in relation to Auckland—there'd be no metropolitan urban limit under the Jacinda Ardern Labour - led Government. Six years on, we're still waiting for it; the National-led coalition will deliver that. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the evidence that people who live on the fringe of urban areas have much higher transport costs, and, accepting that, will he include transport and affordability costs as a percentage of income as a measure and a target for affordability? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it depends on the transport choices that people make. But I'm not sure what the member is so worked up about, because the front page of the Dominion Post this morning I was very intrigued to see. Here's what it says: "Labour, Green councillors pleased that Chris Bishop will decide on housing plan". So I'm not sure what the members of the Opposition are so worked up about, because it sounds like the Green councillors from Wellington are pretty happy that I'm in charge now. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I really appreciated that—[Interruption] and, you know, I think it's great that the Minister— SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry—start that again. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah, I appreciate the answer. However, I did ask a very specific, technical question, and I would love it if the Minister would address that part of the question, because the question was very specific about whether a measure of a housing affordability would include transport costs. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm happy to answer it. SPEAKER: Yes, well, I'm pleased you're happy to answer; it's your job. Carry on. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Indeed. I mean, I broadly accept that analysis, except it depends on the choices that people make. Yes, of course—[Interruption] You guys all right? I'm just waiting for you to— SPEAKER: Hey, that is enough—that is enough. I know this is the problem with having a third week of a four-week session in urgency; enormous pent-up excitement. Let's just hear—[Interruption] Sorry, we're going to hear—Ms Genter, we're going to hear the answer in silence. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm happy to answer; I was just waiting for a bit of quiet. I broadly accept that. Of course it is true that people who live an hour outside the CBD probably, depending on the choices they make, pay more for transport, but the point is, over on this side of the House we believe in choice. Some people will choose to live in the suburbs, some people will choose to live in a granny flat, some people will choose to live in an apartment. Actually, what we need is housing choice, and, more importantly, we need urban land settings that facilitate those choices. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to get this straight from the Minister, is he saying that under this new change, a 60 square metre flat or building can be erected with just an engineer's report—or, in other words, a koro's flat for Willie? SPEAKER: No, don't answer that question. We've got to stop this sort of clever technique of asking these questions that clearly indicate a very generous attitude towards the person you were talking about, but that's a private arrangement you can make with him. Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Mr Speaker, point of order. What's gone wrong with this place? All I'm trying to illustrate is that some people in this House might be seriously keen to hear that answer, some with greater acuity than others. I was being kind when I said that, and now you're turning it into some sort of dig that I meant to be offensive. SPEAKER: Yeah, but when I've ruled on something, you can't have a point of order on a ruling. You know the rules of the House; you've been here so long you wrote half of them. Question No. 8—Health 8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was she being truthful when she said, "I haven't looked at a freeze on excise at all." in an interview with Guyon Espiner? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In the context of the interview that was conducted, the answer I gave to the question that was put within the 25-minute interview was accurate in the response and framework that question was put. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has she solved the mystery of who wrote the document that contained proposals to freeze tobacco excise tax in the three weeks since she told Mike Hosking that she was not sure who put it on her desk? Hon Casey Costello: It's not a mystery. That same document also referred to a key bullet point, which was how to destroy the tobacco industry, which was one of the many discussion points that was collated from a range of campaign positioning and statements. Andy Foster: To the Minister: has she received reports on the number of people who have stopped smoking? Hon Casey Costello: Yes, I have received a range of reports, specifically at the current level of smokers being at 6.8 percent. Importantly, that data also noted that the smokefree legislation that the previous Government based their positioning on was 2019-2020 data, and since that data on which they based their legislation, 3,005 people have quit smoking, and youth smoking fell from 10.3 percent to 3 percent, proving the existing legislation was highly effective. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why has she refused requests to release the document under the Official Information Act if it is merely, as she has said in this House, a range of historical policy positions and notes? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The documentation is part of the discussion documents relating to this legislation being developed, and therefore it is under that position that it's being withheld. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: With respect to the mystery of who wrote the document that appeared on her desk, has she considered calling in a former detective to investigate? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No. Andy Foster: Can she tell what the House what practical tools and approaches have worked to date? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Vaping as a cessation tool has worked successfully, and I would like to recognise that the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Act 2020, introduced by New Zealand First, which regulated vaping, has been a monumental factor in the smoking reduction rates we are seeing today. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she still actively considering freezes to tobacco excise tax, and, if so, has she been honest in all her statements to the Prime Minister? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have been very clear on the fact that I am not currently considering an increase in excise tax. The first thing I did as a Minister was raise the excise tax in a Cabinet paper that I submitted in November 2023 and came into effect on 1 January 2024. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order. The member answered with respect to an—that she said she is not considering an increase in excise tax. The question was about a freeze to excise tax, which is what the member proposed to officials in the document she sent. SPEAKER: Well, I mean, she also said that the first action she took as a Minister was to increase tax, which doesn't exactly imply a freeze. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. In an earlier answer [Clears throat]—excuse me—from the Minister, she quoted from the document by saying there was a section headed "destroying the tobacco industry". That's a direct quote and I would request that the Minister table the document. SPEAKER: Was that a direct quote? Is it a document that you have in the House with you at the moment? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No, it's not a direct quote, and it's not with me in the House. Question No. 9—Justice 9. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes, in the context in which they were made, particularly my statement on Sunday that for too long, gangs have been allowed to behave as if they are above the law. They are not, and this Government is determined to restore law and order. Rawiri Waititi: What evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, look, the evidence that I'm most interested in is the 50 percent increase in gang membership in the last five years under the previous Government, which has led to a sense of disorder on our streets. That's the evidence I'm most interested in. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was clear: what evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities? He didn't address it, nor did he answer it. SPEAKER: Yeah, I think you could probably have another crack at that. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the evidence I see and that we've received is the intimidation that people have seen right across the country, and we've also seen the progress that similar gang patch bans have had in Western Australia and in other countries. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, he has evaded answering the question. The question is simple: what evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities? He hasn't addressed it, nor answered it. SPEAKER: He actually did answer, because he also referred to evidence he had from Western Australia. Now, he doesn't have to expand on what that is, but that's what he said in his answer. He also—[Interruption] Well, you can all wobble your heads as much as you like. This is how I heard it and this is how I'm ruling it. Tākuta Ferris: Look, given this Government seems fixated on gangs with high Māori membership, will his proposed legislation to ban gang members from gathering mean their whānau who have multiple members accused of being in a gang will not be able to meet or even talk to each other for up to three years? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There will be an exclusion for family members. Tākuta Ferris: How can he justify targeting gang members when the tribunal has found that 80 to 90 percent of Mongrel Mob and Black Power members have come from State wards, and, therefore, both gangs are largely a creation of the State? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We absolutely agree that the background of offenders is relevant to sentencing. But also we are a party that believes in personal responsibility, and I should note that the Long-term Insights Briefing on imprisonment states that "Most people serving sentences in prison [in New Zealand] have been convicted of serious sexual or violent offending.", and no society can function if people are not held personally responsible for their actions. Tākuta Ferris: Does he deem it appropriate for a Minister of Justice to say he does not care about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I never made such a statement. Tākuta Ferris: Are you sure? Supplementary. SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. Was that a question or was that— Tākuta Ferris: Nah, nah, nah; I just said something out loud. SPEAKER: Yeah. Well, don't make those comments. Leave those to Rawiri! Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that member in his question made an allegation of a statement made by the Minister. The Minister said that statement's not true. That requires that member who made the allegation by way of the question to apologise for it. You can't just fly by like that in this House, Mr Speaker. That's a fact. SPEAKER: It is a fact that your comment did question the answer of a Minister, which is not appropriate. So I suggest you withdraw and apologise for that and then ask your supplementary. Tākuta Ferris: I withdraw and apologise. Does he agree that banning patches and whānau with alleged gang ties from attending tangihanga is a blatant dismissal of the Māori right to mana motuhake and a gross breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: People will be perfectly entitled to attend a tangi if they're not wearing a gang patch and they are not subject to a dispersal order. That is ultimately in the police's discretion. So I don't agree with his assertion. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Seeking clarity: is the Minister of Justice implying that the police make the rules for marae? SPEAKER: No, that's not what he said. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry, we just heard that it is up to the police to decide if marae have patched members there. We're just seeking clarity. SPEAKER: Sorry, what you heard him say is— Hon Member: Sit down. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No, I'm not sitting down. You're not the Speaker, and you never will be at your age. SPEAKER: That would apply to everyone in the House, as it happens. What you heard him say is that police have always had that discretion; in relation to what is not a concern for me. Tākuta Ferris: What risk analysis has he undertaken to ensure that Government polices such as unbanning pseudoephedrine, unbanning semi-automatic weapons, and increasing benefit sanctions will not lead to more crime? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Again, I would emphasise that there's all sorts of excuses that can be offered for crime, but people need to be personally responsible for their actions. This Government is determined to restore consequences for crime and to restore law and order in this country. Tākuta Ferris: Point of order. The question was: what risk analysis has been undertaken? Not merely a point of view. SPEAKER: I don't think that's a reasonable point of order. In actual fact, it's not a point of order; it is a concern that you've got about an answer. That's quite a different matter. Do you have another supplementary? Tākuta Ferris: Just speaking to the point of order, then. The question was around the implication— SPEAKER: No, no. Look, the place functions on some pretty basic rules, and you're working outside that rule at the present time. Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I just want to ask a quick question in regards to assertions being put at the front of questions. There were a number of supplementaries just in that question, where there was an assertion being put at the start without a question actually being put first. I just ask your guidance on that issue for the House. SPEAKER: I have already, today, said that assumptions are not appropriate and nor are assertions, and nor are they actually permissible under the Standing Orders. But there is also a degree of understanding of how the intent of the question is meant to be taken. Question No. 10—Health 10. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken to improve the health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): This afternoon, the Government passed the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. This transfers Māori Health Authority staff and functions to Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. This transfer will retain the expertise needed to drive better health outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders, and will be done with respect for fellow health professionals. I look forward to identifying other priorities for the health system. Dr Hamish Campbell: Why did the Government move to disestablish the Māori Health—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Sorry—hang on a minute. Ask it again. Dr Hamish Campbell: Why did the Government move to disestablish the Māori Health Authority? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Disestablishment was agreed to by all three governing parties in their coalition agreements and mandated by the results of the 2023 general election, where it was canvassed at length. The disestablishment is a reflection of an approach that struggled to put health needs for all at its forefront and an implementation plan that faced significant challenges from the beginning. This Government remains committed to improving Māori health outcomes. Dr Hamish Campbell: What challenges have arisen from the health reforms which the Māori Health Authority was part of? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It is not clear to me that the Māori Health Authority was well supported by the previous Government, who, in my view, were distracted by wider structural reforms to other parts of the health system. This distraction is evident from the report today by the independent ministerial advisory committee, which uncovered a significant number of problems which can be associated with a lack of ministerial oversight and political failure. Health reforms should not have been undertaken in the middle of a pandemic. Hon Peeni Henare: Do the steps taken by the Minister to improve health outcomes include opting out of the international health regulation amendment days after taking office, repealing world-leading smoke-free legislation, and repealing the Māori Health Authority? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The steps towards better health outcomes include some of the outcomes that are present in Pae Tū, some of the outcomes that are present in Whakamaua, and some of the health outcomes that we'll identify in our Government policy statement. Dr Hamish Campbell: What is the Government's vision for Māori health? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government is ambitious for the future of Māori health, and this bill signalled the beginning of a different journey—a journey in which we strive to achieve better health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. This Government will ensure the health system is performing, after six long years of deteriorating health metrics. Question No. 11—Justice (Firearms) 11. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): Does she stand by all her statements in respect of firearms reform? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms)): Yes, in the context in which they were given, including my statements confirming the Government's intention to rewrite the Arms Act to improve public safety, reduce regulatory burden, and improve compliance. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she stand by her statements reported in Radio New Zealand that sports shooters may be permitted to own semi-automatic weapons, or does she agree with the Police, who have said such a change would introduce an unacceptable risk of high capacity semi-automatic centre-fire firearms again becoming readily available in the black market or provided by non-compliant licence holders? Hon NICOLE McKEE: I did not make the statement as has been referred to by that member. But what I will confirm is that in rewriting the Arms Act and having enduring legislation, this Government will not take six days in which to pass legislation. We will go through a full process that will ensure that the communities of New Zealand are heard and participate in the legislative review. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Hold on, your colleagues aren't ready yet. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she agree with Nicole McKee when she said of gun reforms at the Justice Committee on 24 June 2021 "And finally, just on the firearms changes in itself, I think it's really important to remember not only the loss of lives in Christchurch and Aramoana but the quarter of a million people who've been affected by rushed legislation changes."? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Absolutely. I agree with what Nicole McKee said back then, that we need to make sure that everybody is considered when it comes to legislation, including not only those of the mosque shooting but those that have been affected by gun crime that has been allowed to take place under the previous Government's regime. SPEAKER: Ahh— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Kieran. SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. I was trying to work out whether it was the honourable not. The Hon Kieran McAnulty, sorry. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of the Minister's desire not to rush legislation, I seek leave of the House to move out of urgency. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Hon Members: Yes. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she accept that even stringent licensing, like that for handgun licences, will not stop all misuse of weapons such as that of Ian Dallison, who used his licensed pistol to attempt to murder his landlord on 4 August 2022? Hon NICOLE McKEE: I agree that it's time that we had legislation that actually looks after the security and the safety of New Zealanders, and that's precisely what this Government will deliver in this term. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she believe that Christopher Luxon was telling the truth in September last year, when challenged that under his Government people would have more access to semi-automatic firearms, when he said "It's not going to happen."? Hon NICOLE McKEE: I'm not going to speak for the Prime Minister, but what I will say is that legitimate use, legitimate ownership—and our coalition agreement agrees to rewrite the Arms Act to make sure that we have a good, safe system for New Zealanders, those legitimate owners and those that have been deemed to be fit and proper by New Zealand Police. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How would permitting semi-automatic weapons address situations like that of Quinn Patterson, who in July 2017 murdered his property manager and her daughter with a semi-automatic rifle illegally supplied by a licensed firearms holder Michael Hayes? Hon NICOLE McKEE: What an excellent question, because I'm so glad to be able to speak to the regime that the Arms Act, that is going to be rewritten by the end of this term, is going to present for New Zealanders, which includes ensuring stricter compliance, security, and fit and proper assertations from those that are in possession and use. And I look forward to correcting the mistakes that the previous Government made. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Supplementary? SPEAKER: No, you've used them all up. Question No. 12—Education 12. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she seen about her recent announcement on the ministerial inquiry into school property? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): There have been many reports on the ministerial inquiry into school property. Schools and principals around the country have been sharing their frustrations with delays and lack of certainty over the last few years. The Secondary Principals Association welcomed the review and the president said that longstanding issues with school property had become "horribly acute". The Auckland Primary Principals' Association President said primary schools are facing the same issues with school property and that the costs for bespoke school builds had got out of hand. School property is a priority for this Government. We have a responsibility to invest in property solutions that demonstrate value for money. Sam Uffindell: What has she heard from schools since she announced the inquiry? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Principals have been in touch with my office sharing stories of their frustrations. One principal wrote to share that after prefab buildings were demolished at their school in early 2023, building that was due to commence in July did not start. Instead there have been delays, reviews, a business case, a review by an investment board, a detailed design, a consent process, and then a soft hold. Another principal wrote to me today to say "I believe that this is very timely indeed, as many principals and boards have had grave concerns for a number of years." Sam Uffindell: What other feedback has she received about the announcement? Hon ERICA STANFORD: An industry leader in the construction sector wrote to me saying, "A massive thank you for getting on to this total mess. I watch in despair at what our schools are being put through." Another letter from a senior project architect expressed a concern that Ministry of Education requirements are contributing significant and unnecessary costs to projects. I also heard that "Aspects of the briefs are gold-bricked" and that "A silver standard will more than adequately meet education requirements while at the same time delivering better value for the taxpayer." Sam Uffindell: Why is this inquiry needed? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Schools and communities deserve better. As I said in the House yesterday, these challenges are due not only to building cost increases but also, in the ministry's own words, to scope creep and over-reliance on bespoke designs and over-engineering add-ons, like extensive landscaping and infrastructure. It is imperative that we deliver the core infrastructure needs of schools and the ministerial inquiry will consider how we best achieve a portfolio that is efficient and effective and delivers learning spaces that are functional, warm, dry, and fit for purpose. SPEAKER: Takutai Ferris. Tākuta Ferris: Tākuta Ferris, kia ora. How much longer will kura kaupapa, wharekura, kura ā iwi—all Māori immersion schools who have already been waiting for decades for their classroom rebuilds—how long will they have to wait for their school rebuild projects to be delivered in order to provide for our tamariki the best possible learning environments; how long will this Government's inquiry take, and what is the time line for our kura receiving the school rebuilds that have already been promised to them? Hon ERICA STANFORD: The ministerial inquiry is set down for three months. SMOKEFREE ENVIRONMENTS AND REGULATED PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Debate resumed. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support this bill. Look, nothing's really changed. We're sticking with the same legislation that's driven down smoking rates to 6.8 percent last year from 8.6 percent in 2022, and down from—[Interruption] SPEAKER: I'll tell you what; just hold on, Mr Uffindell. We've stopped the clock. Would members who need to leave the House please do so quietly, with a bit of respect for the speaker on his feet. Please resume. SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And down from 16.4 percent in 2012. Look, smoking rates have been falling consistently for some time, and that trend will continue under our Government. Labour's changes would have created a black market with more smuggling, more ram raids, but it doesn't have to be that way. Look, this Government is committed to the smokefree 2025 goal, but we're taking a different regulatory approach. New Zealand has seen some of the largest drops in smoking across the world. And in the last three years, 219,000 people have stopped smoking, with 36 percent of those being Māori. If those trends continue, New Zealand will hit the deadline smokefree goal of less than 5 percent of the population daily by 2025. I support this bill. SPEAKER: Ayesha Verrall. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe, te Pīka. Is it No. 6? SPEAKER: Just a minute—just lost my way here slightly! I call the honourable Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. I really appreciated being called "honourable" e te Pīka. I'd like to stand and speak in opposition, as Opposition in opposition, to the bill that is before us. This bill is married to the last one, which is also married to the one before it and the one before it, where we continuously have a Government who puts profit over people and prioritises industry interests over public health interests. We continue to see a Government which has absolutely no shame in its continual advancement of its anti-Māori approach in policy and how it continues to justify its wellbeing of profit over people. It is well known that Māori have the highest smoking rates and we have the highest rate of death and tobacco related illnesses, so to sit here and say that these decisions aren't being made against us is an absolute myth. We know what this Government's agenda is, and we will continue to call it out for what it is so that our people can see, because we've got to keep reminding ourselves, Aotearoa: 83 percent of Māori did not support this Government—83 percent of Māori did not support this Government—which is why there is such a comfort in how and what it is that they are rolling out in this hundred days of absolute colonising chaos. What we have here is an ability for a Government to actually do the right thing by its indigenous peoples and by tangata w'enua, but they are so hell bent and so bitter and twisted by what has happened in the past to them, and so vengeful against Māori not supporting them in the last election, that we continue to see this absolute kick in the face of advocates such as our whaea Tariana Turia, Hone Harawira, who are champions of Smokefree Aotearoa; many of our advocates who are upstairs in the gallery. You completely disregarded the experts, such as those from Hāpai te Hauora. It is an unconscionable blow to the health of Māori in what we are seeing rolled out before us today. Nine hundred and nineteen submissions—Hāpai te Hauora, Tala Pasifika—and here we have this Government with a Prime Minister who says, and I want to make sure I get the wording right. The question was, to the Prime Minister, "Do you know how many lives may be lost because you are making these changes?" and the Prime Minister responds, on 4 December, "Well, not really. That's not been our approach. What has happened here is that our party and others oppose this legislation." "Have you asked the question how many lives might be lost making this change?" "No", our Prime Minister responded. "No. What I have focused on is actually realising that [we're] concentrating on the distribution to 600 outlets throughout the whole of New Zealand". So, again, when the Prime Minister was asked "How many lives might be lost by making this change; have you focused on that?", the answer was no. So, today, we were debating with the Minister of Health on what he is guaranteeing. The Minister of Health is guaranteeing to us and Aotearoa that he has a better model, that he will personally take focus and responsibility and be all in the detail, all over what has been proposed to look after us. We are being told and guaranteed that he will act in the best interests of us as Māori, and I guess that helps us in some way, to put to rest that this isn't about a billion-dollar tax revenue opportunity for this Government's rich mates—absolutely not! Why would those 83 percent of Māori who didn't support this Government go away with that belief, that, in fact, we have a Government who's prioritising the interests of the industry, the tobacco advocates, and continuously showing to us that they are out of touch, out of communication, out of contact with any of the very communities, the very public health experts who have spent generations trying to hold this, and to take credit, to say, "Hey, it's OK how it's going. We feel we can make the changes now because the status quo's working." is to insinuate that there is no future investment or future vision for the wellbeing of us. There's absolutely no transformation ever promised by this Government. They will continue to backpedal to the place of comfort where the very systems that have harmed us are what they are going to be putting forward before us. We are calling for bold and systemic action—we are not going to see it from this Government, whānau mā. So we stand again in opposition—complete opposition—for what's been proposed before Aotearoa. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let's be very clear about a few points about smoking: smoking is bad for your health. Second, our intention is clear: we want to continue to reduce smoking rates and to stop young people from starting smoking. The nature of addiction is that demand does not respond rationally to reducing supply. While the demand for cigarettes is falling abruptly, limiting the number of outlets penalises the 300,000 people still dependent on cigarettes. If we take Auckland for an example, a 90 percent reduction in retail outlets will cause chaos. That would make for probably about 30 outlets for approximately 90,000 smokers. If you do the rough maths, they would need to serve two customers every minute, which kind of does point out that this legislation—there's no way to make this happen; it does not make sense. We're on track to hit the smokefree target of 2025 and continue to drive down our smoking rates. While we're committed to it, we do not think that this legislation will do it. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): In the last day in this House, we have heard some outrageous statements made about the last 2022 amendment to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. We were told that that bill was virtue-signalling and that it will have no effect. So I want to say why it is that that bill matters. This is why. It matters because tobacco is the most harmful product in New Zealand. It kills 50 percent of the people who use it. It is the leading preventable cause of death in New Zealand. I want to tell the people on that side of the House about what smoking does to the people in our community, in case they don't know. In my years as a junior doctor, I admitted to hospital thousands of people suffering from the harms of smoking—people who had emphysema so bad that they became prisoners in their own home, and the slightest cold set them off and brought them to hospital gasping for air, and they would tell me that even when they were well, they couldn't walk to their mailbox. I have diagnosed dozens of people with cancer. I have seen many people have amputations due to tobacco. The 2022 amendment to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act was evidence-based. The denicotinisation of cigarettes has been studied in multiple clinical trials. Retail outlets are known to be associated with undermining people's efforts to quit. They are known to be concentrated in our poorest communities and those communities with more Māori and Pacific people living in them. Do you know the reason why this Government is cancelling our Act? It's because it actually would have got there. It would have got us to our Smokefree 2025 goal, which previously was a bipartisan-held goal, and without that legislation, it's predicted that this Government will take until 2061 to achieve that. We know that that legislation is incredibly popular, and sixty percent of New Zealand don't think this repeal should go ahead. That's why that side of the House was silent on this issue at the last election, and in the coalition agreement the voters learnt that a dirty deal was done behind closed doors, and we found out that these proposals that are a wish-list from the tobacco industry were making their way into our households. Thousands of people, over 40,000 New Zealanders, signed a petition against this bill. Over 9,000 doctors were parts of organisations that demanded a select committee process. Hundreds of health organisations have condemned the Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Health for bringing in this bill. The cartoonists have had their turn too, calling out "Dr Cigareti" and "Nicotine Willis" and making the Government a laughing stock. And speaking of a laughing stock, we have the mystery of the document that miraculously appeared in the Minister's office, but she can't say how it got there, and she can't really give satisfactory answers to the House about whether or not she spoke the truth to a journalist on this matter. This— SPEAKER: Anything that might be considered to be an accusation of inappropriate speaking to the House—I've let go the term "dirty deal". I think you've just got to be a little calmer about the way you put your argument. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This week I had the privilege of travelling up and down the country to meet with New Zealanders who care deeply about this bill. One of the highlights of my visit was to go to Manukura school in Palmerston North. I met with about a hundred year 12 and year 13 students who should be entitled to a smoke-free future. They deserve long years with their grandparents. They deserve a future free of the influence of tobacco. I want to tell the members on that side of the House that their ramming this bill through under urgency will not achieve what they think it will. Citizens have options in this country too, and the options that many in the Health Coalition Aotearoa are considering pursuing is a citizens initiated referendum to make sure that this issue that stinks doesn't go away. The smell of this issue will hang around this Government for months and years to come. Our people deserve a smoke-free future. I'm proud that in the Labour Party I played my part inf fighting for that, and we continue to oppose this bill. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): There is no doubt that smoking and second-hand smoke directly cause and contribute to long-term negative effects on the body, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease. It is one of the main causes of premature death and disability in New Zealand. This Government is committed to the smokefree 2025 goal. We want to continue to reduce the smoking rate, but we are taking a different regulatory approach. We want an approach that is practical and helps smokers to quit. We are supporting a package of initiative—an initiative that's focused on those who need them the most—to ensure we reach the smokefree 2025 goal. I commend this bill to the House. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I enjoy listening to the language from members on the other side of the House, who are clearly not describing exactly the detrimental effects and impacts on communities that this repeal legislation will do. Smokefree 2025, at its core, is simply about saving lives. It was making sure that our tamariki and our mokopuna didn't grow up around tobacco, they didn't grow up around cigarettes, they didn't get tempted to have a sneaky cigarette, because we know that once they do, they are hooked. What this Government is actually doing is making it far more accessible. Despite their semantics and their words saying "Oh, no, we still believe in the target.", the facts are on the table. Smoking kills. It is very clear. Thousands of New Zealanders around this country are clear that they don't support this. The Government talks about having a mandate. Simply look at the numbers: New Zealanders have said they do not support this course of action. It is absolutely appalling that the Minister introduces this bill here off the back of repealing the Māori Health Authority. Every member on that side of the House has stood in this House and said, "We're committing to smoking cessation programmes." Show me the money. Show all of those workers out there who work hard in our communities to stop people from smoking—on that side of the House, it's all rhetoric. They are going to take the money that's going to be provided through taxes and they're going to give it to their rich mates. It's a simple as that. Follow the money. The lines they read come straight from the lobby industry for tobacco. It's as simple as that. They might sit down on that side of the House and say, "No, no; this is what our community have said." They've all said the same thing, and those are drafted lines that are given to this Government to put through this terrible, terrible bill. SPEAKER: I'll just make the point that it is quite contrary to Standing Orders to suggest that anyone in the House is somehow beholden to anyone outside of the House—other than those who elect them, of course. I just suggest that the member think about that in the balance of his contribution. Hon PEENI HENARE: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The evidence will bear itself out. It's quite clear to me that on this side of the House—and to many of my colleagues on this side of the House—when that side talks about a black market, actually what they mean is targeting Māori. That means that they're going to put more cigarettes, more smokes into our community. Guess what! It's going to be Māori people, Pacific people, low socio-economic people who will be hugely impacted by this. We've heard terrible statistics. We've heard this Government say, "Oh, well, you know, it's already trending down, but we don't want it to trend down too fast." That's the message that they're sending: "We want it to trend down, but we're going to just slow it down a little bit because it's going too fast for us. We're not making enough money out of this." That's the sad reality of the work being done by this Government. I recall my cousin—actually, member of the National Party—Mr Tau Henare, who led the Māori Affairs Committee on an inquiry into Smokefree 2025. At the end of that inquiry, Tau Henare, a longtime smoker, a lifetime smoker took the commitment to stop smoking. It's been and up and down journey for him, but guess what! He's there now, and I'm proud of him. The point, though, is that at that time, some 50,00-odd New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori—signed a petition to say, "This just isn't good enough. Let's set a target and let's make sure we eliminate smoking in our communities." Some of those people are in the gallery today; those hard-working people who made the target a reality for our people—the reality that this Government is stripping away. The likes of Sue Taylor; a staunch advocate for Māori health and indeed for this particular kaupapa. I want to mention one of my good tuakana Shane Bradbrook; another man who fought really hard and, sadly, also copped the consequences from, what we like to call in politics, the dark arts. Hone Harawira; a former member of this House, who campaigned up and down this country passionately and still does to this day. Anaru Waa, Heather Gifford, the many Māori researchers who have clearly made the case that smoking kills. This Government is going back on that, and that's simply not acceptable. I don't buy for one second them saying that "We're still holding fast to the target, yet continuing to increase the accessibility of cigarettes in our community." It just doesn't stack up. Throughout the course of this bill, this side of the House will continue to prosecute this bill clause by clause, line by line to make sure that the stink that comes with it will continue to hang around the neck of this Government. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise after my whanaunga from the North, the Hon Peeni Henare, and to follow this for a brief contribution on this bill. I rise as a former smoker—I'm not proud of it and it's something I deeply regret. But I look at New Zealand's track record of reducing smoking rates over the last few decades, and the evidence is clear: what has driven that down—the two main reasons are increase in taxes, and the second area is a change in attitudinal behaviour towards smoking. It's just not cool. We are absolutely committed to following that line of thinking through actions to get us to smokefree 2025. My colleague down here pointed that we are on track to achieve smokefree 2025 aspirations. I just don't believe that this, the actions that we're repealing, would have actually substantially reduced smoking rates even further, so I commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: I call on Ingrid Leary. Ingrid Leary: Sorry, Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: We're done. Ingrid Leary: Thank you. SPEAKER: No, sorry. We've actually used up all the speaking slots. Sorry about that. Ingrid Leary: Sorry? SPEAKER: What's that? [Interruption] Oh, sorry— Ingrid Leary: I believe it's a first lot— SPEAKER: We're done? [Interruption] Yeah, we are done. Ingrid Leary: I would have been happy to take a call, but thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: I know that you're always happy to take a call, and many of us are quite happy to listen. But that concludes the first reading. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I moveA, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a second time. We have seen a lot of emotion and heartfelt passion in the House today, and it is to be applauded and acknowledged. This is a truly important issue. Firstly, I want to comment that, unfortunately, even today it is clear that there is a lack of understanding on what is being done and the approach that is being taken. Even today, there is commentary about increasing access. It is clear that this is incorrect and it is not what we are proposing. The black market will hit Māori—I can say that as a sad reality. And that is exactly the point why we are wanting to ensure that there are the tools to enable those who are addicted to smoking to quit. And cutting off supply does not reduce demand. There has been much talk of a landmark position, and I would have to agree. The landmark is that we are all united on the outcome we hope to achieve. We want, collectively, to remove the scourge of smoking harm. I can sadly attest to nursing and watching the last breath of people who I've loved more than anything, and felt the loss in a way that draws me to anger at the harm that tobacco smoking has caused. This is why I'm so focused on bringing about legislation and regulation that is targeted where it can do the most good. I will bring a paper to Cabinet next week, and that will provide for immediate actions and longer-term strategies to achieve our collective objective. We will continue to clearly identify what is working and looking at all options that might help those who remain addicted to smoking tobacco to quit. I think it is important at this time to refocus our thinking and provide some balance. We have heard a lot from the other side of the House about the numbers on which the modelling that drove the development of this legislation we're repealing. The statistics they relied upon were from 2019 and 2020. We have had four years of outstanding progress since that time. In the period since the data was used, 305,000 people have quit smoking. Youth smoking in that time fell from 10.3 to 3 percent. This is the position we are in now and this is the strategy we are focused on to continue to meet our smokefree targets. This is why we need to calm the noise and recognise that we are focused on addicted smokers who need help to quit. Currently, we have 284,000 daily smokers that need our help. This is not a contest of who thinks smoking is the most harmful. It is an opportunity to make a real difference and deliver on our smokefree 2025 targets. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I rise once again to oppose this bill. This bill repeals the provision of the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act, and it's worth canvassing, for the purposes of our debate, the measures that were in that Act. The Act contains three measures that are crucial to ending tobacco's hold over the health of our people. Firstly, it addresses the number of retail outlets. Tobacco, despite being the most harmful consumer product there is, that kills half the people who use it, is not regulated with respect to who can sell it, and that means that we do not even know where tobacco outlets are. That, firstly, means that there is a proliferation of outlets, particularly in poor communities, in Māori and Pacific communities, and that drives greater use amongst those communities. In particular, it drives youth smoking in those communities, and it undermines people's everyday efforts to quit. Once more, targeted enforcement activities are very hard when you don't know where the outlets are, and that's why making an approved retailer scheme would have meant that efforts to do controlled purchase operations, so as to identify where outlets were selling to people who are, say, under the legal purchase age, would have been beneficial. Secondly, the Act sought to denicotinise tobacco, and that has been studied in multiple clinical trials from around the world. It is incredibly effective at helping people to quit with the correct dose of nicotine, as the studies have shown. The correct dose, a very low dose of nicotine in those cigarettes will make sure that people do not compensate in their smoking. Many of them—a majority of them—go on to be able to quit with that. Of course, in the context of a safer alternative—not a safe alternative—like vapes, there is a way for supporting people with their addiction, too. This proposal, the denicotinisation proposal, was incredibly popular with the National Party when we debated this in 2022. In fact, Dr Reti's key concern about the bill, if I recall, during the debates, was that the denicotinisation should be brought in first. The evidence clearly points to its effectiveness. Thirdly, the Act does something that you would think all people in this House could agree on, which is to create a smoke-free generation to mean that people born after 2009 would never be able to legally purchase cigarettes. It's not prohibition, as some have suggested; there is still nicotine available in the form of vapes. Secondly, it is not a criminalisation of the people who are underage. The Act says that these this will be enforced by fines against retailers who sell to those people; it does not regulate social supply. Those measures together were deemed to be incredibly effective, and modelling presented to the Health Committee—that's separate modelling from the one that the Ministry of Health commissioned—showed that this was not only incredibly effective for reducing the costs on our health system and for saving the lives of New Zealanders; that modelling also showed this was far and away the most effective public health intervention of any intervention that the investigators could think of on the books. So on a day when the House has heard so much about wanting to promote better outcomes for Māori, this is the same day for Māori health that we are repealing an Act that could have done so much. In fact, the modelling also showed that the Act would have would have eliminated one-third of the life expectancy gap for Māori women—one-third. That is such an important difference. It is not a difference you'll be able to make by speeding up wait times in emergency departments or getting surgeries faster. You cannot make that type of difference, as the research has showed, any other way. This is such an important thing for the health of our people. I want to thank all of the researchers who put time into coming up with that evidence. Not only did they do considerable work to support the deliberations of the select committee but they also have had long careers in tobacco control, which are not the most comfortable careers to have. And there have been notable examples of academics who do this type of research and activists who support tobacco control being targeted for their views and for their work. Kia kaha to my friends who are doing this work. You know we will continue to make sure that your findings are heard in this House. I want to go back to why the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal was set, and it's worth remembering that that is a 5 percent prevalence rate across all of New Zealanders, but also recognising the inequities—5 percent for Māori and 5 percent for Pasifika. My colleague the Hon Peeni Henare has also already pointed out the work of his whanaunga Tau Henare, who was on the Māori Affairs Committee at the time that that goal was set. The Māori Affairs Committee took deliberations up and down the country in the course of setting that goal. They heard from people who had lost their relatives to tobacco. They heard, I believe, some quite confronting stories, and so that's why it was with bipartisan support that they were able to bring the goal for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. Now, the advice we had was that we would miss that goal and we would not achieve it until 2061 without doing something differently, and that is why the 2022 amendments are so important. I want to touch on some of the issues that the Minister has raised about what else, not just the—our approach to tobacco is never just a regulatory approach. There is also a very important role for quit services in New Zealand and for other supports. I agree with that. In fact, that was embedded in our smoke-free approach. We had over $20 million allocated in the recent Budget for supporting those initiatives. I'll tell you about one of them, one that is really dear to my heart. I went to visit a service called K'aute Pasifika in Hamilton, where they are promoting smoke-free, and they explained to me that the types of services that they are running are culturally specific. They're not confrontational; they don't sit you down and ask you why you haven't quit smoking yet. Instead, they create a positive environment around people where they do waka ama, they are surrounded by people of their culture, taking pride in their culture, doing physical exercise, and smoke-free messages and support are provided incidentally to that. Those sorts of initiatives are really important. Vaping has played a role in supporting quitting as well, but I am also concerned that the way in which vaping has been regulated has meant that what is intended as a quitting tool is now far too frequently available to younger people. I was pleased to attend the rally with members of Vape-Free Kids at Hastings in the weekend. We must make sure that our tobacco control initiatives are also are also making sense in terms of keeping kids away from vapes. I know that group who is present in the gallery desperately want a meeting with the Minister, and I hope that that meeting will happen soon, because the issues they raise about keeping kids off vapes are very important. This issue is one that is of profound importance to our health system, and our health system, full of its hardworking staff, has struggled in recent years coming out of the pandemic. I think one thing that really cuts to the core of so many health workers is an absolute belief that we have to get rid of the scourge of tobacco from our communities. So I know that many of them are hugely disappointed by the idea that the 2022 amendments are about to be repealed. I think it really behoves the members on the other side to listen to the perspectives of hundreds of organisations that have called out how awful this bill is, how shameful it is that such violence and harm is being done to the health of our people. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. My question for the House is: who asked for this? Because, freely and frankly, looking through the select committee submissions and the public outcry that we've seen in response to this track of agenda from this Government, and the support that we saw when this world-leading legislation came in, is that the only entities that we can identify who are asking for this legislation to go through the House today are New Zealand First, and the tobacco industry. If that doesn't give you a clue of who this legislation serves, then I do not know what does. The next question is: why is this legislation going through under urgency? Because, we've had a lot of back and forth over the last few days about the fact that this Government is ramming through an agenda under urgency, without any regard for convention or public input; the select committee process that would usually occur when legislation is before the House. The argument that we've frequently heard in response is, "well, there was an election. An election therefore means that, you know, with all of the things that we went out and said that we would do, well, we can just do that", without any regard for parliamentary scrutiny, without any regard for due process or the usual protocols of this place. That kind of leaves us with the outlying question of whether it's the case that this Government sees that simply because there's an election every three years, that we can revert to authoritarian rule outside of that. Because that does fall as a question to the feet of this Government, because what we have here is a piece of legislation that, so far as we can identify, has only been asked for by the tobacco industry and by New Zealand First. It is going through under urgency by virtue of the fact that that exists as a commitment in the New Zealand First-National coalition agreement. The next question then becomes: what does this legislation actually seek to achieve? Because I've got to be honest with you that I've heard some really Orwellian and completely contrarian contradictory statements from the Government on this. They're saying that we're reverting back to a track by which we were already seeing a decline in smoking rates. That is what existed prior to this landmark legislation. But the really simple question for them, which they have not been able to front up to, and be honest with the New Zealand public about, is that this legislation, will—must, by virtue of the evidence and the advice that they themselves have commissioned—result in a slower decline in rates of smoking in this country. What that means, by matter of fact, is that more New Zealanders will die as a result of this legislation going through the House. That is a fact. That is the evidence. That is a fact. It is irrefutable. I dare any members of the Government to stand up and say that, to say the opposite. What this bill does is slow down the reduction in smoking rates, therefore meaning that a product that kills 50 percent of its consumers will continue to do so while there are slower rates of people coming off smoking. We've also heard in question time, just today, that there was some apparent concern for the black market, and for, you know, diaries. I just wanted to put in, actually, in the public record—once again, because, you know, facts do actually kind of matter when we're debating legislation, not the least when they're doing this under the guise of urgency, within less than 24 hours. There has been a lot reported on, and a lot, kind of, undertaken by our investigative journalists in this country [holds up a print out of Radio New Zealand's article "The 'corner dairy campaign' quietly backed by big tobacco", dated 7 August 2023], to get to the heart of the fact that the campaigns and the petitions that have been fronted by ostensible dairy owners have been backed by Big Tobacco, which takes us back to the core point that the only people, the only entities and organisations, asking for this legislation to go through, let alone under urgency— Tim Costley: You just held up a picture of dairy owners. What about dairy owners? CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —without due public process or scrutiny, is the tobacco industry, which will kill half of its consumers, Mr Government Member, and New Zealand First. So, we come back to this point around the black market. I was saying, off hand, just as I was leaving the chamber before, to another member of Parliament that, evil and cruelty in a Government agenda does kind of frustrate me, but more so than that, the most fundamentally frustrating thing is inconsistency, because we've heard this Government consistently say that they're concerned about the black market that's going to be generated by virtue of greater regulation in the tobacco space. Tim Costley: Are you consistent? CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I dare members of the Government to show any logical consistency whatsoever— Tim Costley: Smoking marijuana is fine; smoking tobacco is not! CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I am really glad that a member of the Government bought up cannabis, because if we want to talk about cannabis and we want to talk about sensible regulations to cannabis, you are saying that criminal prohibition of tobacco results in further issues with regards to people consuming tobacco. What we're saying, when we're talking about regulation of substances, with the Greens being the only party consistent on this, is, if you'll listen to me, that at both ends of the extremes, my friend, criminal prohibition of substances results in extremes of harm. A completely legal free market results in extremes of harm. The reason for that is that whether you have commercial entities or criminal organisations who are responsible for the supply chain of these substances, you have the maximization of harm. That is because profit is the core motive. So, my friend, if you will listen to me and engage in a meaningful debate about evidence-based policy on substances and drug harm reduction in this country, then get up and actually make a meaningful contribution. The point is that we have to take away from those extremes and get into a space of sensible regulation. That means that we do not have criminal prohibition and we do not hand over controls to an unregulated free market. So what the legislation did—which the Government passed through before there was this change of Government and now this unpicking, shredding, of all of the actions that were undertaken in the last six years—is that it would have reduced the number of retailers in this country who were selling tobacco, that would have resulted in less tobacco being sold, and less tobacco being consumed. We have it here in black and white, actually, from an Official Information Act (OIA) request, through Treasury and a number of other Government officials who were asked to reflect on what the impact this might have for revenue forecasts for the Government. We have it on record, as tabled today, that half a billion dollars in extra revenue will be added to the Government coffers as a result of this change. Once again, that gives us irrefutable evidence that there will be an increase in consumption of tobacco, and as a result, more New Zealanders will die. That leaves us with the final question of "why"; why the Government is doing this outside of the fact that New Zealand First and the tobacco industry have asked for it. Why the Government is doing it under urgency without any due process or public scrutiny as is the typical convention in this place; why they're riding rushed all over that, again, that question lines at the feet of the Government. The, kind of, quite dark insinuation that you can draw from all of this is that this Government also is pursuing an agenda of austerity and of tax cuts. They are cutting public services—they themselves declared that in black and white—and they are pursing tax cuts, which we know, again, based on their own public statements, will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest and the highest income earners in this country. It is not outside of the realm of believability, because again, it is in black and white here from Treasury and their own correspondence, that this is going to add half a billion dollars in revenue to the Government's coffers because more New Zealanders will die consuming tobacco. It's really just that black and white, and it boggles the mind that the Government is somehow trying to say that they're still really concerned about—in fact, the Minister, the Hon Casey Costello, was saying that this is not a contest of who cares the most. Well, Minister, I would say to you that this is a contest of putting your money where your mouth is. This is a contest of actually following through with evidence-based policy. So far, all I have heard is quite Orwellian statements akin to "war is peace". We are being asked to believe one thing, one piece of rhetoric, when the evidence just says completely the opposite. We are not even able to have a meaningful parliamentary process with select committee, with experts coming in and telling us how this is actually meaningfully going to function. If that doesn't frustrate Parliamentarians, new MPs, particularly of the Government side, who came to this chamber; I heard their maiden speeches over the last few months saying that they really care about this country, they really want to do this thing properly, they really want to reach across the isle and do things for the future outside of the three-year cycle. Guys, I hope you're waking up and realizing that you're the bad guys. This is what happens when you railroad across democracy. You actually really not only frustrate those who would like to come forward and put their opinions forth, and showcase what the evidence and data says, but you also make the country a worse place. I just got to say in summation that it's a dark day. It's really, really gutting. It's really, really, gutting, that in the blink of an eye, in the blink of an eye, we are going to undo some of the most evidence-based measures that any Government has taken on reducing substance harm in this country. Just finally, I wanted to point out what the former Minister the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall was speaking to, with regard to how the framework that this Government is repealing is not criminal prohibition. The Greens fought really damn hard to make sure that the Government put in place, just prior to the election was criminal prohibition. It was sensible regulation. We do not commend this bill to the House. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to start by sharing some of my experience with smoking personally. It's not about a family member, it's about me. You know, I was a young builder on a building site smoking rollies without filters for years. It's not a good look. Why did I quit, right? I didn't quit because it was made impossible for me to buy. I quit because one day I realised that every tax that I was paying on that cigarette was going to the Government. And as a young, ideologically consistent person, I couldn't quite do that. I didn't want to be ripped off, so I stopped buying cigarettes. I threw a packet out the window and no longer smoked anymore. It took me a long time to lose the cravings, so I understand how hard it is to actually quit cigarettes. And I was only smoking for a few years, right? It's actually difficult. People who have smoked for decades can only imagine how much that tears at you. I have family with addiction, not cigarettes, but I can see how hard it is to quit and how reliant you can become. So the idea that prohibition of nicotine, which is essentially what this is, was going to have any good result; the fact that it was a gradual lowering of the nicotine in cigarettes to the point where it basically was driving people into the arms of the worst to get their fix. And yet the last Government decided that banning outright was the thing that was actually going to solve this, not push it into the black market, as we've heard about. Addiction, as member Hamish Campbell said, is not rational. People with addictions go to irrational places to feed that addiction. Chlöe Swarbrick: Decriminalise drug users then. CAMERON LUXTON: Well, I mean, if you guys had done a better job in 2020, we might be able to liberalise it a bit more. Hon Julie Anne Genter: We weren't in Government in 2020. CAMERON LUXTON: Well, you campaigned on it. So point is— Hon Julie Anne Genter: We weren't in Government. CAMERON LUXTON: You guys had it—there was, look, let's not get derailed into a cannabis— Chlöe Swarbrick: You're derailing it! CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, sure. Fair enough. Fair enough. I'll get back on topic. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's the speaker's choice, you can either get into the debate or you can carry on with your— CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, sure. Thank you, Madam Speaker. But last week in this House, Greg O'Connor gave a speech in which he referenced the book Chasing the Scream, and it talks about how prohibition, when poorly thought out, leads to bad results. There's evidence accumulating over the Tasman, over our own borders, and in container ships coming in in my home city with black market tobacco on board. A small and illegal market versus, as we currently have, a large legal market will invert. We will have a large illegal market putting profits in the pockets of gangs, and that is the last thing that we need to have in this country. Thank you. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, there's a lot of passionate debate around this. I want to acknowledge my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick for her contribution—very passionate evidence-based contribution, and I continue to enjoy your efforts here. Chlöe Swarbrick: Give us some passion! SAM UFFINDELL: I can bring my own passion, and the reality is that the National Party supports this bill. Look, we want to be clear on our intent that we want to continue reducing smoking rates in New Zealand. We want to stop young people from smoking and taking up vaping. We're just taking a different regulatory approach. I remember when we were having this discussion last year and—he was the Opposition health spokesperson at the time—Dr Shane Reti put through a few Supplementary Order Papers around vaping, which would have made a tangible difference to the significant uptake in youth vaping we're seeing in New Zealand. The Government at that time did not support them and I was very upset to see that, but we can revisit that in time. Look, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) says New Zealand's progress is unprecedented and we are on track to hit the smokefree target. We will provide people with the practical tools to stop smoking and vaping, and better protection for young people to stop them accessing vaping products. But, you know, this is a much better approach to the prohibition-style approach that the Opposition has put forward and planned by the previous Government. We're going to be a lot less punitive than they were. We're going to provide them with more choice to help them quit, and we are supporting a package of initiatives to ensure we reach the smokefree goal 2025. I support this bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a spilt call. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe. Thank you e te Pīka. So I rise for the second reading and continue our approach on disagreeing and standing in opposition to what's been proposed. I do want to make reference to the Minister and reflections on—often we're here and we agree on the same goals, just not the same way to get there. And we all agree that a healthy, smoke-free country is something that we all aspire to. So, on reflection, I have absolutely no doubt of the new Ministers and some of their intentions to assume their role and make their mark, and obviously make their mark in the hundred-day timeline that they've got as well. But—I guess the "but" has to be—on the basis that in this particular case, and the ones before, actually, there is not the support of the experts—there is not the support of the experts—of those communities most affected. And I cannot say that enough. I think it's really important that we as politicians remember that as much as we can do—all that we do in this House—it's the experts out on the ground that have to live with this and live with the decisions that this place makes. The second thing with my "but" is it's really reconciling the Minister's absolute intent to make a difference—is that the decision coming out of this Government is aligned with the amending and the intention of the tax cuts. So it's really hard—and actually there's a third "but". The third "but" is that this is done through urgency. So those experts, and those that know a heck of a lot better than you and I in this House—I beg your pardon, e te Speaker—are not given the opportunity to share what it is that, in their expertise, they know we're going to have to contend with as a country beyond the three years of Governments—the three-year terms, six; whatever. So it's really hard not to remain cynical about this Government's intent. I understand the appeal for us to be quiet and to be calm. And yet there were 47,000 signatures on the petition that we received that asked us to be extremely loud and extremely vocal and make sure the views of those who had opposing views were heard and seen. And this continuously is the theme because we are a Government, and have a Government, that did not get supported by 83 percent of Māori. So we have to make sure that the Government feels and hears and sees them. It doesn't matter that you may have relationships. It doesn't matter that you may have had a side conversation. The reality is the stats are the stats; the facts are the facts. And while you have a mandate, you do not have a Māori mandate. So it's really important—our place in here is to make sure that the opposing views to your views are heard. You cannot debate with 47,000 signatures. If we are going to use these positions of influence to ignore that, then what else are we going to ignore going down the track? So we are here, by right, to make sure that we speak for those that haven't voted for you, that we speak for those communities you don't reach into, and that we make sure that they are seen and heard. So they urged—they urged—that we don't support this bill and that we stay focused on the Smokefree 2025 vision that's been in place since 20—2006, beg your pardon. Today, I heard a member on my left saying Māori should take personal responsibility—damn right. Damn right we should. Every time we try to—it's called "tino rangatiratanga"—you take it away. Every time. Every time we go to self-determine—through the Speaker—you take it away. You take our ability to look ourselves, you take our ability to speak to ourselves, you take our ability to be well. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member please refrain from using the word "you". Thank you. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: The Government—the Government. Thank you. The Government—particularly this Government. So this assertion that there is no such thing as "personal responsibility" is actually, simply, an ignorant point of view of how we work as Māori. That's my whakaaro. So, I think, it's really rich—it's really rich—that we continue to see a Government that promotes and says, "Māori, get up off your backside and go and look after yourselves."—that's my summary of what "personal responsibility" is. But every time we go to do it, we have a Government to my left, who has absolutely no reach in that community, saying that you should repeal, that they will disestablish, and they will council every move we make. I hope that those petitions and those signatures get seen and heard in this place. Kia ora rā. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Madam Speaker, members of this House, we have a whakataukī in Te Ao Māori: He aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? [What is the greatest thing in the world?] Sang a song about it too earlier. Engari māku e mea atu ki a koutou, he pūtea, he pūtea, he pūtea. [By I will say to you, it is money, it is money, it is money.] What is the greatest thing in the world? As we've heard today—and, in particular, around smokefree and the cuts that are going to come—it's pūtea, it's a dollar, because the tax cuts that are to come need to be funded from somewhere, and it's this Government's proposal that it's going to come from the pockets of those addicted to nicotine. Five-thousand people die annually from smoking-related illnesses. And I've been on the front line in my history, working as a quit coach. I can tell you about the ABCs, offer you some brief advice, and access some cessation support. I know the work of the sector has been strong and long, and smokefree 2025 was a reality for us all. And I acknowledge Auntie Catherine Manning and the team that have been in the House today monitoring the debate, hearing the kōrero, and, in fact, the passion and commitment that we have to continue to push for a smokefree generation. Increasing access to tobacco products and retailers in our communities only leads to further harm. I spoke earlier about Kawakawa having nine retailers in the community. We don't need any more—we don't need any more. And the Health Coalition Aotearoa, they released an analysis around, actually, if we maintained the trajectory of Smokefree 2025 and implemented it as planned, we could save $1.3 billion in health spend. We would not need to fill up our hospitals with those who are impacted by ill health caused by nicotine. We heard on the campaign trail the National Party talk about better health outcomes and a relentless focus on results. Yet, I can't find anywhere in the National Party's campaign where they said they were going to repeal smokefree legislation—something that's world-leading, that the entire sector looks to us for leadership—can't find it. Maybe I've missed it. It might be somewhere. Or maybe it's just been a kaupapa of New Zealand First bringing it into the House as a part of their coalition agreement. I am disappointed, as a kaimahi of the sector, having worked with Māori health providers in DHB, and also as a portfolio manager at the Ministry of Health, knowing the gains made to date. Will resource be put into smoking cessation services, community awareness, and pushing for further community action? The inception of Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 was based on evidence. You've heard that from this side of the House. Because, ultimately, this repeal will see te Iwi Māori as casualties. It will impact us the most. We have the highest smoking rates. The goal was never about maintaining addiction e tātou mā, it was about eliminating the harm within our communities, because our communities are the ones who are dying from these products. And yet, we have a Government now and this legislation wants to remove the approvals of the Director-General of Health to sell tobacco products, remove the limits on the number of retailers so that there can be more than nine in Kawakawa, remove the Director-General of Health's approval of products to be manufactured and produced and sold in New Zealand, and remove the requirement of tobacco products to meet the low nicotine limit of 0.8. I worry about the retention of the sale age of 18. My baby, my pōtiki born in 2009, we need to see a smokefree generation now, not tomorrow, and not in the future. May we make the commitment to better health outcomes for all New Zealanders based on real evidence, not on political lobbying. Kia ora tātou. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak in the second reading of this bill. I want to thank the members who have shared their personal stories of overcoming addiction, because it is a great challenge here in New Zealand. But I am glad that over the last number of years we've seen a steady decrease in the number of smokers, down from 16.4 percent in 2012 to 6.8 percent last year, and those rates have been continuing to fall before even this last amendment comes into effect. In the last three years, 219,000 people have stopped smoking with vaping playing a key role. Importantly, close to 80,000 of those who stopped smoking were Māori. If these trends continue, New Zealand will hit the smoke-free goal of less than 5 percent of the population smoking daily by 2025. We already have a smoke-free generation. Smoking rates for young people have dropped hugely. The 2023 Action on Smoking and Health survey of year 10 students shows youth smoking rates of 1.1 percent. These numbers should be encouraged. We would suggest that people stop smoking, but we don't think the previous amendment legislation will do it. That's why we support this bill. Thank you very much. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not sure where to start, to be honest. It is a sad day, it's a dark day, it's been a terrible day for this Parliament, and it's been a terrible day for New Zealand. Why I'm not so sure where to start is because I just listened to the previous contribution and I expected something a little bit more passionate from a cancer researcher. I remember sitting by Hamish Campbell, the member who has just resumed his seat, at the Christchurch Cancer Foundation pre-election, where not one single mention of repealing this legislation was made. In fact, when I look back, I remember him feeling a bit sheepish, and I remember the good people of the Christchurch Cancer Foundation being very specific and being very exercised about what might happen if this lot took Government—and hasn't that just come to fruition, because National didn't campaign on this. They didn't campaign on it because it wasn't a priority for them at the time. It wasn't a priority for them at the time, because it wasn't until afterwards, when New Zealand First and ACT got in on the act, that they realised that they now had to fund those tax cuts somehow. So all things were now on the table, weren't they? When I think about the legislation that's being repealed, I remember my time as the chair of the Health Committee, listening to the submissions and all of the experts who lent their time, who gave us their expertise, who were very passionate about not only their lived experience but their life experience as experts in this area. If we recall, as our contributions have come before us have done so, about the three legs to this piece of legislation that's now being repealed: reducing the outlets, reducing the nicotine in cigarettes, and actually creating a smoke-free generation. It's like a three-legged stool: each of those components was part of taking the next step forward. It is true that smoking rates have reduced—fantastic. That's happened over time, but now comes the gnarly bit where we have to get to the tough-to-reach people. Now comes the bit where we don't just say to ourselves "We're dealing with the people who are over 18 and under 100 today.", because people age into this cohort. Every year, those young people are growing up and they're growing into the cohort that we are talking about. It's not going to end unless we do something more, and this was a really, really good piece of legislation that's now being repealed. It was regarded as being world-leading. How did we go from literally talking about end game for the tobacco industry in New Zealand, to now talking about "Wow! What an influence the tobacco lobbyists in New Zealand have." We've caved into them. We're protecting people who, by virtue of selling smokes—as long as you take it as directed—will kill half of the people whom they're selling to, and all the time just to fund tax cuts. It's just incomprehensible to me. I don't see many people on that side of the House who can actually look straight and go, "We knew that this was going to happen." You didn't know this was what you were going to do. You didn't know this was what you were going to have to sit there and defend, but that's what you do. I think about all the people who made submissions to the Health Committee, and, in particular, some of the experts who have spent their life, whether it be in behavioural science, whether it be in economics, whether it be in health research—people with various expertise, different modalities, and different methods of getting to the knub of the facts, and they all were so excited. Almost all of them had to get up in the middle of the night to submit to the Health Committee because they were in the Northern Hemisphere, and they couldn't wait to do so because they were so pleased that New Zealand was making this move. We had media from all over the world talking about what good legislation this was going to be, and we know that officials and people within New Zealand, within the ministry, within advisers—many, many people who brought a whole expanse of their expertise and their evidence to pass, and it just seems like such a shame. When we talk about the smoke-free generation in particular, it was said by Dr Humphrey, who was the then chair of the New Zealand Medical Association organisation, that the best way to become smoke-free in Aotearoa was to prevent our tamariki taking up smoking in the first place. That just seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? It makes me think about the Minister now being faced with an opportunity to make some compromises. I just can't get it through my head why those compromises wouldn't be undertaken. Look, I understand you've got to save some money to make tax cuts work. But why can't some compromises be made? There were compromises offered to the Minister to introduce a purchase age of 25, which was not ideal, but it still would have saved some lives and it still would have saved some money; there were compromises being offered to the Minister to introduce a nicotine limit of 1.3 milligrams per gram, which was a little bit more than the 0.8 that we were aiming for, but an awful lot less than the 15 that exists at the moment; and there were compromises offered to the Minister to consider maybe even a higher cap of 600 outlets, maybe a few more, maybe a sinking-lid policy. There were plenty of things on the table, but they were all turned down because, by hell or high water, this was going to go through. When situations arise to that effect, you've got to wonder—as other contributors have said today—who's actually running this show. For whose benefit is this repeal? This is just the tobacco lobbies and this is just for tax cuts, and you know it. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just take a moment here. We looked up a Speakers' ruling earlier, and I just want to make it very clear for the House, because we'll have a committee of the whole House stage coming up soon, but under Speakers' rulings 55/5 and 56/1, a member can say that the Government has been influenced or was given advice from outside. That's fine, but I just want to let people know, before anyone steps over the line, that it's not in order to say that the Government has been dictated to or subject to outside domination or has received instructions or directions. Just so members know where we stand on that one at this point in time. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not suggesting that the member has gone over that line. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Point taken—point taken. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm happy to move on. I'm absolutely happy to move on. One of the other things that we've heard in the contributions that have been made to date is this bogeyman of the illicit tobacco trade. Again, this is something that came up in select committee. I remember the New Zealand Institute talking about "Black markets, black markets". So afterwards, we asked researchers "Give us everything you know about that. We need to be informed." They came back and said, "Not so much so." There wasn't any hard evidence to justify those lines. Then, when you look at it and you look at the academic study, just a quick Google search five minutes ago shows the British Medical Journal in 2019 did a comprehensive study looking at all of the different research that's been done—that which was commissioned by the tobacco industry versus that which wasn't—and it just showed up that tobacco industry data on the illicit trade of tobacco is not reliable, the methodologies aren't good, there are lots of different ways in which it's not robust, and that is the conclusion. So if that's what you're basing your arguments on the black market and the illicit trade, it's a white elephant, and it's not good enough. We've also heard about the cost-benefit analyses and all of the other things that made sense with the previous legislation that's now being repealed. We heard that the New Zealand health system stood to save $5.25 billion in health spending with these repeals in place, not to mention the $6 billion in increased productivity over the lifetime of the New Zealanders who were alive in 2020, and that's not to be overlooked. What we've also heard is that whilst the Minister has said, "We're still committed to reducing smoking. Everybody's committed to reducing smoking.", no one has come up with a plan, and, if this was something that they were hellbent on doing, if this was something that they've got their mandate from, why haven't they done the policy work? Why do we have to sit here today and have this repealed without any idea of what's yet to come? It's because the policy work hasn't been done, because it's an afterthought. We also know that despite all those well-meaning wishes of how the Minister would like to see smoking continue to be reduced and how it's only just a matter of continuing on with the status quo, even though that trajectory hasn't been played out in real life, we know that the reduction in those rates won't be achieved until 2061. How many people die in between that year—2061—and when we would have achieved that? Look, honestly, National and the Government have death on their hands. I just think it's a shameful, shameful day when after we have just sat through a day and a half of listening to the vacuous arguments about repealing the Māori Health Authority, we're now doing exactly the same thing for a piece of legislation that collectively we all should have been proud of, but because someone's got to get $2.50 a week for tax cuts, we have to see it repealed. I think it's a very dark day indeed. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I would like to acknowledge all the healthcare workers, community leaders, and volunteers for their contribution to the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal. Under the current legislation, we—together—have successfully driven the smoking rate down over the last decade. Daily smoking is down from 16.4 percent in 2012, to 6.8 percent in 2023. The number of year 10 students who smoke has dropped from 11 percent in 2009, to 3 percent in 2022. However, this is not good enough. More work needs to be done, especially in the Māori and Pacific communities. This Government is committed to the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal. Our new approach will be focusing on those who need—and we'll accelerate progress towards our 2025 smoke-free goal. I support this bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, thank you. Look, I do feel for some members opposite because I think they're being forced to get up and take a call and talk about something that, in their heart of hearts, they know is absolutely the wrong thing to do. What I would say to them is that there is still an opportunity for them to do the right thing and to cast their votes in favour of the future generations of this country, something that is still always open through to them to the last moment. This is an absolutely outrageous opportunity for this Parliament to effectively repeal amendments that were put in place; that there was no doubt about the fact that they were going to make a real difference. They were changes that were based on evidence. It seems something that this current Government is actually not willing to take a look at; is actually not willing to make sure that evidence is something that they are basing decisions on. I know that, for example, the Health Committee that looked at these particular amendments at the time did consider things like a sinking lid, but in the end decided not to head down that particular path, instead limiting the number of licensed premises. I also know in terms of denicotinisation, that was something that was discussed; there was evidence around that and landed where the current law sits. What's really compelling, I think, is the opportunity for a smoke-free generation to come from all of this. That is a fantastic opportunity that this Government seem happy to just squander away. And we know why: because this is something that was not campaigned on. This is a Government that is very eager and keen to remind everyone that they won a general election. Well, I tell members of this House that they did not win a general election going to the polls based on this particular policy. Recent movements—recent examples—indicate that that has come as a huge surprise by members of the community; that they have effectively been blindsided by this. To have this piece of legislation rushed through this House in urgency is an absolute shambles. This is effectively a report card on a Minister who is deficient in her ability to actually deliver change that is meaningful for our community up and down Aotearoa New Zealand. I had the privilege of chairing the Health Committee when this piece of legislation progressed through the Parliament, and I recall that there were members who came from all around the country. I recall Tau Henare, I recall Hone Harawira, who encouraged the select committee to go far and wide to hear from the very communities of interest for whom this piece of legislation that is currently enforced would make a huge difference—and we did that. I recall going to South Auckland, and not a single member of the National Party members of that committee bothered to turn up to that select committee hearing. Not a single member bothered to listen to the evidence, the experiences, the personal tragedies, the personal stories, the opportunities that this piece of legislation would provide for them and their whānaus now and into the future. That is an absolute indictment on the way in which some members on the opposite side of the House seem to take the views of communities of interest for whom this will make a huge difference. Earlier this afternoon, my colleague Dr Verrall talked about visiting Manukura in Palmerston North. I can attest to the fact that those young folk who are there—who are largely from members of our Māori cohort—were absolutely dumbfounded that this was something that this Government wishes to progress; that this is a Government that effectively is prepared to sign the death warrant for future generations by this particular piece of legislation. This is something that, actually, also members of Manukura talked about, "Why is this not actually something that members can vote along matters of conscience?" "Why are members bound by party politics when it comes to protecting the health and wellbeing of future generations?" Hon Member: Kids are smart. TANGI UTIKERE: And that is that—kids are smart, particularly in Palmerston North. I know that that was something in particular that they felt should be available to the Parliament. But we all know, don't we, that if this was a matter of conscience, we know that the Government would not have the numbers to pass this legislation. Because deep down in the hearts of members of this Government— Hon Damien O'Connor: Must be a few. TANGI UTIKERE: —they know that—and some of them do have a heart, Mr O'Connor, I'm sure. Hon Damien O'Connor: A conscience. TANGI UTIKERE: A conscience is another matter. But they know that this is the wrong move; this is the wrong route to take. Well, I say to members opposite that this is not going to be an easy run through the House—this piece of legislation—because members of our community all around Aotearoa New Zealand who submitted to the select committee and who didn't expect us to hold members opposite to account. And we intend to do that because this is a crap piece of law. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): A member across just asked "Why haven't they done the policy work?", and can I just remind the House and those viewing today of a couple of key pieces of legislation: the 2011 Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Act and the 2016 Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Act, all under a previous National Government. And there was also a plan to more than halve the smoking rates and haven't we achieved that so well. As Dr Campbell said, we are on track to reach Smokefree 2025, we're 5 percent or less smoke. And so we are on track to achieving those goals of 10, 12 years ago, and so I commend this bill to the House. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Three weeks ago today, I said farewell to my elderly mother. She passed away and we had her funeral. My mother was 87, and she is someone I would describe as a born-again non-smoker. So, when I grew up, my mother smoked—she smoked a bit. She smoked quite a bit, actually. And then, I remember when I was about seven years old that mum had a really bad asthma attack. And I remember her pointing to a number—it was 111 on a piece of paper—and indicating to me that I needed to call that if she was going to pass out. That was the last time that my mother—who had cut back to two cigarettes a day—ever touched a cigarette. And after that, she became an ardent non-smoker. I mihi to her today, and I am so proud of her for making that choice, because my mother lived to 87 years old, and she got to meet my three children, the last of whom is 10 years old. That would not have happened if my mother had kept smoking. She got to spend holidays with them, I got that joy of seeing the relationship between my mother and my children—it's something I am so grateful for. But my best friend did not have the same experience. Her mother also smoked at the same time my mother did. My best friend Beth and I, I remember we would go on car trips. In those days, the tobacco companies were really pumping out a lot of misinformation about the harm from tobacco, including passive smoking. And I would feel physically sick at the end of the drive for two hours as she chain-smoked in the car. When my eldest son turned one year old, my best friend Beth's mother passed away from lung cancer. She never got to see any of her grandchildren. My best friend has missed out on that whole journey with her mother, and so have her grandchildren. This is the reality of what we are talking about in this House today. This is a product that kills half the people that use it. I find it appalling that members of the Government stand and read off notes, that they have not acquainted themselves with the arguments of this incredibly serious matter before us today. I take the point that my colleague Tangi Utikere said—it is not too late. This is your nuclear-free moment. This is the moment. Through you, Madam Speaker, I address members of the Government to say, "You can cross the floor." It happened in 1984 when Marilyn Waring was nearly stopped from speaking on a nuclear bill; she threatened to cross the floor, and it resulted in a snap election. That is how seriously she took her duty to her constituents. It happened in 2004 with Dame Tariana Turia and the foreshore and seabed legislation. Well, guess what? It's 2024—let's have another 20-year cross of the floor. Let's see the Government members find their conscience and do what is right for them, for their constituents, and for their communities. That is the justification for crossing the floor. Because Tangi Utikere is absolutely right, this should really be a matter of conscience. Alcohol and drugs are matters of conscience. For some quirk of history, or perhaps it is the misinformation peddled by the tobacco industry, this has not been included in the conscience voting. And I guarantee you, if it was, they would not have the numbers there today. It is absolutely incredible that the Government, who has not campaigned on this, is taking this incredibly serious matter and using the numbers, providing MPs with notes—MPs who have not engaged with select committee, who have not engaged with the hui around the country—to just read off notes, to do one or two - minute speeches and rush this through urgency. The experts are saying that this is wrong. The experts—9,000 doctors. Not just my colleagues. And I have to tautoko to Dr Ayesha Verrall here, who did incredible work leading the smokefree legislation—world-leading work. That has not been acknowledged. And she was continuing a journey that was from Governments of all stripes. So it is disingenuous for the previous speaker, Cameron Brewer, to say that it was their Government. This has been an ongoing trend where Governments of all stripes have taken the responsibility seriously. This is the first time there's a break in that. The experts wrote to the Prime Minister. They asked for this to be repealed. And they said, "If it cannot be repealed, at least put it to a select committee so we can hear from communities whose whānau will die as a result of this."—the 8,000 whose lives would have been saved by this legislation. But no, that hasn't happened. What about the $5.5 billion to the health system? That is not only cost savings for those who would have not smoked, but we know the strain on the system. What about all the other people lining up for other health-related issues who will not get their operations, who will not get their interventions, who will not get their scans because it is being taken up by a new generation of smokers? The amendment before us has been described as weak, deceptive, and embarrassing by Health Coalition Aotearoa. They have collected more than 50,000 signatures, and yet this Government persists in the face of all that opposition. Why? I'll tell you why, because they seem to hate Māori—they seem to hate Māori. On Radio New Zealand 10 minutes ago, there is a story by Guyon Espiner which says that the Minister was told that putting this bill through would be seen as a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi—she was told that. She was told that the health gains for Māori would be five times that of the general population. That might have done something to bring the smoking rates down from 17.5 percent to the 5 percent that this Minister purports to want to achieve. Well, I don't know how she's going to do that unless she can come up with something radical in this ghost paper that we have not seen yet going to Cabinet. This is an affront, on the day that this Government has dismantled the Māori Health Authority. In a week where this Government has said that cultural reports will no longer be available to those who cannot pay for them in our judicial system, which is going to put more Māori into prisons. That is the advice that the actual justice Minister Paul Goldsmith gave to Cabinet—it is on the record. He said, "This will put more Māori in prison." But, no, they're going to do it anyway. The thing that offends me the most is the sneaky, insidious way that this is being done. Where is the health Minister? Why has this number one public health issue that has so much impact been delegated to an Associate Minister of Health? Where is he? Why is the Associate Minister rejecting any compromise at all, carte blanche? We heard from Dr Tracey McLellan that perhaps there could be changes around the nicotine levels that were a compromise, or the age of sale, or perhaps, at least—at least—get the outlets away from our schools. But no, carte blanche. What does that mean? Why does the Minister seem to have lines that echo very clearly with those of the tobacco lobby? I will quote from the Public Health Communication Centre: "Tobacco companies have an overwhelming commercial interest in opposing effective tobacco control policies … They have made misleading or false assertions, lobbied and influenced decision-makers, manipulated research "evidence", undermined independent researchers, and developed alliances by creating or cultivating front-groups to promote their goals." That is an evidenced report, which is more than I have seen from this Government. Their data is shonky. There's been the question that Dr Ayesha Verrall has raised time and time again in the House about the inexplicable hand-written note about an excise tax change for tobacco companies. We have not heard adequate answers to that. There have been Official Information Act requests on vaping from leading New Zealand media. The Minister has failed to answer any one of them. She has said that she will answer when she puts this bill in the House. I take that as an indication that this Minister is going to stand up at the committee of the whole House stage—given that there is no select committee and that this is in urgency—to answer the very, very, very many questions that we have. Because, as other people have said, this Government did not campaign on this. They cannot say they have a mandate within their 100 days. It was not transparent, they are doing this under urgency, they have not got the consultation and the voice of community that has been demanded by experts, by communities, by petitioners. So, Madam Speaker, through you, I urge members of the Government—it is not too late—do the right thing. Do the right thing by the constituents that no doubt are lobbying you and walk across the floor and cast your vote according to your conscience. I guarantee, if that happened, we would have a historic nuclear-free moment, and this Parliament would have done its job. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Madam Speaker, I'm not going to stand here and listen to members opposite parading around on their moral high horses as if they're the Midas of anti-smoking. I'm not going to be lectured to by those who drove our health system into the ground, to hear the leader of the Opposition who clearly cares so much about this that we haven't seen him in the house ever since he spoke. The arrogance of those who would say that their bill, their measures in 2022, were all that was going to work to deal with smoking in New Zealand when none of them are in effect. They haven't banned smoking; the ban was going to trickle in slowly over the next 80 to 90 years. Well frankly, I say a ban in 90 years is not a ban at all. The only measures that have worked for anti-smoking in this country are those measures that this bill leaves in place. They have halved smoking in New Zealand in the last 10 years, and they will get us through the next 10 as well. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. In Committee Part 1 Amendments to principal Act CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. Members, we now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 24, "Amendments to principal Act". The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I want to ask a set of questions around section 3A, "Purposes of this Act", in clause 5. I want to ask the Minister a series of questions about changes to the purpose of the Act and I want to understand why she has taken the approach she has. I want to understand better the direction she is seeking to chart in terms of tobacco control and the outcome she has said she is pursuing in terms of reducing the number of smokers. I want to first ask why the purpose has changed, and in particular why the following provisions are removed from the purpose section of the Act. Why is it that the purpose statement that read "to prevent the harmful effect of other people's smoking on the health of others, and especially on young people and children;" is now removed from the purpose of Act? Second-hand smoke is a serious health issue. People can die from second-hand smoking. Tragically, babies die from second-hand smoking through sudden, unexpected death in infancy (SUDI). Second-hand smoke affects young people in their homes, in their cars—which has been regulated against—and we also regulate smoking at schools. If I am to understand the Minister correctly, she has stated she does not intend to change other elements of tobacco control away from what she said was working in the past. Yet we see in the purpose clause of this bill a removal of the idea that we should be preventing tobacco control impacting others when it does so as second-hand smoke. So I want to understand from the Minister why she is making this change. Secondly, I want to understand why there is a change in the language with respect to marketing. As far as I have known up until this point—and we're working under urgency, so we don't get the bill long in advance—I didn't understand that the Minister intended to bring changes around the laws for tobacco marketing. Yet in section 3A(e) we see that she has changed the language. It now reads "(e) to regulate and control the marketing,". In 2022 the amendment Act said, "to restrict" marketing. And, indeed, that is the point. We don't allow tobacco marketing in public places. We also have plain packaging—a change proudly brought in by a National Government, as we heard during the second reading. So why has this language changed? Is there actually an intention to change how the marketing of tobacco or vaping products occurs in New Zealand? I think these are very important questions that have not been surfaced by our debate so far. And I do hope that we'll be able to get answers for those because, of course, as we've heard, we have not been able to have a select committee on this bill. So we must get as clear answers as we can at this stage. The third area of changes in this purpose statement occur in multiple places in section 3A(e). We see that the emphasis is on "(e)(i) discouraging people, especially children and young people, from taking up smoking; and (ii) discouraging non-smokers, especially children and young people, from taking up vaping or using smokeless tobacco products; and (iii) encouraging people to stop smoking, vaping, or otherwise using regulated products; and (iv) discouraging people who have stopped smoking, vaping, or otherwise using regulated products from resuming smoking, vaping, or using regulated products;" and so on. The language in the previous Act said "preventing". That is much stronger language, and so when we hear about the Minister's other plans, which we're told will be the subject of a future Cabinet paper—and we recognise that we do have to wait to hear what these initiatives will be, uncomfortable though that is—it does seem that there are rather large policy changes afoot here. So I'd like to understand that from the Minister. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity—which is very welcome—to ask some incredibly important questions of the Associate Minister of Health Casey Costello, and just to remind this committee that this is an urgency process and we've had a Minister who has not been very forthcoming to the fourth estate, the media, or I might say we are not satisfied with the answers given in question time. So it's really important that we get some good faith responses to the questions that we're about to ask, particularly in relation to the legislative process. So, if I look at the section under the general policy statement and departmental disclosure statement and refer—I went to look on the House to try and get a handle on the robustness of the process that has been gone through in order to inform this bill. I'd really like to hear answers from the Minister, because, when I look at the legislative disclosures, there are questions in here, which the Government are required to answer, around "publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that are informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect"—the answer is no. The same applies to regulatory impact statements. A regulatory impact statement was not prepared for the bill, as this was part of the Government's 100-day plan. This is something that doesn't sit easy, clearly, with many members, and so we'd like to understand the checks and balances of that, given that this was not campaigned on. So where exactly does the mandate come from, that the Government is saying that it has? To say that it's just from the general election is not satisfactory when there are no checks and balances and where there has not been transparency of the policy that is being implemented. "Extent of impact analysis available"—no. Any analysis, like cost-benefit analysis—no—or "potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?" No. And that's a really interesting point that I would like to understand, because all the evidence would show that those who are affected by smoking-related illness, many of them will suffer a huge loss of income or wealth that would be avoidable should they not have taken up smoking. The purpose of the original Act, the one that is being repealed, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022, is to stop people taking up smoking in the first place. When we look at testing of legislative content, the Treaty of Waitangi—we have a bit of a blurb about the urgent Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, and yet we have the timing of this bill being introduced prior to the outcome of that. So that's another question that I would really like to hear from the Minister. We also have external consultation. And this one really gets me, because the following agencies were consulted—there's a yes on that one, and then there's a whole list of Government agencies, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Customs Service; Police; Oranga Tamariki.—that is what is purporting to be "external consultation". Well, I would ask the Minister: what is her definition of "external consultation", given that we have 9,000 doctors who were begging for this repeal not to happen and who wrote to the Prime Minister? Does her definition include Te Hā—Waitaha smokefree support; Oranga Hā—Tai Poutini: Stop Smoking West Coast; Quitline New Zealand; Quit Strong, Te Whatu Ora; Smokefree; National Public Health Service; Action for Smokefree 2025; the fono students' groups? What about Te Hā Aukati Kaipaipa Stop Smoking Services? What about the iwi groups? Are they external? Do they fit into the Minister's definition? What about hapū groups? What about individuals? What about the chap that came up to me on a street corner in Taieri and absolutely begged me to get smoke-free laws that were workable and that would stop the next generation from smoking? Because he had been addicted all his life and he had spent vast amounts of money both on cigarettes and trying to quit and just couldn't. So these questions for the Minister speak to the type of process. We really do need answers, because, when I look at all the sections that say, "No, there is no paperwork.", and then the two parts that say, "yes"—one of them says "yes" to external consultation. I'm really struggling with the idea that going to Government agencies is considered external consultation. So I'd really like to know what the Minister's definition of "external" is, and whether those other groups that I have referred to fit the definition. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Madam Chair, thank you for the ability to talk in this committee of the whole stage. As other speakers have addressed, this is the first and only time that we will have to meaningfully chew through the substance and the content of this legislation. So I would really like to have a meaningful, genuine, and authentic engagement with the Minister on the substance of this legislation, given that this is the only meaningful ability that we will have as the House to scrutinise this in lieu of having a select committee stage. So I guess, to that effect, I intend here to start a little bit broader, in drilling down into the purpose and the drivers behind this legislation, and then also to address some of the really important points about why this is occurring under urgency. Then we'll get to some specifics. But I would really appreciate it if the Minister would meaningfully engage with these points, because they're not just matters of political rhetoric. They are indeed questions that I believe the public deserves to have meaningful answers to, and, if I might add, it feels as though—as other speakers have alluded to—there is a sense of obfuscation and not a whole lot of clarity that the public and definitely members of Parliament have on why it is that we're doing what we're doing today, under urgency, no less. So my first question for the Minister is a really clear one, and it is: where has this come from? I understand the technical point that this is contained within the New Zealand First and National coalition agreements, but what was the driving force behind that? I understand that at question times we've had a bit of a back and forth about the potential engagement of industry or otherwise. But, as I said in my second reading speech, the only entities or organisations that we can meaningfully identify in the public realm who were opposed to the Government in the last term passing this legislation were the likes of New Zealand First—the only party, I might add, of Government to propose that this legislation should be repealed—and the tobacco industry. Notably, the tobacco industry was backing a campaign that was fronted by those dairy owners. So my first question for the Minister is a really salient and important one and goes the heart of this bill: where did this come from, who asked for it, and who was asking New Zealand First to take this into Government and to put it on the 100-day plan? The next question flows quite logically from that, and that is: why is this going through under urgency? Why is it necessary, because we've had other pieces of legislation introduced in the first 100 days, but they're going through select committee processes. This bill doesn't, from what I can ascertain, need to go through this urgency process where we're going to pass it in the blink of an eye, and—as I've said before—therefore, this provides us right here and now with the only opportunity to have that meaningful input with the Minister and, through the Minister, with her officials. All of us here, I think, on the Opposition benches really would have benefited from a meaningful opportunity to engage with officials on the intention, the evidence, and the purpose behind this legislation at that select committee stage. But in lieu of that, this is all we've got. So the second question for the Minister is: why is this occurring under urgency? Just to unpack that a little bit more, we have heard from the Minister in many question times and also in her first and second reading speech that this is very much part and parcel of the Government's broader process and agenda here. They're taking pieces of legislation that the former Government passed, they're shredding them, and they tell us, "Well, wait and see." In a few months' time, there'll be a Cabinet paper containing God knows what and we might end up with some form of replacement, but we have no meaningful ability to scrutinise what that replacement might actually be, so we revert to the status quo in the meantime. So why is it necessary for this to go through under urgency? As previous speakers have alluded to, in the departmental disclosure statement, we have here at paragraph 2.5 a point from departmental officials saying that there has not been any analysis on potential costs and benefit, yet we have it—to be read contemporaneously with Official Information Act requests from Treasury and officials advising the Government—that there is going to be an approximate $500 million increase in revenue. So why is it that the Minister is not allowing these changes to bed in and then—I don't know—to potentially review their efficacy, as would typically be the case? Actually, I'd point the Minister to one of the clauses that we got in the bill which is presently being repealed, which required the Ministry of Health to review the efficacy of the legislation, which is something that I managed to get in through the Health Committee process, because these were novel, world-first measures. So my two questions to the Minister—and I'm really appealing to her here to engage with members of Parliament on this—are: where has this come from and what was it that meant that New Zealand First picked this up and ran with it and had it so fundamentally important to them that it was not only in the coalition agreement with National for a foundation pillar of this Government but was included in the 100-day plan? More so than that, why is it that every stage of this is going through under urgency—what is she afraid of? Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak during the committee of the whole House on this particular bill. A number of my colleagues have already canvassed, or, at least, with a light touch, something that I wish to delve into with respect to my particular contribution. That is clause 7, which repeals section 3AB(a) to (c) of the principal Act. Wow; where do I start? On the other side of the House, over the past 24 hours, we've heard that there is going to be this great big empowerment of iwi-Māori partnership boards so that they can have a determination over the health outcomes and aspirations of their local regions, their rohe, their papa kāinga—all of those places. Yet in this one fell swoop—and I'll get to the question very shortly for the Minister—that opportunity to be able to contribute to those health aspirations and the goals that your community might have is being stripped instantly. But not only is it being stripped, my challenge to the Minister is that it's being stripped from a particular group of people with this, and that is Māori. It is the iwi-Māori partnership boards where, for the past 24 hours, I've heard from that side of the House are going to be this great big saviour of Māori health, because this Government is empowering them to do that. Yet in this particular bill, it's being taken away instantly, without explanation. That's the question I have to the Minister: does the Minister realise that this particular move is contradictory to the bill that has just been passed in this House, ushered in by her colleague, Minister Reti? Does the Minister realise that? And without the proper consultation—and my colleagues have already canvassed that particular challenge to the Minister—it's being taken away under urgency here in the House, without the ability for the community to speak to this. Well, in the absence of that community voice, all of the people on this side had the same question: when did the Minister meet with that particular community—in this case the Māori community, in this case any of the iwi-Māori partnership boards—to discuss this particular matter, to advise them that their rights, their ability to speak up, their ability to discuss with the Director-General of Health, where tobacco can be sold within the region, etc? My question to the Minister is: did she meet with iwi-Māori partnership boards (IMPB)? I'm not going to buy one of the arguments that I've heard in the past 24 hours that they're yet to be established—that's simply not true. Under my time as the Minister, we established 11 of them, and there were a couple more still in the pipeline. So my challenge to the Minister is: has she met with an IMPB? We're going to go a step further here and ask if she has met directly with the iwi to discuss the matters with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Hon Simeon Brown: Which clause? Hon PEENI HENARE: Now, Mr Simeon Brown might chirp away on that side of the House in arrogant bliss of what's taking place here, but the fact of the matter is that in his electorate, Ngāi Tai, or the iwi there, I'm pretty sure they haven't spoken to Minister Costello about this particular bill, and that's the point that I want to make. Not only is it stripping the voices of those Māori and the Māori leadership on these matters, it does something far more fundamental than that. What it does is it actually continues, despite the words of the Prime Minister, saying that they won't support a Treaty principles bill by the ACT Party past the second reading, but the National Party are going to do it by subterfuge anyway. Andy Foster: What's this got to do with smoking? Hon PEENI HENARE: The Treaty of Waitangi, my friend; have a read. It's clause 7. It's repealing Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the bill, and if that member wants to get up and take a call, I encourage him to, because at the moment from that side of the House it's silence. It's nothing. It's an embarrassment—in fact, it's her own colleague. So the member might want to get up and help her, might want to get up and assist her to push through what we regard as a terrible bill in the House. So just to recap, in the last 50 seconds, I want to know whether or not the Minister has met with any IMPBs—iwi-Māori partnership boards. Her Government has already applauded IMPBs, that they're going to be the answer to Māori health aspirations. So I want to hear it: has the Minister met with an IMPB? Stretch that further into iwi: when the Minister went and met with the iwi chairs up in Waitangi, did the Minister raise this matter with the iwi chairs not three weeks ago, and if she did, what did they say? What was their reply? Simple questions to the Minister, and we want to hear answers to enable us to interrogate this bill properly, otherwise it's going to seem like more cover-up, and that's not what we want on something so important to our community. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I'll just respond to the first questions that were received around why second-hand smoking is changed and the change in the language with regard to the amendment bill replacing the overarching purpose clause of the Act. The clauses have been drafted to remove the purposes that reflected the previous Government policies regarding retail reduction, low nicotine, and smoke-free. That is the reason why that language has changed. I will note that the matter for urgency arises from both New Zealand First and ACT's coalition agreement with National which placed this into the 100-day plan, which is why the urgency is required. Finally, in terms of the amendments around the Treaty clause, this was required to be changed as a result of—the section that existed was to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi relating specifically to the retail reduction scheme, but we have retained the requirement for the Minister for Regulation relating to requirements for smoked tobacco products to consider the risks and benefits for Māori of regulating a constituent. So we have retained the requirement to consult, and we will continue to do so. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I want to thank the Minister for making an attempt to engage in some of those questions, but with complete and full respect—because I genuinely would like to meaningfully dig into this—I don't quite feel as though we got a very clear answer. What we had there was an outlining of the reason that this is being introduced to the House—is because it's in our coalition agreements between New Zealand First and the National Party—and this is, in philosophy, known as a tautology. Where we are hearing that something is occurring because it's in the plan, because it's in the plan, because it's in the plan, because it's in the plan. So I really want to lift the lid on that, and if the Minister can actually meaningfully address that question and explain to us why—why is it in the plan? Not "It's in the plan, because it's in the plan." Why is it in the plan? Because, as I said in my second reading speech, the only identifiable organisations that we can see that are supportive of this—aside from now, obviously, the coalition Government. But, you know, when we had this going through the House supported by experts as world-leading and incredibly important as far as evidence-based policy goes, the only opposition that we heard was from the tobacco industry—granted, with the astroturf sometimes of those involved in the dairy sector—but also from the likes of New Zealand First. So where is it that New Zealand First got this idea from, if not from—and, again, this is not me imputing anything; the only other identifiable organisation that was in support of repealing this legislation being the tobacco industry. Where has this come from, if not from the tobacco industry? Because that's where logic takes us. So where has this come from? That answer is still not being addressed. You cannot simply refer, in a cyclical manner, to the Government's coalition agreements. The second question also was not addressed. We heard that the reason that this is being introduced under urgency and being passed through all stages under urgency is because it's in the coalition agreement and the Government's hundred-day plans. Once again, we're back in the cyclical logic, and I really, really put it to the Minister: why is it not the case— Hon Simeon Brown: Brought in election. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that we could have had the opportunity for a select committee process, Mr Simeon Brown? Because if we had a select committee process, we could have heard from the experts. We could have chewed through the evidence that members of the Government are saying that they care about yet are unwilling to look at in the face. Hon Simeon Brown: It's our resident expert. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Because the evidence tells us, Mr Simeon Brown, based on the only advice that we've been able to get hold of—which had to be "Official Information Act'd" because the Government wasn't particularly forthright about that—is that this will increase, or rather result in a reduction in the in the amount of people who are smoking. So we are ending up with, instead of being on the track for a reduced number of people as a result of the plan that this Government is now repealing, more people are going to be smoking than otherwise would. So perhaps that's the third question for the Minister. Is it the case that, as a result of repealing this legislation today, under urgency, that more people are going to smoke than otherwise would? Because that is the logical and evidential consequence that we come to looking at all of the advice that the Minister has had in front of her. Because I come back to that key point again. Two key questions for the Minister here. Where did this come from and why has it been put in the coalition agreement? Who is behind it? What is the driving force? And secondly: what's the Government scared of? As far as a select committee process and due procedure and Parliament goes for that scrutiny and those experts and community leaders to come forward and to tell us what matters to them and whether things will meaningfully work? Because, again, I take the Minister to the section within the legislation which she is repealing, which requires there to be a review of the efficacy of the regulations, which is something that I pushed for at the Health Committee and got across the line at the Health Committee when we were putting these regulations through in the first place—was that evidence-based review. So, if I may, I just really want to labour this point because we haven't got answers to it and this is the only opportunity that we've got to have this scrutiny. So I really, really implore the Minister to answer these questions. Firstly: where has this come from? Why did New Zealand First pick this up as a hobby horse that got included in the coalition agreement? Secondly: why could we not have a select committee stage? Why could we not unpack this issue in greater detail—which actually could have potentially provided all the more information, data, evidence, and community input for whatever regulatory regime is going to replace this? Thirdly: are more people going to be smoking as a result of the repeal of this legislation? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo the concerns of my colleague, Chlöe Swarbrick, in the fact that this legislation is going through under urgency before coming to some specific questions. The New Zealand people are done a disservice by this bill being passed under urgency. We understand that sometimes urgency is needed, but certainly not in the passage of this bill where it is only seeking to deprive us of the opportunity to hear from those who might have a contrary view to the Government. One of the challenges is, without the opportunity to go into this in depth at select committee, really this is all we get in terms of hearing about what is intended by the bill. I asked the Minister earlier a series of questions about the purpose and I don't believe she has adequately answered them because what her amendment bill is changing is effectively repealing the 2022 amendment. And yet there are changes to the purpose statement that alter the interpretation of other parts of the original Act from 1990. That includes the marketing—because the statement about marketing has changed—and it includes the statement about smokefree environments because of the change in language and the weakened language around second-hand smoke. This question has not been answered, because that is hugely important. We take at face value the Minister's comments about wanting to keep the regime that was in place and was making such good progress. But how can we take those statements as true if the purpose of the bill, of all the other things, which—like marketing and environments—are being changed? This is very, very confusing and I believe she needs to set the record straight on whether this is a narrow repeal of what was done in 2022 or if a much wider change to New Zealand smokefree legislation is actually what is intended here. I want to go to the matter of the illicit market. Those of us who are in the Health Committee have been discussing the issues of illicit markets when it comes to pseudoephedrine, and no doubt these issues will be coming up when we talk about firearms reform in this House as well. What I want to know from the Minister is: what advice did she receive about the size of the illicit market in New Zealand? Because New Zealand has particular characteristics. The excise tax increases in New Zealand that have been successful at bringing down smoking rates means that we have some of the highest priced cigarettes in the world, and therefore you'd think we would have the biggest illicit market in the world. I have heard multiple claims during this debate about the illicit market, about how the 2022 amendment would support the gangs. I want to know what reasons does the Minister have for believing that they are true and what advice did she receive about the illicit market? I'm also interested to know about how she assesses our efforts to reduce the illicit market done through the hard-working people in New Zealand's customs service, and if she has any views on whether or not their initiatives, funded through Budget 2022, to reduce the import of tobacco—about the effectiveness of those initiatives. So to summarise, before I resume my seat, I believe there are still outstanding questions relating to the purpose of this bill when it comes to marketing and smokefree environments. And secondly, I have questions about the advice the Minister has received on illicit markets. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate the West Coast loyalty. I'm going to table an amendment to Part 1—it's to clause 5—and the purpose is, actually, to follow through on what is a philosophical approach from this coalition Government, and that's freedom of choice. But I'll step back a little bit and give you and some of my colleagues a little a history lesson, because in clause 5, 3A(i) refers to "the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, done at Geneva on 21 May 2003." I was there. I was the Associate Minister of Health and I was advised by one Ashley Bloomfield. So we were in Geneva at that time working with the World Health Organisation (WHO) to make progress on the very challenge that we're talking about in the House today. I'm proud of the progress that we had made, and I have to acknowledge in this House Dr Rob Beaglehole who had worked at the WHO for quite some time, who was a passionate advocate—and indeed still is today, along with his son—on reducing the harm from tobacco use across the globe and I have to say that a lot of their good work followed through into what we passed in 2003. So it is mentioned here: the obligations to give effect to that framework. But my amendment goes one step further and adds on a subclause—subclause (j)—to say, "to support personal choice by removing the addictive component of smoked tobacco products." We have, as I say, a Government that's all for freedom of choice and we, on numerous occasions, through legislation including this bit here, are trying to—and the Government claims it's trying to—reduce the use of tobacco. The uptake—I'm not sure I buy into their views on the uptake because, actually, more outlets, it's been shown, we know that more outlets promote more uptake and utilisation. Then the issue of addiction is the one that we grapple with across our society and indeed across the globe. So you can smoke, and indeed people have smoked through the centuries, in fact, different weeds and different products. But what we have in modern products, of course, is nicotine, which is in lower concentrations in many natural products but has been concentrated up to drive addiction. Indeed, it's said that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. That is, that people who use it find it harder to break away from that than they do from heroin. That's a fact. And if the Government is indeed based on evidence and facts and they say they want to reduce the rate of smoking in this country because smoking kills—that's a fact. If this Government does have a conscience, if the Government does indeed want to reduce rates of smoking, then it will accept my amendment, which adds on to or builds on the 2003 conventions from the World Health Organization which says we want to reduce harm from tobacco smoking. And if we want to go into this further, we would then take away the addictive component of tobacco. You can do that now. You couldn't probably do that a couple of hundred years ago when people were chewing or smoking tobacco with smaller amounts of nicotine. You can do that now. So I call on the Government, I call on coalition parties in the Government, to honour the statements that they are making in this House to reduce rates of smoking and to take my amendment and to just add on "to support personal choice". Well, we hear a lot about that—personal choice. Whether you own a gun, whether you want to smoke or whether you want to drink. It comes flooding at us from the coalition Government time and time again. Well, give people personal choice, free them from addiction, and let them smoke if they want to. But the minute you have nicotine—which is more addictive than heroin—in tobacco that is sold to people across this country, then you have a problem. So let's try and reduce the issues here—of addiction. So I call on the Government to support my amendment in this piece of legislation, and I ask the Minister to respond. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I would first just respond to the question that's already been answered about why we're in a state of urgency. Hon Rachel Brooking: Not answered very well! Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I can accept that the question might not be acceptable, but the fact is it is in the 100-day plan, and we are working through to meet those obligations. And I would create clarity around the fact that this was in both ACT and New Zealand First's coalition—so it has come from two parties in the three coalition Government and that's why we are moving it through. I think the final question, "Is it the case more people will smoke?", I would refer to the purpose of the legislation which is in the clause summary as to what our objectives are and the purpose of this legislation. I'm not sure where it fits within Part 1, but in terms of the illicit market, "What advice have we received?", the member has clarified the position around the investment that was made in driving down the illicit tobacco market, which was the $10 million introduced in 2022. The advice I've received around the illicit market is from Customs, and it continues to be a concern and that money is continuing to be invested. But I'd note that this illicit market existed at a time when none of these measures that we're talking about were in place, and, therefore, it would be hard to quantify what the illicit market would look like once these measures that we were now repealing would have been implemented. And finally, just in terms of the final comment from the member, "We know more outlets create greater uptake", I would suggest that that is contrary to our evidence we're sitting with at the moment given that we have seen a massive reduction with the same amount of outlets that we've got currently. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm acknowledging that I'm going to ask a series of questions that would have been canvassed at the select committee stage. I want to start by first of all asking if a child impact assessment was done on this bill, particularly because we know that there is concern around the harm tobacco can cause in children, and particularly if people start smoking at a younger age, those harms can compound. So I'm interested to know whether a child impact assessment report was done as part of the process of this bill, and, if not, I'm really interested to understand why that wasn't the case, because that is a tool that exists to further assess the impacts of policy on children. It is a tool that the Greens, at least, encourage legislators to use when it comes to the production of bills. So if the Associate Minister didn't think that that wasn't worth doing, I'm keen to get a sense as to why. The other one is in relationship to looking at the departmental disclosure statement, the list of agencies that were consulted. It's pretty expensive, but I'm really keen to get a sense of the feedback and actually would invite the Minister to potentially table some of those papers in relationship to the external consultation. But I'm interested particularly in what feedback was given from the Ministry of Social Development in terms of the impacts greater harm that could come from tobacco use would mean for people who are already on low incomes. I'm interested to get a sense of feedback around the Ministry of Education. So what feedback was given in that external consultation in relationship to potential changes of tobacco use in schools. Also, I've noted that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities was consulted, and that ministry can provide a really important second opinion on a range of policy issues. I'm keen to get a sense of if there was feedback given around how the policy could impact different ethnic groups, because we know that substance use can manifest in different ways in different communities and therefore the interventions for harm minimisation could look quite different, depending on the different groups. Equally, I did note that Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People was consulted and keen again to get that intersectional lens around what feedback was given in terms of the impact on disabled people. The reason why I'm asking for those agencies in particular is that we know that the harm of tobacco, again, compounds when it comes to communities who are already living week to week. The health impacts of tobacco mean that people who already have the least may struggle to access the health services that they need to address some of that harm, and so that's why I'm focusing on those agencies. But if the Minister would like to illustrate more broadly or to table documents around the feedback that was given by those agencies, that would help inform the debate—right?—because if the feedback from those agencies was encouraging and positive as to what she wants to do, then I think the public deserves to know that. If they were concerned from those agencies, actually we would invite a more robust debate, because that doesn't even have anything to do with the use of urgency, which we oppose. But I think we deserve and the public deserves to get a good robust understanding of the feedback that was given as part of that external consultation, because we know it happened, even with the use of urgency, and so we are keen to get analysis as to, not just the feedback, but I guess the extent of the process to which that feedback happened. Again, I think this is something that we would have been able to canvass within a select committee process, but otherwise I think it's pretty fair to ask whether a child impact assessment was done and the feedback that was given as part of that consultation. Thank you. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister some follow-up questions on the statement that she made about the number of outlets that are in an area and the proposal to scrap Part 1B. I have an amendment which relates to this on the table where I am suggesting that that doesn't happen, because my understanding is that those outlets that are there and the number of them is actually a temptation, is causing an issue, and that the Minister needs to work on an evidence basis on this. What I've heard from her today is she simply doesn't consider that is an issue because this hasn't happened yet, so how would we tell? Now, my understanding is that there will be psychological expertise around the nature of this kind of availability. I remember that when we passed a law many years ago now in New Zealand to stop people having the availability of tobacco and smoking in our restaurants and our cafes, there was a lot of scepticism, and then we saw the effect of that not only in those places but on our culture. We saw a dramatic difference in our culture from here and in somewhere like Paris, and, quite frankly, less people died. I changed my attitude to smoking at that point and I saw a harm I hadn't seen before. So when we have 6,000 outlets which are unregulated, selling these products, they are very likely having an effect on our psychology at the very least—and the psychology of our children who are walking past those outlets all the time, because we had normalised that behaviour. So I wanted to know whether the Minister had sought advice, or would seek advice, over the impact of the number and availability of those outlets and would consider—while she waits for that advice—not changing the law here, because this itself could be an experiment. This could be a chance to see what happens when you reduce the number of outlets. Now, one of the things that Part 1B does very effectively—and I've heard the former Minister who brought in this legislation talk about her rationale at a public meeting in my electorate recently—is it regulates who has that product to sell for the first time. Now, I am concerned about the availability to children in those places where people are selling. We know very little about how many people and who are selling these things, and there is no regulation of who is selling those products, so how could we possibly expect that everybody is complying with the requirements of the law in this regard. So this Part 1B is actually all about regulating that industry. It has things like a fine if you apply and you are misleading and deceiving. It's a whole thoughtful, mindful process about who is selling, as well as a reduction in the numbers of those who are selling. I would like the Minister to tell me how she can be so confident that those people are not breaking the rules and whether she has asked anybody about that, because I have an area in my electorate, which is Point Chevallier, and it has several schools in it. It has issues. There is alcohol, there is vaping, and people are really concerned. These are genuine concerns of genuine communities. We already have major concerns about vaping, and now what we seem to be doing is regulating vaping a little bit more with regard to those things—maybe too tentatively—but we are not regulating cigarettes in the same way. So I'm also concerned, Minister, whether you have considered or have you had any advice about what the effect might be on strengthening your regulation around vaping while actually liberalising the access to selling and the access to cigarettes in your community, because that, it seems, is what we're doing. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that smile as well. I want to traverse—hopefully I'll get to three points in this contribution; three questions that I'll get to: one about urgency, one about the purpose and the changes to the purpose from various different versions of the principal Act, and one about a tabled amendment in my name. Firstly, on the urgency, I know the Minister says that she has answered this question a number of times and it is because of an election and a 100-day plan. But that is not good enough. Because what we are doing here is we're not just using urgency to have a bill introduced and then go to first reading and then maybe even a quick select committee process. No, no, no. What we are having here is a bill that we only saw yesterday and that we are now debating in all-stages urgency. An all-stages urgency is very different from using a bit of urgency here and there to progress a bill at pace. Obviously within 100 days, there is a lot of sitting days in that 100 days and there would have been ample opportunity for the Government to be true to all their policy decisions—which, of course, I think are terrible but I'm commenting here on the process. Their terrible policy decisions around environment, around labour laws, around health could all have been introduced, had a first reading, gone off to select committees, and come back for this second reading and committee stage and not be using this all-stages urgency process. This is just the worst law-making process that is possible really anywhere in the world. Hon Member: No, you took that prize. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: So I would like the Minister to make all stages—and now the members on the other side—"Oh, you did it." I note, again, that the use of urgency is different from the use of all-stages urgency. There's an important difference there because there is no time for scrutiny. Now I'm going to move on to one of these issues about scrutiny, and this is to do, in clause 5, it says that section 3A is replaced. Section 3A is the purpose of the Act or the purposes of the Act. We've heard the Minister say that what we're doing in this piece of legislation is going back to exactly what was in place before the last Government's amendments in 2022. But, in fact, there are some differences. If you look at 3A, the purposes in clause 5, the new purposes of this Act compared with a version before those 2022 amendments, there are some changes. Maybe they are small, but I don't know why they are there. So, for instance, the numbering is different, and at (c) and (d) there's the new (c)—I think from my looking at it—"to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people; and to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people;" and so it goes. Then the rest is the same, but then there is a difference in wording at (g), which is "to regulate the safety of regulated products;". Previously it was to regulate the safety of vaping products and smokeless tobacco products. I don't know the reason for that change—the Minister could comment on that. At (h), there is "to monitor and regulate the presence of the constituents of regulated products and their emissions;". So the word "harmful" was there after the "presence". So it did read "the presence of harmful constituents of regulated products in their emissions". There may be a great policy reason for this change, but I don't know it and this is the only time we get to scrutinise this bill. That takes quite a little bit of time, going back and forward between different versions of the of the bills and of the Act quickly. But I would like to spend more time on those changes of the purposes—is that I just note the additions of "to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people;" and "to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people;". These are both similar to what the wording was in the 2022 change, but is different from the primary legislation before that 2022 change. Related to that is my tabled amendment and that asks—Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Rachel Brooking. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Chair. So going to my tabled amendment, which—noting that these parts of the purpose relate to children and young people, and I think that seems to be a good policy decision; I'm sure nobody in the House would question it. So what this amendment does is to introduce, after clause 9, a new clause 9A and insert a new section 20OA into the legislation. That part of the legislation—if I; sorry, I've got too many pieces of paper and computer here—is around the regulation of tobacco. So what this is, is to add in 20OA proximity of tobacco retailers to schools, and that is that the Director-General must ensure, when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer, that any premises is not within one kilometre of a school. Obviously, the intention of that amendment is to support what we have in the purposes of the Act as amended by this bill and, as in fact, the purposes of the Act and the amendments from 2022, but not, as I said before, in the original piece of legislation pre its 2022 amendments. So I'm very interested if the Minister can tell us about why she's kept in those two—(c) and (d) in the bill—clauses around children in the purpose, and hopefully we will all be in agreement about why she's doing that. But then also comment on why it would be useful to have my tabled amendment—there's probably some other similar tabled amendments as well—about actually giving effect to that purpose, which is to reduce the appeal of regulated products to children and young people and to minimise harm from regulated products, in particular to children and young people. Obviously, if you can not have premises near a school, that is a good way of achieving that purpose. Thank you. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I think it's important just to reiterate here that the legislation we're discussing is not undoing anything that's currently in place. So we are looking to change the bill, but none of these measures are actually implemented as of yet, so I think we need to work forward from that position. So that that refers to the driving down demand, I think, question that was raised. I think that that's why we keep going back to the statistics: we have driven down demand significantly with what's in place and our young smokers have been a significant reduction—down to just 19,000 young smokers now—so we will continue to work on those aspects that are working. I think I'll just respond to the clarifying about exactly the purpose being exactly the same as previously. I think, just to clarify, the previous purpose statement reflected the previous Government's policies regarding the regulation of smoked tobacco. This included a purpose that was intended to reflect the equity focus of those policies. Because these policies have been removed from the Act, the purpose statement was revised to reflect the substance of what remains in the Act. For this reason, the new purpose statement largely reflects the purpose statement that was in the Act before the previous amendments. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some focus questions and I'm wanting to examine, with Associate Minister of Health Costello, clause 5, amending the purpose of the Act, noting that there's a removal of the purpose to reduce disparities in smoking rates and illness between the New Zealand population and the Māori population. And it really perplexes me, as a Māori who is heavily impacted by smoking, why we remove a piece of the legislation that actually provides focus—it provides focus for our policy makers and then for those who will procure services to meet these new legislative guidelines. So I want to unpack that a little bit, and a query with the Minister: did she consider the 2011 Māori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry and the impacts of tobacco on Māori? Did she consider that, in preparing this legislation? And did she have any other evidence or reports, in terms of Māori health impact, that informed what the Minister has put forward to the House tonight? Further, wanting to dig into Te Tiriti compliance, were there any Te Tiriti audits conducted on this repeal, or have you had any advice, whether it's from Crown officials or legal advisers, in terms of whether this repeal is Te Tirit compliant? And then who prepared that advice for you? So really keen to understand the "who". In progressing some of what my colleague Peeni Henare has shared in the House, I'm interested to understand any consultation that the Minister has undertaken with te Iwi Māori on the repeal of this legislation, of our smoke-free environments legislation. In particular, just considering, you know, the diverse expertise that exist within the Māori health sector and Māori organisations, on top of te Iwi Māori, was there any advice taken or received? Sometimes you may not have taken the advice, but it was received by your office. Can you share with the committee any concerns that you may have received from Māori health experts, advocates, or others through your office? In closing, thinking about, you know, iwi Māori engagement, as members of te Iwi o Ngātiwai, Minister, I noted on Facebook today that te Poari o Ngātiwai, our Iwi Trust Board, made a post to remind Minister of Health, Dr Shane Reti, that on 14 December a letter was furnished to the Minister outlining concerns around the smoke-free environments repeal to come. There's been no response received. But I believe another invitation is being extended to both Minister Reti and Minister Costello to attend a hui-ā-iwi with the people of Ngātiwai to discuss your plans and how your intend to protect Māori health outcomes and improve those outcomes for te Iwi o Ngātiwai and Māori people in general. I look forward to your responses, kia ora. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I want to take this opportunity, as the first time being able to kōrero about such a sad day for Māori, for Te Āo Māori, today—knowing that we are in urgency and it's the only opportunity that we get to have and ask questions to Associate Minister of Health Costello and to the Government. I want to let the Minister know that our people are weeping today. That we haven't had the opportunity to kōrero, to wānanga, to share time, to be able to reflect on the impact that these amendments to these bills will have on our people. And our people want to ensure that their voices are being heard. And here, those of us in Te Pāti Māori and Te Pāti Kākāriki and in Labour are those voices for our people. So it's only right that we get the opportunity to have a kōrero about the bill in its entirety. I want to provide some background. I was part of the—it was called MEEG, the Māori Expert Advisory Group that actually wrote the alternative paper for the establishment of the Māori Health Authority, which was then named Te Aka Whai Ora. I want to mihi to the experts that were on that panel—in particular, Sharon Shea, who was the chair who fought hard to ensure that we did establish the Māori Health Authority and Te Aka Whai Ora. Today, I mihi to the panel and to that rōpū that fought hard for that. Why are we talking about that? Because it's all interrelated. The falling of Te Aka Whai Ora, the amendments to this bill—it's all impacting on Māori. I also want to share that when I was the CEO for Te Kaha o te Rangatahi in Manurewa, we held a smoke-free contract. So I managed a smoke-free team. We fought very, very hard to ensure that we reduced outlets that were selling cigarettes, tobacco, and vapes in our community. Why? Because it was about our mokopuna. It was the best decision for our tamariki. They were walking past outlets, like, all the way that they were going to school. If you don't know Manurewa well, Manurewa has—on Great South Road, it's a strip of shops like 250 metres long. Every second shop sold cigarettes. As a Māori health provider, working alongside Hāpai te Hauora, working alongside the Cancer Society, we fought hard to ensure that those outlets reduced the selling of cigarettes—by closing down or they made they made different choices. Can I say, there was a there was a product—I don't know what you'd call it, but it was called a killer combo. Our kids were going to school every morning, stopping at the local dairy to buy a killer combo. A killer combo was a pie, a coke, and a cigarette—all for $5. And we wanted to stop that. But this bill will ensure that outlets can continue to do that. You know, in our communities, they're not just selling packets of cigarettes; they're selling single cigarettes—alongside vaping mechanisms. That is the truth and the reality of the community that we're in. Our providers, Māori health providers, work hard to reduce that. We want our mokopuna to live. We want a better generation and a better future for our whānau, for our mokopuna. So we have to stand up and continue to fight and to raise our voices. I have a question for you. Both bills that we've had for Māori over the last two days all talk about the iwi-Māori partnership boards. What we never heard in that kōrero was an urban Māori voice. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, there are 250,000 Māori, 80 percent of them do not belong to the iwi in Tāmaki-makau-rau. We are an urban population and their voice is missing. My question is: how will the Minister ensure that the urban Māori voice will be heard and will be at the decision-making table alongside iwi-Māori? My other question is how will the— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I have an amendment to be inserted after clause 9, and that is that the Director-General must ensure, when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer, that any premises is not within 1 kilometre of a marae, a kaupapa that follows on quite nicely from the previous speaker, Takutai Tarsh Kemp. I am proud to be a marae girl, born and raised, and I'm definitely more proud to say that while smoking, of course, was present, it is not what defines my memories of being raised on a marae. I also love that when you ask someone, "Got a light?", the answer is usually "No." these days, and that can be largely attributed to the fact that marae, of their own volition, made their premises smoke-free to protect their whakapapa and our mokopuna. Marae are a physical depiction of the tinana—of the person of the body—te mana, te tapu o te tangata, an argument which, sadly, I have not heard coming from that side of the House. We've not heard the value of mana tangata, the value of life. Another reason for this proposed amendment is, obviously, the common-sense one, that our tamariki, mokopuna are not exposed and do not easily have access to tobacco. As a culture, we're still recovering from so much. We're still recovering our reo, and, as such, our marae are already vulnerable. Our paepae are struggling. We're very limited with speakers who have the oratory capacity. This bill makes us even more vulnerable, not only culturally but physically. We all know the impacts of smoking on our health, and it's such a shame that in a time that we know better, we're not doing better. Speaking of our paepae, I think of all the people we have lost. This morning, I did an interview on Radio Ngati Porou, and I couldn't help but reflect back to a wahine whose daughter I went to school with, July Minnell. July Minnell was cut down in her prime and is a loss not only to Ngati Porou but to her daughter, who I had to watch go through school without her mother. July's legacy was one that certainly influenced my decision not to take up cigarette smoking, but she had to die to leave that legacy, and we know that. People over there are acknowledging it, and yet here we are today still promoting this kaupapa. How many more people have to die before we are all influenced by their legacy? Now, marae have made their decision to protect whakapapa on their land, in their buildings. The least we can do is respect that by guaranteeing that retailers will not be allowed to sell this paitini, to peddle this poison, to our tamariki, to our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi in such close proximity to an already vulnerable institution of Te Ao Māori. Therefore, I ask the question: can you guarantee that when granting a person approval to be an approved smoked tobacco retailer that any premises is not within 1 kilometre of a marae? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to take the opportunity to actually make a submission today on behalf of a local group of young anti-smoking activists who are incredibly disappointed that there is no select committee process to enable them to come and have their voices heard. This young group are known as the Hashtags, and they reside in Wainuiōmata. They have seen firsthand the harm that smoking does to their community, and they have taken action and they have been incredibly powerful and successful in their past actions. The Hashtags were the core group that had a petition and lobbied Government to ban the smoking in cars, and they were successful in that legislation being passed. But they did not stop there. They continued by making sure that there would be further restrictions placed on vaping, because they saw the harms within their community. They have been strong, staunch advocates who have repeatedly come to Parliament and submitted to our select committees, and it is a travesty that young people who are directly impacted by this legislation—these young people would have grown up in a smoke-free New Zealand. This bill stops them from growing up in a smoke-free New Zealand, and this House stops them from having their voice heard when it directly impacts upon their wellbeing and their livelihoods, and I find that despicable. I'd like to read out what their—I've got their submission; it's come in tonight, so I would like to share that with you tonight. I'd like the Associate Minister of Health to hear this, and maybe the Minister might like to answer some of the questions that the Hashtags have asked. So, "Smokefree 2025 is the National Government goal that Labour Government helped lead by listening to the voices of their communities, particularly the rangatahi led by the Hashtags. The Hashtag acronym explains their eternal health goal for whānau, which is "Holistic Action Sustainable Health Through All Generations". Under the smokefree amendment Act, this is one of the multiple Acts that ensures the health and wellbeing of our future. Our question is: how can the Government justify your actions by repealing your own goal? As stated by Pōtatau Clarke, choose the right. Wrong decisions can never be right, and right decisions can never be wrong. On behalf of the Hashtags and rangatahi, we now urgently challenge the Government to stop smoke-free legislation repeal. This Government has disempowered all the smoke-free advocacy that has taken years of hard work from hundreds of people. Aotearoa led the world in tobacco legislation and policies, which is all about saving lives and protecting our future generations. The Hashtags now plead for the Government to do what they must, do the right thing, and not replace the dollars for the health and wellbeing of our future." Thank you, Madam Chair. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just think it's worth going back again to reiterate that we are talking about Part 1 and we're talking about the range of repeals that remove the retail reduction, so the refocus on that is the target here. I would remind and reiterate that we are retaining the requirement to consider the impact on Māori in regulating a constituent, including to both users and non-users of smoked tobacco products, so we are continuing to ensure that that is addressed. I think that we are needing to kind of consider that when you talk about single cigarette sales etc., those are the unfortunate flags of the black market, which are imported as single cigarette quantities, and that's what we're hoping to ensure that we can control moving forward. We are going to be focusing on building on the great work that has been highlighted, and we will continue to do so as we move forward, as I've previously noted in the recommendations of the next steps. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. As it's my first opportunity to take this call, I appreciate the opportunity, because we don't have the benefit of the select committee process. I've been appreciating the depth of discussion and/or questioning that's come from this side of the House, and been equally frustrated by the lack of response that's come from the Minister. I would particularly like to ask the Minister, in relation to clause 12, the repeal of nicotine limits. Clause 12 repeals section 57I of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. That section limited the content of nicotine in tobacco products to 0.8 milligrams. As the member over here mentioned, we know—the evidence is clear—that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. So what we're seeing in this change is a reduction of the limits on nicotine in cigarettes, which is just beyond belief that anyone could consider doing such a thing. We know what nicotine does: it kills people. Now, this is something that I think everyone in this committee knows about. I know, when I was a young person, way, way, way, way back in the 1970s, we had candy cigarettes, which encouraged people to think about smoking. With my friends, we often used to pinch cigarettes from—well, my friend used to pinch cigarettes from his parents, because they smoked packets a day and they didn't notice them. Of course, we tried to smoke, but, fortunately, it didn't take with me. But my best friend's mother and father both smoked. Their father died of cancer. It began on his lips and went further. That was a horrible death, but what was worse was his mother, who wanted to stay at home. She was looked after by their youngest daughter—also a friend of mine—and that was a really painful experience in our village, because she was in a great deal of pain and she wouldn't take any medicine for it, and her last days were heard by people all around the village. She died a horrible death because of cancer, caused by smoking cigarettes. So we've seen what can happen—we know this stuff. This is not new to anyone. It's not new, and yet, here we are, removing any controls. So I've got a couple of questions, and I would like to come back later for some more. But I've got a couple of questions here for the Minister that I would really like an authentic and deep response to, rather than a once over, just fly past. What impact is the removal of nicotine limits expected to have on rates of quitting smoking? What other options did officials provide to her? And why did she choose this option? Has she received any data or evidence on the impacts that removing this nicotine limit will have on the addictiveness of cigarettes or the length of time people will spend smoking? I've got a very close relative who has smoked since he was a teenager. He's now in his mid-60s and he keeps on trying to give up, and he can't. Clause 12 repeals section 57I, which provides limits on nicotine for smoked tobacco products. Did she receive any specific advice or modelling about the impact of repealing this clause on the uptake of smoking? And if so, what was the nature of this advice? Now, I must say, I am an optimist. As an optimist, I frequently deal with disappointment, but I do not want the Minister to disappoint me. I would like some answers, please. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I want to thank my colleague Scott Willis for his contribution on a very important part of the 2022 amendment that is now proposed to repeal, which relates to denicotinisation of cigarettes. Denicotinisation takes out that most addictive product known to man—nicotine—out of cigarettes, so that people can take control of the effect that this product has on them, and many, many people successfully quit when cigarettes are denicotinised. The evidence presented at select committee in the hearings for the 2022 amendment on this were compelling. New Zealand is lucky to have one of the lead clinical trialists of denicotinised cigarettes at the University of Auckland, so compelling presentations were made on that. Being a man of science, one of the people who was most influenced by those presentations was the now health Minister, Dr Shane Reti, and he made a number of contributions in this House on the importance of the proposals around denicotinisation. In fact, he moved amendments that the bill should remove the retail components but focus on denicotinisation because it was so impactful. Indeed, there's widespread support from other members of the Government, including, I believe, a Christchurch GP on the National backbench, who expressed support for that proposal on social media. So I think understanding the Minister's advice on denicotinisation is particularly important. In particular, I'd like to know what conversations she's had with Dr Reti about denicotinisation, because I am aware of his comments on radio that he sees his role as not making the decisions on smokefree but supporting the Minister—his Associate Minister—with advice. So I'm very interested to know about those conversations. What did Dr Reti say to the Minister about denicotinisation? Were any avenues for preserving denicotinisation in the Act explored between the two Ministers? You'll note that there is an amendment on the Table that brings back the denicotinisation proposals into the bill. I hope all members of the House—given the previously expressed support of the now health Minister Shane Reti for this initiative—will consider it. It would be very strange indeed if a party that supported that approach immediately before the election was now voting that approach down. That would be quite shameful and show a lack of respect for their health Minister Dr Reti. So very interested to hear about what advice Dr Reti has given the Minister on these proposals, including those about denicotinisation. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I just think, to quickly, again, reiterate—and I'm sorry to harp on—but the whole purpose of this legislation is to repeal the reduced retailers and the denicotinisation and the removal of the ban on persons born after 1 January 2009, so we're revisiting these components. I would like to comment on and reinforce that we fully understand the issues of harm and, therefore, we are going to continue to work on those initiatives, as I've repeatedly said. The denicotinisation is a tool. As we've referenced previously, those tools will be looked at as quit smoking options, which is what we are going to be looking into as the next phase after this bill is replaced. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for the dinner break. We will resume again at 7 p.m. Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7 p.m.