Despite New Zealand already having a hefty tax on tobacco, which has doubled over the last half decade, the ACT Minister of Health is defending his decision to introduce a second parallel tobacco tax.

The government’s new Smoke-free Environments (Illicit Trade) Amendment Bill, whilst sensibly bringing New Zealand’s laws and regulations into line with the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, also peculiarly introduces a new tax on tobacco.

Speaking in the house for the bill’s first reading, Shadow Minister for Health imnofox told parliamentarians that “the primary concern I have about this legislation is the imposition of a new ‘Tobacco Levy’, additional to the existing and relatively high excise on tobacco and tobacco products. Introducing an additional charge that seems to serve the same purpose is most peculiar, and only complicates things for retailers. That clause should be removed.”

New Zealand’s current tobacco tax is now up to 82 cents per cigarette, almost three times what it was in 2009, and smoking rates have decreased 28% since 2008.

The Green Party does not support introducing a new tobacco tax, nor do the Greens think increasing excise on tobacco is sustainable or equitable.

When challenged in question time, the Minister of Health could not defend the new tax. When asked “why is the government unable to apportion revenue from the existing tobacco excise to lung cancer charities, rather than unnecessarily increasing complexity for retailers?” the Minister responded with a point about the increasing costs of healthcare provision. Unfortunately this does not explain why the Minister thinks we need a new parallel tax rather than simply increasing the existing tax.

“The Minister’s answer about the growing cost of healthcare expenditure highlights that the primary motivation behind sustaining and increasing tobacco tax is to increase revenue. Even if they just wanted to raise more money for lung cancer charities or whatever, there’s no rhyme or reason behind the introduction of an additional new tax that applies to the same exact products with an almost identical name for retailers to juggle. That’d be like introducing a new ‘fuel levy’ on petrol, in addition to the existing fuel excise.” says imnofox.

When asked why the Minister can’t just increase the existing excise again, instead of needlessly complicating our tax system, the Minister didn’t seem to understand.

The Minister has given no reason why this is a “better option” than increasing the existing excise, and even implied that the existing tobacco excise isn’t designed to deter consumers from smoking. The Minister also could not understand how introducing an additional parallel tax on tobacco, in addition to the existing tobacco excise, increases administrative complexity for tobacco retailers.

“Whether we should be even trying to increase the amount of tax paid by smokers is also an important question. ACT says yes, and that we need another tax on tobacco too. I say we need to start thinking about broadening our toolbox. Already, it’s low income communities that have been slower to give up than others, and yet it hurts low income communities the most to have tobacco taxes continually increased.” says imnofox.

“Treasury advice to cabinet acknowledges that the burden of tobacco tax increases weigh the greatest on low-income groups, and that simply increasing the tobacco tax wouldn’t be enough to achieve the Smokefree 2025 target.”

“Increases to the tobacco excise or introducing new taxes on tobacco, like the National-ACT coalition supports, are one solution to reduce smoking, but they’re not the only solution. Spatial limits on smoking, Quitline, media campaigns, health advice, advertising bans, nicotine replacement, and e-cigarettes all play important roles. Continuing to highly tax those people who simply haven’t been able to quit is not a viable or fair long term solution.”

“A pack-a-day smoker has at least $130 per week less spend on heating their home, putting food on the table, and supporting their children. The reality is that the government is more interested in continuing to use smokers as a reliable revenue source than losing that $2 billion in revenue.”

“Why the government is increasing the tax by introducing another parallel tax is beyond me, and indicative of a government and a party that doesn’t know what they’re doing.”

The Greens proudly back a change of government.