Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to speak today during the second reading debate on this bill. I would like to begin my remarks by saying how proud I am, as a New Zealander, of the leadership we provided for the world on the issue of tobacco control. New Zealand was a world leader when the Smoke-free Environments Act was passed in 1990, and that legislation achieved the following. It created the beginnings of smoke-free indoor workplaces, which we now take for granted. It replaced tobacco sponsorship with smoke-free sponsorship of sports and other community events; it regulated the sale, labelling, and advertising of tobacco products; and it prohibited the sale of tobacco products to minors.

Over the past 13 years we built on the policy framework of the Smoke-free Environments Act for a comprehensive tobacco control strategy. We have increased the excise tax on tobacco to discourage young people from taking up smoking, and we have encouraged smokers to quit and stay quit. We dropped consumption by 40 percent between 1990 and 2002. We have introduced smoking cessation services, such as the toll-free Quitline, and a world-first combination of phone counselling with subsidised nicotine replacement therapy. We focused on high-risk smokers, such as Māori and pregnant women in the provision of quitting services, and we have increased our investment by over $26 million a year.

But it is not enough. We have some catching up to do to keep up with overwhelming public opinion that is calling for comprehensive protections from second-hand smoke, and we also have some catching up to do with other countries like our own that have continued to ride the international wave of putting in place more responsible tobacco control measures. That international wave has culminated in the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which has just been finalised in Geneva.

This Parliament has the opportunity to kick-start and regain that leadership role for New Zealand by voting for the legislation we are reading today. The bill has a long history. It was introduced in 1999 by Tukoroirangi Morgan, and I acknowledge the work of the previous Health Committee, chaired by Judy Keall, during the last term. Judy and that committee heard 84 of the 112 oral submissions. The Health Committee has been considering the bill since 2001, and it has received nearly 400 submissions and over 7,500 form submissions. In the process we have travelled widely to Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, and Dunedin, and listened to the views of a very broad cross-section of New Zealanders about what kind of smoke-free legislation they want.

The bill has grown and developed from the original proposal and Supplementary Order Paper proposed by the health Minister in 2001. It represents a broad and incremental development on the Smoke-free Environments Act. The primary purposes are to extend the protection for workers, volunteers, and the public in the Smoke-free Environments Act of 1990 to reduce the harm caused to individuals by their smoking, particularly against exposure to second-hand smoke. It further restricts minors’ access to smoking products and to the visual influences of smoking in front of minors, and it promotes a smoke-free lifestyle as the norm for all New Zealanders.

The bill also addresses influences on young people and the rights of smokers as consumers. It provides for smoke-free schools and early-childhood centres and other places of learning for young people, both indoor and outdoor, at all times. It further restricts minors’ access to smoking products through restrictions on vending machines and the public supply of cigarettes by friends and families. It bans co-packaging and other marketing inducements to encourage smoking by young people, and it further restricts the display of smoking products that reinforce smoking as the norm. It provides smokers with stronger and clearer information in health messages, about the impact of this addiction on their health, and the health of their loved ones. That includes pictorial warnings, and leaflets that provide greater detail about the harmful ingredients in tobacco products.

The Health Committee spent 40 hours scrutinising this bill, and we believe that a number of principles underpin legislation on tobacco control—such as addiction and the impacts on health and family, keeping tobacco legal so as not to further victimise smokers, public support for 100 percent smoke-free places, discouragement of the commencement of smoking, and also smokers’ rights.

I would like to emphasise again just how serious the threat from tobacco is. This is not simply a consumer item of pleasure; it is the single greatest preventable cause of death, disability, and health inequality in this country. It has a devastating impact on our communities; an impact that makes other health and life-threatening issues—such as road crashes—pale into insignificance; and the statistics are chilling. About a quarter of adults still smoke, and comparable numbers of teenagers are taking up the habit, ensuring another generation of unnecessary addiction and harm. Those figures double for Māori, and that leads to tobacco causing one-fifth of all deaths for Māori.

Every year in this country about 4,500 smokers die from tobacco-related diseases. That is over 10 times the number of people who are killed on our roads. Many more suffer the harmful effects of tobacco—everything from heart and lung diseases, to low fertility, and blindness. The dangers of second-hand smoke are unequivocal, particularly for vulnerable people like children, asthma sufferers, and hospitality workers who are exposed to lungfuls of it in smoky pubs, and the like.

Second-hand smoke is not just an irritant that gets into our clothes, hair, and throats; it kills 380, or so, non-smokers every year. That is about the same number of people who die on our roads. The resulting harm to people’s health, productivity, and relationships costs us an estimated $22 billion each year. This is not something that, as a country and as legislators, we can ignore. We have a responsibility to do something about this.

The select committee recommends making all indoor workplaces completely smoke-free, with some limited exceptions around areas that are in the private sphere, such as hotel rooms. The bill as reported back includes all hospitality venues—pubs, bars, restaurants, cafes, casinos, and gaming-machine venues, and clubs that serve alcohol. This is a proposal that many people are interested in. We found there was support for a level-playing-field approach across the hospitality sector that protects all workers, regardless of who their employer is; treats all businesses the same, without fear or favour; and replicates experiences that have proven a level-playing-field approach results in more people going out and socialising, creating a positive economic impact overall for hospitality businesses and the community.

I stress that the bill is not an anti-smoking measure. The select committee heard smokers tell us they recognise, all too well, the risks of smoking, for themselves and people around them. We applaud those who attempt to give up their addiction, and we will give them the help needed. We hope that providing smoke-free bars, and other public places, will help to minimise the temptations and triggers to smoke, and encourage more smokers to consider quitting. In addition, we hope the bill’s provision for future regulations to require warnings and clearer information about the contents and harmful effects of tobacco products will empower smokers to make an informed decision about smoking.

Let us remember that three-quarters of us do not smoke, and over 90 percent of us, including 85 percent who do smoke, agree that all workers have a right to breathe fresh air. I encourage us to put New Zealand on the map and lead the way with the passage of this bill, as part of a wider and comprehensive tobacco-control strategy. The work is not done, but this bill will take us a long way towards achieving the principles of the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I challenge us to show the same leadership as those decision makers in places such as Ireland and New York. For if Ireland can rewrite its traditional pub culture to be smoke-free from 2004, and New York can similarly give a thumbs up for the health of all its workers and citizens, then why not us too? I invite the House to consider the bill, which, if passed as proposed, is important legislation to promote and protect the health of all New Zealanders.

I waited until the member had made her introductory speech, to advise that the National Party is treating this as a conscience issue, which the rest of the House is not. Accordingly, I seek leave for us to cast a split vote when it comes time to vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

It is quite likely that New Zealand First will want to take a split vote, so I seek leave also.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

As you have just heard, the National Party will be considering this bill as a conscience issue, because we have always treated this subject as such.

The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill began as a member’s bill in the name of Tuku Morgan. That was three parliamentary sessions ago, so this bill has had a long passage to this point in the House. Members’ bills represent the right of every MP to try to put legislation in place that he or she believes is needed. The original bill was markedly changed and expanded when a Supplementary Order Paper was added by the Labour Government. At that point, Judy Keall took over the management of the bill through the select committee process. As I mentioned earlier, this is the third Parliament that this bill has survived, and it is now before us in its second reading.

I need to say early in this speech that National has always considered legislation relating to alcohol, smoking, ethics and moral issues as legislation that should be decided via a conscience vote. Consequently, I am speaking for myself in this debate, and other members of my caucus will have their own views about whether this legislation should or should not become law.

Second-hand smoke is a serious health risk. The leading causes of death in this country—cancer, stroke, and heart attacks—are all contributed to by smoking, and that is not just active smoking but also passive smoking. Asthma and chronic obstructive respiratory disease are also contributed to by smoking. The first disease linked definitively to active smoking was lung cancer, and it is therefore not surprising that the first disease identified as being caused by passive smoking was also lung cancer. So it is a very serious issue, and we cannot take it lightly.

The original bill and Supplementary Order Paper contained what the Health Committee considered an unfair playing field. Separating pubs from clubs was seen to be grossly unfair, and the decision was made that there must be a level playing field. Whatever the standard was going to be regarding smoke-free environments—a totally smoke-free environment, or a ventilation air standard that could be chosen from—it had to be across the board, so that all were treated equally. Insisting that restaurants and pubs should have 50 percent of their areas smoke-free, while clubs were exempt, would cause massive problems. We heard submission after submission from restaurant and pub-owners that that would impose huge compliance on them, and would not solve the problems—that is, their employees would still have to work in a smoky environment.

During the hearing of submissions substantial changes were made to this bill until it reached its current form. There is still a great deal of concern from pubs, restaurants, and clubs about the economic impact that this bill will have on them. That has to be weighed against the fact that cigarette smoking costs over $2 billion a year in health dollars, due to the fact that the relative risk of getting lung cancer if one smokes is 20:1, of stroke 3:1, and of heart attack 8:1. Those are very substantial risk factors if one is smoking. Passive smoking has also been shown to contribute to those diseases.

As a doctor, I am well aware of the harmful effects of tobacco, which accounts for one in four deaths. There have been various estimates of how serious second-hand smoke is, and how much disease it causes, but 150 deaths per year was one of the figures quoted to the Health Committee. The effects of passive smoking hit one when one goes into a bar. If one passively smokes, it can make one’s platelets stickier, so by walking into a smoky environment one is at risk of a heart attack if one happens to have clogged arteries. We have to remember that we have 10,500 deaths per year from heart attack and stroke.

Only 25 percent of New Zealanders smoke. Although we have heard that there will be an economic impact if this bill does go through, 75 percent of New Zealanders do not smoke. I would personally enjoy going down to the pub, but I find the smoky environment very difficult to take. I never stay very long, and tend to choose bars that are smoke-free. Those 75 percent who do not smoke are likely to spend more time out in a social environment, and it is highly probable that more people might frequent pubs and clubs if they were smoke-free. However, we do not know whether that would compensate for the loss of trade from those who like to have a smoke with their pint. That is undetermined, and something that we must consider.

The Health Committee agreed on some issues and did not agree on others. We all readily agreed that schools should be totally smoke-free. When the Supplementary Order Paper came in, the issue moved from having totally smoke-free preschools, primary schools, and secondary schools, to schools being able to have a smoking room. We heard a lot of submissions from schools that had already gone smoke-free, and they did not want to go back to that situation. Teachers, parents, and those who work in schools are role models for our young, and we would like to see totally smoke-free schools. That gives a healthy and very important message to our young that we do not normalise smoking.

I remember that both my parents smoked. In those days no one knew the health risks of smoking to the extent that we do today. I always remember my father saying: “I’ll stop smoking when you can tell me it causes some problem.” He would then put an anginine under his tongue for his angina, so there was not much point talking to some people! But we do want to send a message to our young people that because of its very harmful health effects, smoking is not something to be taken up readily. So we wanted that provision out, and we all agreed on that.

We also agreed that banning smoking in taxis was a good idea. The New Zealand Taxi Proprietors Federation wanted that. We also agreed that hotel rooms are private space and should be exempt from any smoke-free legislation. We were all of the one mind that we needed a level playing field, and that it was really important that we treated all of New Zealand’s pubs, clubs, and restaurants the same. We also felt that vending machines should be able to be operated by staff via remote control, and that that would prevent under-age access to vending machines.

But there were things that we did not agree on. We did not agree on the economic impact. We did not agree on whether pubs and clubs should have to meet a ventilation standard, or whether a totally smoke-free environment should be an option. Ventilation does not remove all the carcinogens, but if this Government introduces legislation to change the level playing field, then it would be better to move at least halfway than nowhere at all, and a ventilation air standard would be halfway. It is important not to push people past a point of tolerance that will create civil disobedience. There is no point having a law that everyone will ignore.

We had a lot of debate about staggering the implementation of this law. In 1995 California made restaurants smoke-free, and it was some years later that it moved to make bars smoke-free—that is, once the people of California had become used to that environment. So there has been quite a bit of debate about how readily and fast this bill should be implemented, and whether the approach should be a staged one. We also had a disagreement about vending machines. There was an agreement that vending machines for cigarettes should show only 100 packets. Whether there are 100 or 150 packets makes no difference whatsoever. It is a huge compliance cost, and it is absolutely stupid, and it should be out.

Internationally we looked at Australia, California, and Norway. Australian territories have gone smoke-free, but they have ventilation standards. Australian Capital Territory does, for example, and the Health Committee visited Canberra and spent some time looking at that issue.

I mentioned California having a staggered approach, with restaurants being made smoke-free first. In the UK, Tony Blair has a charter. His Government supports ventilation in combination with the hospitality industry, and Norway has an air-quality standard. We looked at all of those options. Tonight I want to say that I am supporting this bill on the grounds that it will improve the health of all New Zealanders.

I stand to speak to the second reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. The debate on second-hand smoke tends to revolve around several key issues: firstly, whether exposure to second-hand smoke is, in fact, harmful; secondly, whether we should take steps to protect workers and the general public from exposure to second-hand smoke, and, thirdly, what strategies best serve the interest of all parties—that is, smokers, non-smokers, and business interests.

The difficulty that this bill presents us with is akin to what psychologists often refer to as “cognitive dissonance”. Cognitive dissonance occurs when one is caught between two or more conflicting and seemingly contradictory sets of information. Problem solving when faced with opposing information is difficult. It has posed a series of concerns for us in United Future, and obviously for other members around the House—hence split votes in a number of parties. On the one hand, there is increasing evidence that links cancer, heart disease, respiratory problems, reproduction and developmental effects, and strokes to the prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. It is the effect of prolonged exposure that has necessitated a closer look at environments where work is done in a smoke-filled, enclosed facility.

An increasing number of New Zealanders understand and support the notion that smokers’ rights should not infringe on the health and well-being of others. For instance, most of the smokers I know do not smoke in their own homes, as a way of protecting the health of loved ones. The difficulty therefore is not to do with the health risks associated with smoking and second-hand smoke. That is because although there are those who question the research that lays the blame for at least 388 deaths a year in New Zealand by diseases related to second-hand smoke inhalation, few would debate the fact that many of the concerning health statistics we face here in New Zealand—like diabetes and asthma—are further exacerbated by the presence of second-hand smoke in the living and working environment. The difficulty comes when one balances that against the rights of business people to target their products and services at the smoking niche group. United Future has weighed those concerns against the health concerns of workers, and has measured them against suggestions by some that pubs and clubs could choose to give preferential employment opportunities to smokers. We consider the implications of that suggestion outrageous.

Others have looked to technology for solutions to this dilemma. It has been suggested that ventilation systems could be used to remove health hazards and create smoking and non-smoking zones within a facility to provide for everybody’s needs. The problem has been that, as far as can be ascertained, no one has yet perfected a ventilation system that reduces levels of contaminants to an acceptable level. At this point, everybody seems to have given up—but not United Future, and, in particular, not the Hon Peter Dunne. So when the bill is debated at the Committee stage, we will be putting up an amendment that provides an alternative for businesses affected by this legislation, a challenge to the innovation sector of technology in this country, and a requirement of the Ministry of Health to give the New Zealand public some realistic guidelines. The Hon. Peter Dunne has drafted an amendment that would replace the ban with a clear-air standard. Smoking would be allowed in premises, or in designated areas of a premise, that met approved air standards.

The claims made by submitters in the select committee were that there were no ventilation systems in existence that would meet acceptable standards. However, the truth is that there are no clear standards for air quality, and this legislation is primarily about air quality. It is unnecessary for legislation to rule out the chance for future innovators to provide acceptable alternatives. This amendment accepts that the smoke-free provisions should be in place, but allows for the business community to partner with innovators to address the health concerns that motivate this bill, rather than locking everybody into existing ventilation limitations. It is clear that the hospitality industry welcomes this amendment, and understands that the onus would be upon them to meet the challenge. Claims that air-quality standards are difficult to set are acknowledged. However, because this legislation is all about air-quality standards, quantifying those standards is not an unrealistic request, and United Future requires in this amendment that the Ministry of Health provide such a measure.

If unamended, this bill establishes smoking bans in a range of facilities and environments. It introduces a series of marketing controls on tobacco products, and it sets in place enforcement powers and infringement provisions that would apply to those who blatantly disregard clear requests to comply. United Future supports the ideal of healthy work environments. It invites all those who shared our disquiet about the aspects of this legislation that locked us into a time warp to support this amendment at the appropriate time.

I should say at the outset that I am not a smoker. At a Christmas party when I was about 17 we were handed out cartons of cigarettes and beer. I went home and opened up one of the cartons of cigarettes and took a very long puff. It was obviously too much, because that was the end of my smoking career. I should also say that I am an asthmatic, and I am very appreciative of all the support given to me by the preceding speakers about my condition. I have had asthma for 40 years - plus, especially since I came to New Zealand.

I see that Dr Proctor, one of the people concerned, said that passive smoking could cause problems for asthmatics, and there were people who did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, but there was no scientific basis for a ban in public. I take Bricanyl every morning and usually every night, and I take Flixotide every morning and often at night. In the winter I often have two or three puffs of each. I do not support this bill. I do not need someone to tell me what to do. I am a grown-up. I do not have to go to a bar. If it is full of smoke—

💬 Mark Peck: You’re pulling my leg!

I listened to others in silence, but it seems that the people who support this legislation have been affected by things. I can make up my own mind. People aged 18 can go off to war, but now they will not be allowed to have a smoke in a bar. What sort of a country will we be?

💬 Pita Paraone: You can now become a prostitute.

As one of the interjectors said, one can now become a prostitute, legally, but one cannot have a smoke in a bar. What sort of a Parliament is this? I just do not know what the world is coming to. As far as I am concerned—[Interruption] I will look after my own affairs, thank you very much. I appreciate all the concern from the other members of this House. I will not go into a bar that has smoke in it. It is common sense. I do not need Steve Chadwick or Mark Peck to shout across the House. I do not need their support, thank you very much. They are the last people I would seek support from.

I will not go into a bar that is full of smoke. It is common sense for me. I do not go to casinos at all, so if they are full of smoke that does not bother me, either. When I go to a restaurant—and I will let the Labour people, Darren Hughes and Mark Peck, cackle away—I go to a smoke-free area, and if there is someone next to me in the smoke-free area who is smoking I will complain and get him or her moved, and I survive. I occasionally go to a restaurant. I go to soccer at the weekends. I go to see Central United at Kiwitea Street, I have my slice of cake and tea at half-time with smoke flying around, and I survive. I go to North Shore and have a beer after watching a game there. It is not a problem for me. I do the same in Waitakere City. That is not a problem for me, either.

I can exercise self-discipline. I do not need those Labour members to shout across the floor of the House and tell me what to do. For example, I am concerned about all those people in the Returned Services Association. We have heard a lot about how smoking kills people, but all these returned servicemen from the Second World War must be aged 80-plus. They are still alive and they are still smoking. What does that tell one about the statistics? They are still alive and they are still smoking. They were given fags to keep them calm in the Second World War. I think Darren Hughes, Mark Peck, and Co. should have a fag. Maybe that will calm them down, from the way they are carrying on now. It is just a matter of choice. New Zealand First members will be voting according to their consciences. We will be taking various views on the issue.

I thought I would do a bit of research. I have heard about the programmes, the research, and suchlike, that have been done. I thought I would get on the Internet and find out, too. I saw a reference at the foot of page 2 of The World Health Report. On the Internet we found an article in the UK Sunday Telegraph dated 13 November 2002, which stated: “The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.”

Further down, the article states: “The summary, seen by the Sunday Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood. A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said that the findings seemed rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject, which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases.’ ”

I was interested to see that the select committee report did not refer to the World Health Organization report specifically. There was a general sweeping statement, because, of course, it does not have the World Health Organization findings. Clearly, the World Health Organization findings do not substantiate the points that are being made. I challenge any member who supports this bill to put the World Health Organization report on the Table of this House, and then we will see what it says.

Of course, the other report that is mentioned—and the Minister of Health can cackle away; I do not need her support, either, thank you very much—is “Woodward A, Laugeson M”. That report has also been the subject of an investigation, and this is a quote from 11 August 2002, in an article titled “Smoke claim disputed”, in FreeRepublic.com, a conservative news forum. “Public health experts Murray Laugeson and Alistair Woodward estimated 2 years ago that passive smoking was killing 388 New Zealanders a year, including 50 babies. Of that number they calculated 243 were dying of heart disease, 88 from strokes, 50 from cot death, and seven from lung cancer. But Dr Proctor said the overseas studies on which their research was based either showed weak findings, or findings that had no statistical significance. ‘A lot of scientists, including the US Surgeon-General, have said “We are not convinced at this stage that second-hand smoke causes heart disease.” ’ Dr Proctor said passive smoking could cause problems for asthmatics”—that is me—“and there were people who did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, but there was no scientific basis for a ban in public.”

It is also interesting from an email I have just received that it seems that Dr Laugeson is the chairman of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). We have all heard of ASH. Getting a report from someone who is the chairman of ASH is like getting a report from someone who is the chairman of the Society for the Protection for the Unborn Child saying that we should reduce abortions to zero. That is hardly an unbiased viewpoint from Dr Laugesen if he is the chairman of ASH. I would suggest that the information on which the Health Committee has relied is horribly, horribly flawed.

I indicated that I was concerned about the situation for the returned services associations. Many members who smoke became hooked while serving their country in World War II. I look around this House and every so often a member says to look on the walls at this battle and that battle, or something else. Well, they are people who have been there and done that. All they want in the last years of their life is to have a quiet fag in the Returned Services Association, over a pint. This House is having a close look at the matter—and all the Labour Party members are the ones who are interjecting against me; I must say that no other representative of any other party in this House is creating a cackle, other than members of the Labour Party. They seem to be determined to stop the old blokes back from the war from having a fag.

Those responsible for establishing clubs do not expect to be told what to do in them. The Te Atatu Memorial Returned Services Association president, Ian Gibson, is reported as describing the bill as being “a challenge to our rights and to our self-determination”, and I must agree with him. By being an asthmatic, I am one of those people who are at the greatest risk in connection with this legislation, yet I am quite prepared to look after my own self. I do not support a paternalistic State. That is clearly why I am not a socialist in the Labour Party. I can look after myself. Mr Woodhouse, manager of the North Shore’s Cube Bar, has said about this legislation—and this really sums it up— “If it’s that bad, why don’t we just ban it altogether?”. That is what it boils down to.

Finally, I looked at the way in which this legislation is to be enforced, and really, the enforcement provisions are a joke. Smoking will continue. It will go underground, it will be illegal, and it will probably make things even worse for people. I oppose this legislation. Other members of New Zealand First will be expressing their views later.

This may well be a members’ day, and this may well be a member’s bill, but it is typical of the determination the current Government has to change the social fabric of this country. What an extraordinary night it has been, where we find that we are not allowed to go into a bar and have a smoke over a beer, but we can go to a bar to sell our bodies to whoever is prepared to pay for it.

I want to make one comment about the irony of tonight. Here we are in a world of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and various other terrorists, and the Christians have come into the House tonight—those largely of Christian persuasion—thinking there is a chance that we might defeat the Prostitution Reform Bill, only to find out that we are tipped up by the House’s only Muslim MP. I am sure that the irony in that will reverberate around various parts of the country over the next few hours. But when it comes to this bill, I have to side with my colleague Dail Jones. I am not supporting it. If cigarette smoke or any tobacco smoke is so bad, then the Government should come into this House with a full ban. It should come into the House with a bill that takes it out completely, and that makes smoking as illegal as cannabis or any other drug. Until that happens, everything we hear from those speakers is little more than the hot air that is the smoke coming off the cigarette itself.

I notice that the Government is not prepared to give up its $7 tax per packet of cigarettes in order to facilitate the health advantages in New Zealand. Rather, it wants to mount an attack on small business, which this effectively is, in saying that one cannot have a smoke in a club, pub, or a returned services association. In my view, that has to be some sort of an outrage.

I take the same view as Mr Jones. I do not like cigarette smoke. I get annoyed when I go into a smoky circumstance, and I leave. Vote with one’s feet. Is it not staggering that this Government can crow on a daily basis about a surplus of jobs out there in the economy, that it is doing so well, that jobs are absolutely pouring out of the gunnels of this country—Mr Anderton comes down here day after day saying that one cannot go anywhere in the country where there is not a shortage of workers—and it wants to mount a campaign to change the law in this country, to seriously impede the freedoms of New Zealanders, because people might have to work in a smoky environment. If things are so good, that choice is not a compulsion. Obviously, those people have other options.

I want to speak also about those who ask: “What about the children?”. I care deeply about children in this country. I do worry every time I see someone who is clearly pregnant smoking a cigarette. However, I do not believe for one moment that banning the option of smoking in bars and other public places, for people who are pregnant, will prevent them smoking overall. So I go back to my original proposition. If the bill is so good, and those members sitting over there are so pious and so strident in their view that tobacco is bad for New Zealanders, then they should promote a bill that bans it completely. [Interruption]

I tell Tariana Turia that if she gets the Government to promote a bill like this, I will back it. But that will not happen, and do members know why? The Government loves the $7 that comes off every packet of cigarettes. It absolutely loves it. It will add that to the extra 10c regional tax it will take off our petrol very shortly, to the little bit it added on to the sherry and the Madeira and the port the other week, and to the electricity levy that is about to go on. Of course, it is a huge augmentation to the “fart tax” it is about to impose on the farmers of this country as well.

The Government is a tax-loving Government. I can only imagine the battles it had in its caucus when Steve Chadwick from Rotorua said: “Helen, I’m sorry, but I’m going to promote this bill, because we don’t want smoking in this country.” Helen said “Well, look, would you mind paring it back from being a total ban on tobacco to just a ban on—let us say pubs, because we do not like publicans. They are small business and we hate small business. But we do want the tax. We do want that $7 that comes off every packet of cigarettes. We want that tax going into the coffers.”

My colleague has asked a question that clearly is important, and I shall ask him to repeat it. [Interruption] There you are! The Minister of Health is in the House supporting this bill and telling me that I am some kind of strange person for pointing out that it is just another form of social control and just another choice being taken off New Zealanders. I am informed that if one has a separate room in a public hospital in this country, one is allowed to smoke. I cannot believe it! The Minister of Health is not on top of her portfolio when she comes into the House wanting to tell people they cannot smoke in a public bar, but if they are lucky enough to get a room in a hospital, they should go for their life.

That just shows the horrible convoluted logic of that dreadful Government that is hell-bent on changing the social fabric of New Zealand. One cannot have a beer with a cigarette in a pub, but one can sell one’s body outside and be congratulated for it; one cannot have a beer in a pub, but if one ends up so crook that one is in hospital—sorry, one can have a beer in a pub; but that will be next—one cannot have a cigarette in a pub, but one can go into a hospital and have a smoke.

Well, there you are. I have noticed that some speakers have said that this is part of a staged approach—we are slowly going to get rid of all the vices in society. I do not doubt that in a few years’ time we will see alcohol-free bars—that will be the Government’s new idea. The poor old publican will have to hang a sign outside, saying, “Come in for fresh air”, because all the smokers will be hanging around on the pavement outside. The other day as I was walking back down the Terrace—

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s good for you.

Walking is exceptionally good for a person, except as I went past every public building, I got an absolute inoculation with cigarette smoke, because people have been forced on to the pavements. One comes back with cigarette butts stuck all over one’s shoes, because smokers have been forced on to the pavement. But what I did notice was the extraordinary number of coffee shops now operating on the Terrace. One cannot go 50 metres up the Terrace without seeing about 20 or 30 coffee shops. I suggest that it will not be long before some erstwhile Labour Party social revolutionary concludes that caffeine is bad for us, and we have a “Caffeine-free Bill” stuck in front of us, because that is where small business is heading, and wherever small business goes, this Government hounds it, because it hates small business.

I want to conclude my remarks this evening by simply repeating that if tobacco is so bad for us—and I believe it is; I do not like cigarette smoking, and it is not something I want to take up—why not ban it totally? The Government should not come in here with some half-hearted attempt to change the way in which society works by simply picking on some areas in New Zealand where people do make a choice. And I stipulate that they do make a choice. If I walk into a bar to meet somebody, and it is full of smoke, I walk out. If I go to a restaurant and anyone there is smoking, I walk out. If I go to any public gathering, and I do not like the cigarette smoke, I walk out. The people who run businesses make a choice about whether that is what they want happening there. I do not think New Zealanders need much more of this legislation that tells them how, when, and why they must do something. This is a very bad bill. In the context of the bill that has been passed tonight, it is a complete joke and a total irony, and I hope the House has the good sense to end its passage tonight.

I stand to speak on behalf of ACT New Zealand to oppose this bill. I think we are the only party that in its entirety is opposing the bill, although we would still all be opposing it if it were a conscience vote. That is because this bill is another nail in the coffin of freedom in this country. [Interruption] The Minister has just reminded me of another good example of the loss of freedom in this country with another tax that we discovered today: the “fat tax”. But we are here to talk about smoking tonight. Before we go on to discuss this any further, I would like to talk—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I take the point. Members in the House wish to hear the person who has the call, so I ask for there to be less interjection, please.

I would speak Māori if I were able to; it would probably be more effective than the Minister chipping in all the time. I invite her to take a call if she has so much to say. Anyway, we are back to the special report that I was trying to explain to the House a minute ago, before I was so rudely interrupted. I would like to explain that when the bill was reported back, it did say that all the amendments were passed unanimously. That was, in fact, not the case in the Health Committee: the ACT party opposed all the amendments. The special report that I would like to draw to the attention of the House goes on to describe that. I refer to the sentence at the bottom of the first page, which states: “We do not consider the House should take that to mean that all members of the committee voted in favour of any, or all, of the suggested amendments.” I bring that point to the attention of the House, because it has already been said in this Chamber that those amendments were passed unanimously, which was not, in fact, the case.

But I go back to the bill. In essence, the bill aims to ban smoking in all indoor places that are accessible to the public. It covers premises already covered by workplace legislation, but it goes much further than that. It does not allow for separate smoking and non-smoking areas in cafes, bars, and restaurants.

ACT New Zealand put forward a minority view in the select committee. We opposed this bill for a large number of reasons. Firstly, from a personal perspective, I would like to explain that as a physiotherapist I have treated a large number of people with smoking-related diseases—emphysema, and chronic bronchitis, to name just two. It would be fair to say that I am against smoking, myself. I dislike it, and would not from choice go into a cafe or bar that was laden with smoke—and if I never see another sputum pottle in my life, it will be too soon.

However, this bill is not just about health. Many people would say that this bill is not about health at all; it is about a breach of private property rights, and that is the main reason that ACT New Zealand is opposing this bill. Owners of premises will no longer have the right to allow smoking in their public premises, even if everybody in those premises—including the workers and the owner—are smokers. What sort of legislation are we putting forward in this country, when people are not allowed to smoke in their own premises, even with the agreement of everybody in the premises?

Secondly, we are very concerned that responsible employers who have created non-smoking policies and procedures will be fined if smoking occurs in their workplace. The penalties are quite interesting. Labour originally said that it did not want any penalties at all, and that it just wanted this to be an educative process—which prompts the question, why do we need a change to the law at all? The law now includes fines of up to $400 for individuals who break the law, and up to $4,000 for organisations that allow patrons to light up. There is a problem with that, because how will the law be enforced? I am told that 17 part-time smoke police are employed by the Ministry of Health to go around and find the few transgressors who can actually be caught.

Several pub-owners have come to me, asking how this will ever be enforced, and saying they do not believe it ever will be. They are responsible for imposing those regulations on their patrons, and they say: “We’re going to lose all our patronage. What’s going to happen to my business?”. At the end of the day, they say: “We know that we’re not going to be caught, and we’re going to allow patrons to smoke, anyway.” What sort of law is it that sets itself up to be broken in that way? It is no sort of law at all.

Thirdly, Mr Dail Jones from New Zealand First spoke at length about the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence that was presented to the select committee was, at best, inconclusive. Everybody who came before the committee used the statistics to best suit their own argument. Action on Smoking and Health and other lobby groups came along saying they had conclusive proof—which they were not able to give good reasoning for—to say how harmful second-hand smoke is. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, the tobacco companies came along saying that it is not very harmful at all. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but we do not know exactly where that point is. ACT believes that the scientific evidence regarding the effects of second-hand smoke is inconclusive. We are concerned that honesty has not been involved in this decision-making process, and that the legislation has been based entirely on that evidence. We believe that that is not a good basis for legislation.

We also note that it will be illegal to smoke in public places even when there are ventilation systems to extract smoke. Many businesses believed that the bill would come back saying that ventilation systems were OK with a minimum air standard, and in some cases they have spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in installing those ventilation systems, to find now that their patrons will not be able to smoke in those places anyway.

It is very interesting to note United Future’s change in stance. In fact, one could say that it has done a bit of a U-turn really, with regard to ventilation systems. Certainly ACT New Zealand was the only party supporting ventilation systems. The National Party partly supported them, but had some reservations. We were saying that–[Interruption] I am glad that I have convinced the member. That is very good, but I would say that a little consistency would be good. Bar owners have spent huge amounts of money on ventilation systems and now find that the systems are not able to be used. ACT New Zealand says that those systems would have been a very adequate compromise, would have been a compromise between the rights of smokers and non-smokers, and would have been a happy conclusion. We will be supporting that amendment because it makes good sense.

Organisations and institutions such as returned services associations and tertiary institutions, which involve consenting adults, should be able to choose for themselves whether their buildings or grounds should be smoke-free. The returned services associations are a particular example. The Government gave many of their members cigarettes when they were young men and went off to war, and—

💬 Steve Chadwick: They probably died.

It is interesting to hear that member speaking up now, because she showed some concerns, too, for the people in the returned services associations. She had some sympathy for them. I sent out a letter to returned services associations and to workingmen’s clubs asking them their views on this legislation, and I had an overwhelming response. There was an almost 20 percent response, and virtually all members were supportive of ACT New Zealand’s stance on the smoke-free legislation. They said that they felt they themselves should have the right to choose. Many of them had been members of the clubs for many, many years. The non-smokers in the clubs also filled in the forms and said that the smoking did not bother them, and that, if it did, they would stay at home. When consenting adults are put in this position, they should be able to make decisions for themselves. It is a very arrogant Government that seems to think it can make personal choices for the citizens of its country.

We also found evidence from the prison service very strong. Smoking in prisons should be at the discretion of the prison authorities. They have a very tough job, and they gave very strong and compelling evidence to the select committee to say that allowing smoking or not was one of the few ways they had, often, of controlling situations. Certainly ACT New Zealand is very supportive of the fact that the service should be able to make such decisions.

ACT New Zealand believes that if a person chooses to smoke, despite the risk that that poses to his or her health, that person must accept responsibility for the consequences. Legislation that bans smoking in public places will have a small to almost negligible effect on the incidence of smoking-related diseases, but will have a large effect on property rights.

First of all tonight, I want to mihi to Tukoroirangi Morgan, who introduced the original private member’s bill during his term in Government. I do that because I know that Tuku Morgan wanted to change the lives of our people for the better. I mihi to him for his foresight and commitment. I also take the opportunity to mihi to Judy Keall and to the Health Committee members who worked so hard on this bill. I congratulate Lynda Scott from the National Party for her support, and I thank all the people who work with our whānau, hapū, and iwi to assist them in quitting this very addictive substance, tobacco, that kills so many of our people.

I support this bill as a chronic asthmatic, as a Māori electorate MP, and as an Associate Minister of Health with responsibilities for the health of the tangata whenua. In my family, I have lost my mother and many of my cousins to smoking-related illnesses, so I have an absolute abhorrence of this addictive substance. The recent case of white powder found in a pouch of cigarette tobacco raised fears of cyanide poisoning by terrorists, and the threat was taken seriously. Buildings were evacuated and the staff was decontaminated. The powder was found to be harmless, but cyanide is the main toxin in side-stream smoke from the burning end of cigarettes. Smoking is insidious. Some estimates blame cyanide for 400 deaths per year, and cyanide is just one of the many powerful toxins in cigarettes. I understand there are as many as 36 different toxins in cigarettes, and that cigarettes are far more addictive than heroin.

Smoking places a very heavy burden on our people. The sad thing is that half the Māori adults smoke, which is twice the national average. There are plenty of studies that explain why the tangata whenua may smoke more, and why the prevalence of smoking may decline more slowly among our people. I do not have time to go into that issue tonight. The saddest thing for me is that smoking has almost become part of the culture of our people. Our young people are far more likely to have parents who smoke, so therefore they are more likely to smoke, too. The interesting thing, though, that I share with members is that I have six children, and although George and I have never smoked, all of our six children have smoked. So it does not always work when we think that parents provide the role model for their children. Certainly in the case of my children, it did not work.

💬 Darren Hughes: Yet.

I can say very happily that two of them have given up smoking, and I am very proud of them, because I know how hard it is to do that. I think one of them is trying to give up, and still has a bit of a sneaky smoke. One of the real concerns for me is that our young people start smoking younger than most others, and they smoke more heavily, so the addiction is serious. Quite clearly, our people’s health is at great risk.

The reason, too, that I particularly support this bill is that it is really clear that smoking in the workplaces, bars, and clubs that many of our people frequent, both as workers and as social participants, has a huge impact on their health and well-being. This particular bill restricts smoking in workplaces. It requires all workplaces to have a policy on smoking, and to review that policy annually. It restricts or bans smoking in restaurants, bars, and casinos, on public transport, and in certain other public places. I cannot see why we would believe that smoking is OK in those places simply because they are private businesses, when we know that smoking impacts on anyone else who enters those places, too. I acknowledge what people say—that people go there out of choice. However, because it has become almost the norm to have smoking in those places, people who go there then begin to accept that having second-hand smoke around them is normal, too, when it is, of course, not normal.

The bill regulates the marketing, advertising, and promotion of tobacco products, and the sponsorship by tobacco companies of products, services, and events. It bans the sale of tobacco products to people under the age of 18, and provides for control over, and disclosure of, the contents of tobacco products. There were 397 submissions on this bill and on Supplementary Order Paper 148, from interested groups and individuals, representing different views on the extent to which smoking and the sale of smoking products should be controlled. Many submissions were generally supportive of the bill, but sought to change some aspects of it. Others considered the measures contained in the bill were unnecessary and overly restrictive. All the evidence was carefully considered, and many changes to the bill have been recommended as a consequence of that consideration. It is not possible to detail those changes with regard to each issue raised by the submitters.

I know the effects of second-hand smoke at a very personal level, because I know how quickly it exacerbates my asthma if I go into environments where people are smoking—even, quite frankly, in an outdoor area. So I am very interested in smoke-free places.

The aim of this particular legislation is to educate the public and to promote a positive environment of compliance. We do not intend to establish a smoking police. Most New Zealanders will choose to comply voluntarily with this legislation, because they want to go to smoke-free places. Similar laws in Canada raised people’s awareness of the risks associated with exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace. Workers realised that smoking in the home was similarly harmful, and had similarly harmful effects on a smoker’s children in the whanau. I understand that the proportion of smokers who have smoke-free homes jumped from 22 percent to 50 percent in Canada.

I close by saying how thrilled I am to see how marae have taken up the challenge, in terms of providing a smoke-free environment. In the rohe that I come from, almost every single marae dining-room and whare puni is smoke-free. Every kōhanga reo and every kura kaupapa is smoke-free, too. That tells me that the people in the rohe where I live are taking the matter very seriously. I know that marae in the north have a 96 percent smoke-free rate, which I think is absolutely wonderful. It is the same in the area of Ngāti Awa, where we have a 95 percent smoke-free environment. My people are taking the issue really seriously. It is really important that we get the very, very important message through to our families that smoking is not something that we should encourage or support, particularly in our young and particularly in those of our women who are hapū. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā no tātou.

I rise to take a different position to that of my caucus colleague. As I do so, I should explain that while I agree with a lot of the sentiments that have been expressed by the opponents to this bill, I support it. One of the reasons I do so is that, as health spokesperson for the New Zealand First caucus, I find it would be rather hypocritical for me to oppose the bill, given its intent. Therefore, I signal that I will be one of those within the New Zealand First Party’s caucus who will support this bill. I note that in a speech made last week, the Minister of Finance expressed his failure to suppress the repeated calls for increased public health spending, when its share of overall Government funds is rising at the expense of everything else. I suggest to this House that the intent of this bill will go a long way towards addressing that particular issue.

Most people agree that smoking is not conducive to maintaining good health. Not only is it bad for the smoker’s health, but research shows that it is also detrimental to the health of those exposed to second-hand smoke from smokers. Second-hand smoke is a carcinogen, and it increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and respiratory illness. The issue of the effect of second-hand smoke is vitally important to the health and well-being of all New Zealanders, including those who work in the hospitality industry. I fail to see why those workers should not have the same protection under the law that someone working in an office has. Instead, workers in that occupational group, many of whom are Māori, are subjected to extreme levels of cigarette smoke every time that they go to work. Is that fair? I think not.

I have already mentioned the fact that many Māori work in the hospitality industry. They are also overrepresented in blue-collar industries that are not covered by the Smoke-free Environments Act, meaning that they are 50 percent more likely to be exposed to second-hand smoke during working hours than others. On top of that, the sad fact remains that Māori women have the highest rate of lung cancer in the world, and are also more likely to smoke than any other demographic group. Those statistics clearly show that Māori are severely disadvantaged in terms of health, and to ignore that fact is to contribute to that inequality. This bill makes an attempt to address the disparity and to create a level playing field for all workers in all industries. It is simply wrong that occupations should impact directly on health outcomes in this way. It is high time that we did something about that.

Earlier this evening we heard reference made to freedom of choice. Opponents of the bill—and some of my colleagues are among them—argued that this is yet another example of nanny State telling us what to do, as if we were not capable of making our own decisions. In essence I may agree with that comment, because do we really want the State to control us in this way? Where is the freedom of choice, given that tobacco is a legal substance and smokers are engaging in a legal activity? Where will the State reach into next? Obesity is also linked to illness, so will our diets be the next thing to come under the State’s microscope? Similarly, with alcohol the issue of individual rights is a serious one, and is not to be dismissed. In this case, though, legislation has been in place for 13 years to restrict smoking. This bill merely extends the restrictions in order to protect the health of all employees.

Let us not forget that around 75 percent of New Zealanders do not smoke, which leads me to wonder about the veracity of the statements made by bar, club, and restaurant owners that if this bill is enacted they will see their businesses decline. It may well transpire that more people will frequent their premises if they can rest assured that they will not be annoyed by second-hand smoke. Research also shows that interventions such as smoking bans and restrictions have the effect of reducing tobacco consumption and increasing smoking cessation. That should surely be an objective if we wish to improve the health of New Zealanders, as well as to reduce the health budget.

During the hearing of submissions comment was made with regard to the effectiveness of ventilation systems. We heard from people in the hospitality industry, who agreed on the need for ventilation systems but asked that the quality of air standards should be set. While I support the bill, I say the failure to do that is one of its shortcomings.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.