Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

The title of this bill is very descriptive of what it is intended this bill will do. The idea is to have the air as clean as one possibly can. A smoke-free environment is designed to protect not only workers who are working in an area where people are smoking, but also to protect children in school-grounds and young people under the age of 18 from having access—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I draw it to the member’s attention that she should be discussing the title.

Yes, I am. I will try my very best to stick to the title. The words “smoke-free environments” relate to the areas where people work, and to the environment of children who are at school or pre-school—to the grounds in which they play.

The bill’s title was previously Smoke-free (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, because we already have smoke-free workplaces. That came in some years ago, and has been well accepted amongst workplaces in New Zealand—workplaces being one environment in which, initially, there was some resistance. I can remember a lot of people saying to me how awful it was to have to work in an environment from which they could not escape. They could not move away from an environment that was filled with smoke, and had to work in it day after day. The reason the bill had that title was so that we could look at passive smoking.

People can make their own choices about whether they smoke—and cigarette smoking is highly addictive. But the problem is that if they are in an environment that is filled with smoke, then there is passive smoking. More evidence has mounted over time that passive smoking can also affect a person’s health. We know that health is severely affected by cigarette smoking, and as a doctor who was a geriatrician I am well aware that we need to have smoke-free environments. In geriatric medicine one deals with all the end results of people smoking and being in smoky environments—the effects on cardiovascular disease, the airways, and the lungs. Cardiovascular disease affects people by their having heart attacks, strokes, and arterial disease of the legs so that they have to have amputations. As a geriatrician, I dealt with those effects a great deal of the time—the end effects of cigarette smoking that had affected people’s health.

But we also have to look at children who are affected by their parents smoking. In that particular situation we want to have smoke-free environments, because passive smoking by children leads to asthma and reduces the status of their heath. Later on in the debate on this bill we will be talking more about the environments that we want to see smoke-free, and schools, pre-schools, and early childhood centres certainly will be some of those. We do not want to see role models—parents, and the teachers in those facilities—smoking. So those environments will become smoke-free.

There has been a lot of debate about whether the occupational safety and health legislation covers the concept of enhanced protection for workers, and whether we need to be here tonight debating this bill and this title. Occupational safety and health legislation looks at whether an employee is subjected to a hazard in the workplace. As more and more medical evidence mounts about the fact that passive smoking is a hazard, we have to look at whether a bill about smoke-free environments, covering enhanced protection, needs to be in this Chamber being debated tonight. But the decision was made that this bill needs to go forward, whether or not occupational safety and health legislation covers smoke-free environments. So tonight we are talking about how we can enhance protection.

Not everyone in the National Party will vote for this bill—by any means. It is a conscience vote for us, because we have always treated such issues as a conscience vote. So when I am speaking tonight, I am speaking simply from my own personal point of view as a doctor who has worked in this area.

I want to take a brief call on the title, to make the observation that the reason I have moved the amendments, which we will deal with later, is that I do not believe this bill is accurately titled. I do not believe that this bill will provide enhanced protection.

The experience of the Smoke-free Environments Act, the principal Act, over the last 14 years has been one of abject failure. Figures provided by the Ministry of Health show that it has cost in the order of $50 million to implement, yet in that time the rate of smoking amongst young people has increased. The Act has been a complete waste of time and waste of money, but here we are proposing measures in this bill, under the guise of providing enhanced protection, that will prove to be not only similarly unworkable but will prove, yet again, that in this area the law is an ass.

The reason I question whether this bill is accurately titled is its central premise, which is that smoking will be banned in bars, restaurants, clubs, and a variety of other places, to provide greater protection for both the patrons and the workforce. I want to make it clear that I am not one who likes being in a smoky environment, but I am equally not one who goes for symbolic, feel-good legislation. I want to see legislation that will work—and that is the substance of the amendments I will be proposing later on.

The bill as drafted will not work, because it says that in the first instance this legislation will be enforced by the Ministry of Health. That ministry says that it will probably not have the capacity to do this, so the matter, eventually, will be one for the police to look at. Here is the absurdity: the police are going to go on smoking raids around pubs and clubs in New Zealand? If Ms Kedgley’s crazy Supplementary Order Paper gets effect, and if the police do manage to find a smoker in one of those premises, then the smoker will not be the one prosecuted; it will be the owner of the premises. That provision is clearly absurd. It provides no enhanced protection for anybody. All it will be is a law that will be ignored.

I am coming to the title. This bill previously had the words “(Enhanced Protection)” in its title, and my argument is that the bill will not provide that protection. It is lunatic and unworkable, and it will be ignored as an unenforceable ass. At that point, this Parliament will have to ask itself a very serious question: how can it have passed a Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act—as it will be at that point—that does not enhance the protection of anybody, that is simply ignored as unenforceable, unrealistic, and unworkable, and that sees life carry on in the way that it did pretty much before its passage?

In that respect, I pick up the comments that Dr Scott made. It was part of the reason that I moved the motion at the commencement of this debate. There is a wider issue here, relating to occupational safety and health. It would be entirely appropriate to see this matter dealt with under that broad rubric, as various other matters have been, and not become the subject of this specialist legislation, which is essentially unworkable and not befitting its title.

No one will receive enhanced protection under this legislation. Workers, who are allegedly one of its main beneficiaries, will not receive enhanced protection, because the law will be ignored. Patrons who want to be in cleaner environments will not receive enhanced protection, because the law will be ignored. The law will not be enforced, because the police, frankly, have more pressing responsibilities, and quite properly so. So this whole bill becomes a nonsense, and, coupled with the failure of the principal Act, shows that we are not really serious about dealing with the issue. We are much more interested in feel-good solutions that appeal to the World Health Organization and its zealots, but that have no positive impact on the life of New Zealanders.

So, as we begin this debate, I agree with the sentiment about enhanced protection. I agree with the right for people to be in clean and non-smoky environments, but I simply make the point that this legislation is not the vehicle by which that will be achieved. This is, therefore, falsely named legislation. It ought to be called something along the lines of “Smoke-free Environments (More Feel-Good Politics) Amendment Bill”, because that is what it is. If we were serious in our, allegedly professed, concern for the well-being of our citizens we would be implementing measures that worked, not measures that are simply bumper sticker slogans that will be unenforceable, make us a laughing stock, and prove yet again that when this Parliament is let loose it makes the law an unenforceable ass. I thought that in the light of recent events we would have learnt better.

Before I call the next speaker, I will just say to members that the bill is not now called the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. The words “(Enhanced Protection)” have gone from the title. It is now called the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. That is the first point.

The second point I wish to draw to members’ attention is that despite members speaking to the title, we are getting a rather wide-ranging debate. The title is supposed to describe the elements contained in the bill. The debate on the title is not a general discussion of the bill’s intent—that is the role of the second reading debate. However, given the nature of the legislation I am prepared to take a member’s call to seek leave that there be a wide-ranging debate on the title. If no one so moves, then I will keep the debate strictly to the title.

💬 Larry Baldock: I seek leave to have a wide-ranging debate on the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just to clarify, it would be a wide-ranging debate on clause 1. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Just to clarify, that would be instead of a clause by clause debate?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, it is just for the title. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I would like to make it clear at the outset to anyone interested in this debate that four New Zealand First members will support the bill, and nine will oppose it. There may be an amendment or two on which that position will change, but that is the general approach being adopted by New Zealand First.

I was going to move an amendment to change the name of the bill so that it was called the “Anti - Returned Services Association Men and Women Bill”, or the “Demise of the Returned Services Association Bill”, because of my discussions with, for example, the Te Atatu Returned Services Association and Ian M Gibson, with whom I have been in correspondence. I wonder whether any west Auckland or Waitakere members of Parliament have bothered to approach any of their local associations. It is clear that Te Atatu Returned Services Association members take the view on this legislation that, “It is intolerable that politicians should dictate what privileges we may enjoy in clubs which returned servicemen and women built with their own labour and meagre demobilisation payouts.” They go on to say: “Such oppressive legislation is contrary to every precept of democracy and individual freedom of choice.”

They recommend to Parliament a nice little cartoon that was in the New Zealand Herald on 22 March 2003, which looks rather like a scene from Dad’s Army. It is very fitting and I am only too pleased to present it on behalf of the Returned Services Association. There is one Captain Mainwaring - type saying: “Eyes peeled for dictators, lads.” Someone, who could be Lance Corporal Jones, says: “What? Saddam’s in NZ?”, and someone else on the side is saying, “No, you berk, it’s those anti-smoking fascists from the health department.” That is the view of the Te Atatu Returned Services Association.

Its members fought for their country, were asked to smoke and were given fags while they were out in the desert, and now, as they are getting older, are being told “No”—they cannot smoke in the clubs that they set up with their demobilisation payments way back in 1945-46, and the like. What a disgrace; what a sad day for New Zealand; what a total disregard for those people who were prepared to make the final sacrifice!

I want to comment on another area, for which this legislation could be called the “Smoke-free Environments (Lack of Evidence) Bill”. It is quite clear when reading the World Health Organization’s report of 2002 that the report states there is no supporting evidence on this issue. I had to go to the trouble of finding it out myself from page 66 box 4.1, and the statement referred to at the foot of page 2. I wonder whether any Labour member has read that World Health Organization report, which is quoted in the select committee’s report, and which I asked the Minister previously to table but she has not.

The report does highlight however that: “In addition, maternal smoking during pregnancy results in passive-smoke exposure for the foetus, sometimes referred to as tertiary smoke, resulting in an increased risk of low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome.” That issue should be the subject of a separate bill altogether. Has the Labour Party done anything about that real issue of an unprotected person? No—the Labour Party has done absolutely nothing, which shows the double standard of the party by its lack of evidence.

There was also a 1998 World Health Organization report, which stated that the organisation found no evidence at all to support what is in this legislation today. Despite requests, the Labour Party has never supplied that report. All it has come out with is this World Health Organization report 2002, and a general statement with nothing formal to back it up. The other report mentioned in the select committee’s report had references to A Woodward and M Laugeson. Those reports have been discredited by other people, despite Action on Smoking and Health representatives, in papers released to members of Parliament recently, saying that those reports had never been discredited. Those reports have been discredited by Dr Proctor.

As I mentioned before, no one has repudiated what I have said since the speech I made about 4 weeks ago, because the fact of the matter is that they cannot establish what they are trying to establish in this debate today. This is purely feel-good Labour Party legislation, which has no basis whatsoever and which has total disregard for groups like the Returned Services Association. I am an asthmatic, I do not smoke, and I stay away from places where there is smoke. Why should a nanny State in the shape of this Labour Party tell me where I should go and where I should not go?

I will start on the title of the bill. I firstly congratulate my colleague Steve Chadwick for bringing it to the Parliament, and shepherding it through the select committee. The title of the bill does reflect what she is trying to do and what this legislation is attempting to do, which is to make smoke-free environments and expand them. In fact the speech that we heard from the Hon Peter Dunne was probably heard in this House in 1990, I would guess. I am sure it was, because there were people then who said that we could never have smoke-free environments. They said there would be no way in the world that people would abide by the provisions of any smoke-free workplace. I am pleased to say that, for the most part—although we have the odd exception, but I will not name them—Parliament is smoke-free, as are most workplaces in this country.

What we are attempting to do, and what the Government is supporting through this legislation, is to create a safe environment for the many, many people who work in the hospitality industry in this country. There might be claims of “nanny State”, and draconian measures being put in place. The reality is that I am sure those claims were made when we changed the law in this Parliament to bring in the compulsory wearing of seatbelts; when we brought into this Parliament things like speed limits, and the compulsion to wear a helmet—what a terrible imposition on liberty to force someone who rides a motorbike to wear a helmet! But thankfully, as society evolves, we learn things. We learn how to better manage safety, how to protect one another and how to protect ourselves.

I would like to say to Mr Dunne that what this legislation attempts to do—very clearly—by creating a smoke-free environment and expanding the smoke-free environments in the workplaces and hospitality sector, is make a safer place for thousands of New Zealanders to work in. There is no doubting the evidence that second-hand smoke kills people. [Interruption] Well, I am sorry: if people want to bury their heads in the sand—Mr Jones might be one of them—and try to deny that reality—

💬 Dail Jones: There is no evidence to prove that.

—the member should hang around the hospitals for a couple of years, as I have, and see the people who die every day from second-hand smoke. We would be irresponsible if we did not support an initiative brought to the House through a member’s bill sponsored by Steve Chadwick to make the workplace a safer place for thousands of New Zealanders.

We would not accept a construction site where people wandered around without a helmet. Well, we are not going to accept a work environment for thousands of bar staff in and around this country where they face the dangers of second-hand smoke. That is why we are supporting this bill, that is why it is a sound bill, and that is why it will work, I tell Mr Dunne. In the same way in 1990 people doubted the ability to change habits, to change the social norm in New Zealand. We have reduced the number of people in New Zealand who smoke. They understand that it is dangerous to smoke; it is dangerous to work in a place where there is smoke. For any Government to ignore that danger—if we brought a bill into this Parliament and said that we will allow people to please themselves—

💬 Dail Jones: It is a Government bill—OK.

No, the Government is prepared to support this good initiative. If we said that we would allow people the liberty of not wearing a seat belt, of not wearing a helmet on their motor bike—I tell Mr Jones—and we would allow people to speed anywhere they like, we would be pulled into line and it would be said that we were an irresponsible Government. Well, we are not. We will support this bill through, with amendments to make improvements to it where necessary. I applaud the member Steve Chadwick, and I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House.

Many thousands—in fact, I am quite sure the majority—of New Zealanders are thrilled about the passage of this bill, which is widely supported in the community, particularly by all of those of us who are fed up with coming home at night with our clothes reeking and our eyes and our throats hurting, and so forth. Most of us are counting the days until we can breathe our clean, unpolluted air, and enjoy a smoke-free environment when we go out for a night on the town.

Some of the views of the opponents would be credible if smokers were harming only themselves with their habit. But the truth is that every single time people light up, they basically put at risk the health of everyone else around them. This is the central fact that we have to acknowledge. Two-thirds of the smoke is exhaled into the air so that everyone else around them is breathing in that smoke and the 50 carcinogens in that smoke.

That is the issue we have to address. If smokers were taking all of the smoke down into their lungs and just harming themselves with their habit, I am sure this bill would not be before us today. But the truth is that there is, despite all the efforts to discredit it, overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that second-hand smoke is the leading cause of death and disease, causing about one person to die a premature death every single day in New Zealand.

Of course, we hear some of our opponents reciting the discredited arguments of the tobacco industry, and using those discredited tobacco industry tactics to try to water down or defeat all or parts of this bill. This is sad, but it is not unexpected. An excellent report by George Thomson and Dr Nick Wilson documents the fact that the tobacco industry has used every single trick in the book for the last four decades to oppose every form of tobacco control. They try to question the evidence, and have thrown doubt on it. They have thrown in so-called independent experts, and they have lobbied.

Unfortunately, we see MPs in this House singing the tobacco industry tune that somehow the research is inconclusive, that somehow non-smokers’ rights are less important than property rights, that somehow ventilation will solve the problem of second-hand smoke, when we have had compelling evidence in the select committee that it will not. It is very disappointing that we see members in this House singing the song of the tobacco industry. But it is to be expected. It is yet another last-ditch effort to try to dilute or defeat this bill.

Those members have been reciting all of these arguments that oh, this will not work, and so on and so forth. That is what they said in California—it is not going to work. In California, the evidence that we had was that the people of California are absolutely delighted, for the most part, with this legislation. They are delighted with the fact that they are not having their health impaired every time they go to a café, and so on. The fact is that nobody should have to risk his or her health to go to work. All this business about “Oh, what about the rights of smokers?”! What about the rights of non-smokers? What about the rights of workers who have to work in these smoky environments every single day of their lives? What about the fact that they are vastly increasing their risk of ill health because of all the people who are smoking in their workplaces?

The truth is that the majority of New Zealanders are just waiting for the day for this bill to be passed. Quite frankly, I think we will look back and say with incredulity that we allowed ourselves to be in smoky environments where we know that 50 cancer-causing substances are swimming around in the room. We have to be honest and acknowledge that smoke-free zones in cafés and bars are simply not working; the smoke just travels all through the room.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Richard Worth.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My colleague Heather Roy has been calling consistently. I believe she should have been called in favour to the Greens, on a numerical basis. You failed to do that. You have now chosen to call a second National speaker and have still not heard from the ACT party spokesperson on health.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already called the member now under Speaker’s ruling 23/8. I recognise the point that the member has made. I am also trying to do it in proportionality, and National is entitled to three as against the ACT party’s one. ACT will get the next call.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: They should have had the last one.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I appreciate the point that the member has made, but I have already made the call.

It is very good of ACT to yield its place to me. I will take only a small amount of time, just the allotted 5 minutes in speaking on the title. I start by saying that two questions legitimately arise in the context of a title debate: the first is the legal accuracy of the title, and the second is the factual accuracy. Here we have a bill that was called the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, and the Health Committee has very wisely stripped out the phrase “Enhanced Protection”. I suggest that it has done that for good reason, because there are substantial disbenefits associated with this legislation.

It must always be the case when significant rights are taken away that there needs to be a close and critical study of the consequences of taking those rights away. There needs to be, in an atmosphere of measured debate, an evaluation both of gains and losses. Whereas there was in the original bill a claimed enhanced protection, the reality is simply the opposite.

In the context of the title debate I would just like to pick up two points. The first point arises from material that was published on the Internet on 16 May 2003. It relates to a study that was published in a prestigious medical magazine, the weekly British Medical Journal, which has found no significant evidence that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer or heart disease. The actual wording used in the early part of the study was: “The association between passive smoke, and coronary heart disease and lung cancer, may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” It was a really surprising twist, I felt, that the study was backed by an anti-smoking crusader, Dr Elizabeth Whelan. She said: “There is simply no convincing evidence linking second-hand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease.” She is an epidemiologist, and president of the American Council on Science and Health.

I certainly have the clear impression from looking at the submissions to the select committee—of which I was not a member—that an incredibly one-sided view of the world was presented to those committee members. It is critical in the context of submission hearings that the committee be given balanced material on both sides.

The second observation I make is that this is draconian legislation—and I do not shrink from the use of that phrase. We have seen in other jurisdictions the economic impact of legislation that has been very similarly modelled on this legislation. Business in New York bars and restaurants plummeted by as much as 50 percent in the wake of a smoking ban framed in very similar terms to this legislation, and the drop-off has sparked layoffs and left some establishments in New York on the brink of shutting their doors.

💬 Darren Hughes: Name one.

I am asked to give an example. At Ruddy and Dean, a well-known Staten Island hang-out near a courthouse that is popular with district attorneys, lawyers, and judges, bar business has been slashed by half. I can give you a second example. We all know Bill’s Gay Nineties in Midtown, where business is off 50 percent overall. As the manager said: “If this keeps up, some of us might as well just close up shop.”

A detailed study has been done by the New York Post of what has happened to businesses faced with comparable bans to the ban proposed by the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, and the impact has been truly substantial. It is not only an impact that is to be felt in the tills of those who own these businesses; the reality is that staff are laid off—staff who would wish to continue to work in those establishments are laid off. So let us not kid ourselves as we look at passing this legislation—and I will assuredly not be voting for it, as there are big impacts.

I would like to join my National Party colleague who said that perhaps the words “Enhanced Protection” have been removed for a very good reason, for the fact is enhanced protection has nothing to do with smoke-free environments. There are several other titles I could suggest for this, but two spring to mind. The first one reflects the actual intention of this Labour Government: that is, to ban smoking completely in this country; so perhaps it should be called the “Banning of Smoking in New Zealand Bill”. ACT has also opposed this bill consistently from the start because of the loss of freedom it represents, and also because of the blatant breach of property rights it presents us with. If somebody takes the time, effort, and financial risk of operating a business, he or she should be able to have the say as to what goes on within those premises. This bill takes that right away from people completely, so the other suggestion I would make is the “Blatant Breach of Property Rights Bill”.

I would like to call for some intellectual honesty, because that is what is missing from this debate. This debate ignores intellectual honesty. Several members on this side of the House have referred to various studies that have shown no significant harm occurring from passive smoking.

I would like to refer to the World Health Organization study published in The Economist in 1998. The World Health Organization undertook a study. It was certain that it was going to link lung cancer with passive smoking, but in fact it found that non-smokers married to, working with, or raised by smokers were no more at risk of lung cancer than anyone else was.

💬 Pita Paraone: Even Māoris?

Even Māoris, that is right. The World Health Organization, as we all know, has long admitted that links between lung cancer and passive smoking are weak, but those findings were not what it wanted and they were certainly not what it was prepared to tell the world. The study was summarised—[Interruption] I can tell Mr Jones that it was printed in a very bulky world health document and was summed up, despite being a lengthy and extensive experiment, in three paragraphs. Fortunately The Economist saw fit to exercise the intellectual honesty that the World Health Organization did not have at that point and printed the study in one of its 1998 issues.

Several people have mentioned Returned Services Associations. I wrote to all the Returned Services Associations in New Zealand outlining my party’s stance and asking them for their comments. I gave them half a page on the back of the survey to write in, and 80 percent of the forms I sent out were returned to me with comments. Just about all of those comments were in support of my party’s stand opposing the bill. They said—and I think the United Future members said—that the Returned Services Associations would just flout the law.

The question that then arises is what exactly will happen when people flout the law. It seems to me that there is no point in having it. Good law, as my colleague Stephen Franks is often heard to say, should be enforceable and it should be routinely enforced. What point is there in having a law that we know will not be enforced? The Ministry of Health does not have the resources or the staff to do that. We are told that there are 17 part-time smoke police. How are they going to get around the country and enforce this legislation? It is just not possible. And, if the law cannot be enforced, we in this Parliament need to stop and think—if we are not making good law, what are we doing here?

Several members on the other side of the House have said that this bill will protect people from the effects of smoke. Mr Damien O’Connor said that he has been around hospitals. I have worked in hospitals, and I have seen enough emphysema to last me a lifetime. If I have to treat another person it will not be a pleasant experience. But those people were not people who suffered from passive smoking—they were smokers. They had smoked for most of their lives. They had smoked for 40, 45, and sometimes 50 years. The disorders they were in hospital to be treated for—the ones that Mr O’Connor referred to—were not as a result of passive smoking. Those people were smokers and they had been for some time. They recognised that they had brought their lung disorder on themselves, yet in most cases they still did not give up smoking.

I am pleased to take a call to refute a couple of the allegations made today. First, I note that the Hon Peter Dunne now understands that the title is the “Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill”, not the “Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill”, and I clarify that because the exact intention of the bill is to make workplaces smoke free environments. So bill clarifies that for members very nicely. One of the other comments made was about the “smoking police”. I want to clarify that this is a public health piece of legislation that is not about policing; it is about bringing communities with us, through public health education and public health promotion. That was just a small point that Dail Jones made.

I want to talk about research. We heard all the submissions about the research and about the effects of second-hand smoke. I am very surprised that the ACT spokesperson on health can take such a stand against the health effects of smoking. In fact, we heard from the World Health Organization that it irrefutably states there is scientific evidence unequivocally establishing that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease, and disability. The Ministry of Health in New Zealand cited several studies from Murray Laugesen, and Professor Alistair Woodward at the Wellington School of Medicine. Those studies were all about the health effects of second-hand smoke. We can say quite unequivocally that smoking kills. As a midwife, I want to clarify for the Committee that we know that 50 babies die every year from the effects of exposure to second-hand smoke; from sudden infant death syndrome. That is irrefutable. Members can argue about overseas research studies that they find useful, but those of us on the Health Committee—those of us who had an open mind—heard all the science and all the reports from around the world, and that gave us the very clear steer that we had to take this bill right across the board so that we had a total smoke-free environment. That is why the title so aptly describes where we are at today.

Rather than giving us a clear steer, we have been given a bum steer on this matter. I do not believe that 50 babies die a year at the Returned Services Association, the league club, the rugby club, or anywhere else. The reality is that this bill should be called the “Attitude Cop Bill”, or the “Gestapo Bill”, or the “I can’t keep my nose out of other people’s business (even though I can’t handle my own) Bill”, or the “I know what is good for you even though I don’t know what is good for myself Bill”.

Let us look at the facts. We are told by these proponents that one person a day dies from vicarious smoking. Is it not amazing that the most recent health study in this country demonstrated that two out of every five deaths in 1997 occurred not through cigarette smoking, associated, or otherwise, but through over-eating? In 1997, two out of every five deaths occurred in respect of unhealthy diet. Two out of five—or 11,000 people—died prematurely through unhealthy eating. I ask some of those members, who are so quick to rush to tell everybody how they should behave, how their diet and health is. Are they doing any exercise? Before they rush out to say that they want to save the world—how about themselves? Let us look at the facts. I have some information that is worldwide and respected. First of all, on the issue of who smokes the most, nation by nation—

💬 Darren Hughes: You!

Junior over there should try to keep up with the play. If he wants to become an important member of Parliament he should learn to close his nose and mouth at the same time, open his ears, and learn. Who are the most frequent smokers of cigarettes? They are the Bulgarians, the Greeks, and the Japanese. It is astonishing, really, that Japan is a very heavily industrialised country and its people are the heaviest smokers in the world. What is fascinating about this study is that on the obesity index the Japanese rank lowest in the world. How phenomenal it is that on the longevity index, the average lifespan, Japanese males and females win hands down. If smoking is so bad for people—actual smoking as opposed to vicarious or associated smoking—how come the Japanese figures do not back up one thing the Government is saying? Those members can destroy scientific evidence, practice voodoo politics, and come along here with a trumped up case that will not carry any water, but I tell them straight that if they want to save New Zealanders, then a good diet and exercise is more important than anything else. That is not my belief, but the belief of the Ministry of Health and anyone who knows. So where is the Government’s “Good Health and Exercise Bill”? No, those members could not do that, because, like the people at the whale conference in Auckland this morning, half of them look like whales. It is unbelievable! People rush to tell us how to live our lives, yet they themselves have no chance of living a long life because they are grossly overweight, have a bad diet, and do not do any exercise. But, there are all the figures. With regard to obesity, Japan has the lowest rate in the world, followed by Korea. In respect of smoking, Japan has the worst rate in the world, closely followed by countries like Korea.

💬 Government Member: What about Bulgaria?

The Bulgarians are living so long that once upon time they put it down to Pinot Noir.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

There are people in the gallery who know what I am talking about. People went amongst all those people, and they thought that the only common factor in their longevity, the only common thing in their diet, was Pinot Noir. Then they realised it was the overall diet. The Pinot Noir people made a fortune for a short while until greater scientific evidence came in.

Now, here is the point: on health expenditure per gross domestic product, is Japan the highest spender? No, it is not, but its people are living longer. The figures are all there. Japan is about the middle. I ask those people over there, who are so hasty to tell us how to live, what they are doing about people’s real health needs.

It is with pleasure that I speak on the title of this bill. I notice that the debate has now developed into a very wide-ranging debate. I want to say at the outset that under no circumstances would I be prepared to support legislation as bad as this. I say that because I wonder how far this Government will drive this nanny State so that people are not given the choice of what they can do with their own lives. We have heard contributions from Labour Party members and the Greens. They have said that this measure is needed because people have to go into smoky bars. I am not aware of any person being forced into a smoky bar. We used to have a similar situation with people complaining about restaurants. Over a period of time, the market has determined that people do not find it pleasant to sit in restaurants with people smoking at the table next to them. Over time we have seen that restaurants have been able to adopt the practice of having no-smoking areas, and, in some cases, a significant number have taken the opportunity of having no smoking at all. Those businesses have survived. In fact, they have used the fact they are non-smoking as a marketing ploy. So if this is such an issue in the pubs and the Returned Services Associations, again let the market have the opportunity to adopt the ability to market themselves as smoke-free and see whether they survive. I think that some of them would do extremely well.

I note that this particular legislation is here in the name of Steve Chadwick on a members’ day. Yet when Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor took a call, he spoke, throughout his contribution, about “we” having a position. [Interruption] The Government has a position—the member is dead right, and this is a whipped piece of legislation that should not be debated.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Damien O’Connor says it is not. Let him take the next call and name which Labour member of Parliament will stand up against Helen Clark. Let us find out. This legislation is Government policy, and the Government should have the fortitude to debate it amongst Government business of the day. It should not be a member’s bill, at all.

We then heard Sue Kedgley talking about how dangerous this product is for people’s health. We heard how dangerous it is for people to have to sit in smoky bars, and go home and shake and air their clothes because of the stench that descends on them, because they made the choice to go into a bar in the first place. Also in the House today, we had a question that reiterates the longstanding debate that the Greens run—about legitimising cannabis smoking. Where is the logic in the Government having before this House legislation to make it more and more difficult for people who are addicted to what is currently a legal product—tobacco—while, at the same time, the Greens, and, I know, a good number of the Labour caucus, are keen to legislate to legitimise cannabis? What is the logic for that?

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Name one!

Ruth Dyson has said at many candidate meetings—I have been on the platform with her—that she supports the legalising of cannabis, so that people have the right to smoke cannabis at will. So there is one, and I bet Damien O’Connor knows there are plenty more. Then Steve Chadwick took a call. She told us a figure that I have not heard before—that is, 50 babies have died because of second-hand smoke in the past year. The figure of those dying just continues to get bigger and bigger. We had evidence before the Health Committee that, apparently, 300 people a year die of second-hand smoke in New Zealand. By the time the bill went through the committee, that figure had been magnified to 400 people. I say to the member in charge of this bill, that she should table the 400 death certificates that have been filed and state that those people died of second-hand smoke. I guarantee that member will not be able to table those death certificates.

💬 Brian Connell: Not even one.

Not one, because they do not exist. What we see here is a huge manufacturing and embellishment of the story about the effect of second-hand smoke on people’s health. I say we must stick to where the issues should be. People who have been addicted for years do not have the ability to stop smoking instantly. They are the very people who support the pubs—for example, up and down Damien O’Connor’s electorate—and those pubs will go out of business because of this legislation.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: They’re not.

Damien O’Connor says: “They’re not.”, and he may be right, because those pubs will defy the legislation because it is unworkable. They are the only two choices.

About a week or two ago I stood up here and spoke about the ideologically driven policies of the Labour Government. There is so much ideological b---s--- in this bill that I am surprised that—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

One of the things we have to understand is the difference between the effect and the activity. Drunk people cause social problems all the time, but we do not ban drinking in bars. If a smoke-free cigarette were developed, would smoking it be allowed? What we do not seem to understand is that people presently have a choice whether they enter a smoke-filled environment. People have a choice—[Interruption] Sue Kedgley interjects, but if we were to follow her line of logic, we should ban smoking in people’s homes, because children who suffer the effects of smoking by their parents have even less choice than employees do. You are absolutely on the wrong track, and, I might add, if you are so keen on being smoke-free, why are you not also keen on being cannabis-free? Cannabis is something that does a little bit more damage, perhaps.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not bring the Chair into the debate. I remind members of the longstanding convention that members on the cross benches who are sitting near the member speaking do not interject, because it muffles the microphone. I ask members to be cautious.

I take your point. The other aspect of it, and something that nobody has mentioned yet, is that we do not need this legislation, because we have the Occupational Safety and Health Service. If smoking is affecting employees, and there is evidence of that, the Occupational Safety and Health Service should deal with it. We do not need legislation to target smokers, the hospitality industry, people who choose of their own volition to smoke, and people who choose to be in the company of people who smoke, under conditions chosen by people running their own businesses their way. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I am unique, probably, amongst the 120 members here in that I have had about 20 years’ experience in the hospitality industry. I personally do not like smoking and I do not smoke. In our restaurant, we chose to be smoke-free, but that was a choice we made. It was a choice I made as a proprietor and a person who worked there. I have to say we did not suffer any loss in business, but the real issue here is that we made that choice. This legislation was not in place, but we still chose to go smoke-free. We do not need to have legislation like this, to ram it down people’s throats, and to deny them the opportunity to make a decision for themselves.

Another aspect too is that I know that in Christchurch, for example, there is a cigar bar. The whole business is predicated on the idea of people being able to come in, eat, have a drink, and enjoy a cigar. It has a huge array of cigars on its menu. What are you going to tell them?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Chair into the debate. The member cannot use the word “you”.

What is the Government going to do in that regard? A group of individuals have committed a large sum of money to open up a business predicated on something that this kind of legislation is attempting to take away their right to do. It will hurt not only the employees, because they will be out of a job, but also the proprietor, who has put an amount of money into the business, and the people who visit the restaurant to enjoy exactly those amenities.

Another aspect is that we target cigarettes in this legislation, but we have not targeted all the other things contributing to the atmosphere of a hospitality environment. We have not targeted the flu, which people bring into that environment, and all the rest of it. The suggestion put forward of having an air quality standard would actually address those issues. There is a very good argument to say that having an air quality standard would be healthier than simply stopping smoking in a hospitality environment. That is something that ought to be addressed in this legislation.

Finally, I suppose what galls me the most is that we are telling people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own businesses. But what happens in prisons? Under the guise of a prison cell being considered a home, the employees who work in prisons will not be covered by this legislation. That is idiocy. If we are telling private individuals to succumb to this, then the Government should succumb to it, too.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for letting me make a contribution to this debate. I intend it to be fairly short. I need to say at the outset that I cannot support this legislation, because I also believe it to be very knee-jerk. My idea for a title of this bill is the “Smoke-free Impossibility Environments Amendment Bill”, because it just is not possible to have a smoke-free environment.

I want to develop just a couple of themes. One of those has been touched on by a couple of speakers previously, and that is the issue of choice. Why do we insist on this nanny State mentality? Why can we not simply let the market choose? Let us take the example of a restaurant. Why not let the market dictate what will take place? Entrepreneurial restaurateurs who think they can make a buck out of a smoke-free restaurant should open one, and let us see what happens. The market will dictate; if people go to their restaurant, word will get around, and people will support them. But we cannot legislate for that. What members are doing is trying to tell people what is right and what is wrong for them. We just cannot do that. [Interruption]

💬 Jill Pettis: The member just said he made money in his restaurant.

That is exactly my point. Let people choose. We should not legislate for it; let them choose. If people want to go to a smoke-free place, they will. That is what I am saying.

The second issue is the Returned Services Association clubs. Like a previous speaker, I have made contact with some of them. I have a petition from one club that asks why this legislation is taking place. I tell the Committee that 137 people signed that petition. They are mostly old soldiers who, they said, have given their all for this country, and now they are being told when they can have a fag and when they cannot, and, more important, where. This goes right to the heart of their quality of life. They go down to the Returned Services Association club to see their mates, to have a yarn and a fag. They have already risked life and limb, most of these folks, and they are not concerned about whether having a smoke might harm them. I am looking across the Chamber at Peter Dunne and am just reflecting—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Another returned soldier!

No, no, but if he had been a soldier, I am sure he would have been a very fine one. I am looking at Peter Dunne and thinking that he has this issue pretty well sorted out, because if people can produce a clean air environment, why would we not support that? Is not that just an issue of common sense?

If we are going to be brutally honest about all of this, why do we not ban smoking full stop? I will say why that will not happen. The Government does not have the stomach for it. Damien O’Connor would not support that on the West Coast. Absolutely not! He would be out of business, quick smart. Imagine going to the West Coast, Damien, and saying—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot refer to Mr O’Connor by his first name. Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement) says that the member must use his full name, his portfolio, or his title.

I thank the Chair for his guidance. I think my point, nevertheless, is made. What about the hypocrisy of this—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot use the word “hypocrisy”. It has been ruled out of order many times in this Chamber. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I apologise.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt the member, but I suggest to you that he was not referring to the hypocrisy of members, which is out of order; the member was referring to the hypocrisy of the argument. An argument can be hypocritical, and to say that it is does not imply a judgment on members who are making it. I suggest that you might want to reflect on your ruling, which I think was unduly harsh in respect of that member’s comments.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, I shall reflect on it.

I thank the member for his support. In fact, I was referring to the arguments, and I was not casting any aspersions on members of this Committee. But I will not use the term, because, obviously, it upsets the Chair.

What I will say is that I find it ironic that people who have committed heinous crimes in this country can sit in their prison cells and have a smoke, but ex-soldiers of this country, people who have given their all for it, cannot light up a fag at the local Returned Services Association club. This is PC gone mad. I am looking at a couple of members across the other side of the Committee whom I have come to respect: they do not believe in this. A couple of them are now looking away. They do not support this legislation at all. They know that this does not make sense. They know that they will have a hard job selling this, because it just is not saleable. The “Smoke-free Impossibility Environments Amendment Bill”, I believe, is a better title.

I suggest that the correct title of this bill should be the “Smoke-free Restricted Environments Amendment Bill”, because I believe that it is missing out on some environments that are crucial. We are hearing a lot about the environment of the workplace and other environments that are mentioned in the bill, but I want to focus some comments this evening on two environments that I believe are crucial, if we are serious about protecting people from the harm that is caused by second-hand smoke. I will be referring to children in this regard, and perhaps, in some ways, to those 50 babies that the member mentioned before who are, supposedly, dying every year as a result of being exposed to second-hand smoke. Whether it is 50 children or whether it is five, I believe that issue is very serious for us as a nation. This bill does not address their needs. I believe, therefore, that it falls very far short.

It is good that environments such as schools, pre-schools, and passenger-service vehicles, such as school buses, taxis, and so on, are covered by this legislation. But there are two environments that are not covered, which is why I say the title is wrong. The two environments that I want to talk about are the private car and the home. I think probably those two environments contribute more damage being done to children in our country than any of the other environments. If babies are dying as a result of being exposed to second-hand smoke, that exposure is most likely occurring in the home environment or when they are cooped up in the family car, where mum and dad puff away with the windows up, and the children gasp for fresh air.

I have some sympathy for those smokers who are having their rights curtailed by this bill for the good, supposedly, of all non-smokers and for general health benefits as a whole. It would be reasonable for us to ask people to give up their rights, if that would be for the benefit of the public health of all New Zealanders, and if it would provide safe, clean air for everyone. But I am concerned that children are being significantly missed in this bill, and it is simply because we are afraid to make the hard decisions—the unpopular ones—and protect those who need protecting. Adults can always choose the environments they sit in or eat in, or what pubs they go to, but children often have no choice at all. This bill does address issues such as pre-schools and schools, but it is the cars and the homes that, I believe, are crucial.

Whenever we talk about homes, of course we hear a great hue and cry about invasion of privacy, about how could we ever pass a law to stop people from having the freedom to smoke in their own homes. But, let us face it, we would not allow parents to abuse their children in their own homes. It would not make any difference to us if that child abuse were occurring in a private home or in a public place; we would be in there like a shot to prevent it. Yet we are not prepared to do anything about children who are exposed to second-hand smoke day in and day out during their lives, in their own homes or in their own cars as they travel around this country. We simply want to attack the easy options, and not deal with the difficult ones. The Hospitality Association has said: “Well, if you’re going to pass a rule, make it one rule for all.” I say, OK, let us make it one rule for all—one rule for children and adults as well. Let us make sure that everybody has a right to clean, fresh air.

I was brought up in a home of smokers, and as a result I began smoking when I was about 14 years of age. I was a serious smoker by the time I was 16, before I had left school, and by the time I was 21 I was smoking 30 cigarettes a day. I used to give up all the time, and I became very good at it. After becoming a Christian at 22 years of age, I did finally manage to give up smoking, and I am very glad that I was able to do so, and I am very glad that my children have grown up as non-smokers, as well. Often, as a Christian, I was asked: “Is it a sin to smoke?”. I would always, of course, refer them to the words of Jesus, when he said: “Nothing passing into the mouth defiles a man. It is that which comes out of the heart that defiles us.” Smoking is unhealthy, however, and we should avoid it, if possible. I will be voting against this bill—unless we see some amendments to it to make it more sensible—but not because of any religious understanding about smoking. In fact, there is a good story that can put us straight in that regard—

I say with great conviction that “enhanced protection” is absolutely right, because we have had a history of people in this country not having protection from second-hand smoke. Just a little while ago we heard the Hon Winston Peters scoffing at the evidence that second-hand smoke is a reality, and so did David Carter for that matter. However, we know from very clear epidemiological studies right around the world of a whole area of organ systems—particularly the cardiovascular system, if not the respiratory system—that it has a significant effect on shortening people’s lives. More so than that, if we think of the statistics in New Zealand, we know that 75 percent of people do not smoke, and 25 percent do. But of those 25 percent who do smoke, 50 percent or more are young Māori women. Many in that category become pregnant, and they impose a significant problem on their unborn foetuses.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: You don’t get pregnant by smoking!

I heard the member for Rotorua saying that there was something like—[Interruption] The member is absolutely right, but this is not a flippant issue, because the member for Rotorua did point out a mortality rate of about 50. I do not know whether it is necessarily that, but more important is the sub-clinical pathology imposed on young New Zealanders, and it is very significant. In fact, the number of babies who die is miniscule in comparison with the number of children born with conditions like intrauterine growth, and retardation that seriously affects all organ systems. Those children set off in life with a profound disadvantage.

One might say that young pregnant women do not go to clubs, bars, casinos, and restaurants. The truth of the matter is that they do, and that an unborn foetus has no say whatsoever in the situation.

💬 Hon David Carter: They shouldn’t be drinking.

They should not be drinking. However, the point I am making is that we would hope that all New Zealand children had the chance to achieve their potential, although a significant number of them are severely penalised right from the start. The bill’s title, which suggests enhanced protection, is absolutely spot on in trying to provide New Zealand children with that extra opportunity to achieve their full potential.

I mentioned in the second reading that there is a real clash in terms of the freedom of the individual. Surely, libertarian philosophy states quite clearly that the individual should have as much freedom as possible, provided it does no harm, and there is absolutely no doubt that second-hand smoke does harm. If one then transposes that to the children of this nation, then the effect is profound. This bill has significant provisions to ensure that right from preschools, to schools, to secondary schools—sadly, universities are not entirely protected, or do not have the degree of enforcement that earlier education institutions have, but they do have significant ones—

I actually came to the House on my way to the gymnasium, and probably with that in mind, and reflecting on the speech given by Winston Peters, I would say that a few members in this House should be doing likewise—as opposed to them telling the nation how its people should be living their lives. I recognise a number of people in this House whom I see exercising in the gym or occasionally padding it out on the road. However, I do not see anywhere in the title where those members are seeking to tell the rest of Parliament how they should be living their lives in respect of their physical well-being. I want to put on record that I think the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill is another one of those nosy-parker pieces of legislation.

I want to make it very clear right now that I am a non-smoker. I live with a wife who smokes, and we have many discussions on the issues of smoking. But the one thing I would not dare to do—and any man would be a fool to do—is set about telling my wife how she should live her life. I would simply say to people who might suggest to me that my wife is not a good mother because she smokes, and that her practice is detrimental to the health and well-being of our children, to look in his or her own backyard before daring to suggest that my wife has not brought up her children well. I would suggest that one looks at one’s own whanaunga, or at one’s own whānau, before daring to suggest that my kids have not been successful in life, or will not be successful in life.

Nosy-parker legislation like this is fine if one is addressing the real issue. “Enhanced protection” immediately makes me think of some of the smoky bars I have been to in my time in the Middle East, the UK, and New Zealand, and I have quite enjoyed being in many of those places. At times when a non-smoker finds it difficult to breath in any place, he or she has the choice to leave. If a bar manager wishes to cater for a select crowd and make his bar smoke-free, that is a business decision that that owner makes. It is not up to this Parliament to tell that man or woman how to run that bar.

If that person wants to invest a huge amount of money putting in an air-conditioning system that filters the air so that Returned Services Association members can have a smoke-free environment, that is his or her decision. It is a commercial decision based on the clientele’s needs, and the ability of that business to recover that investment. But that is where it should stop. For Parliament to pass legislation like this under the guise of doing it for our own good smacks of the nanny-State stuff that I did not expect certain members in the Labour benches to be voting for.

I know them personally. Having worked alongside those members as a Labour Party member many years ago, I know what it is in their hearts. What I see happening here is a whip from the Prime Minister, who occasionally turns up to the House to answer questions. It is the long handle of the whip she exerts. I simply say this: thank you, Labour Party, for helping us with the Returned Services Association vote. Thank you very much for putting legislation here. I hope it has the numbers, and I hope it is passed, but I will be voting against it. Thank you for telling Māori how they should live their lives.

Quite frankly, I would rather that this Government focused on obesity, and that it dealt with pokie machines. I have been into many supposedly smoke-filled bar rooms, and the places I am more concerned about are those little tucked-away nooks and crannies that are jam-packed with pokie machines, and that at 2.30 in the afternoon are full of people. I suggest that many of them are Labour voters who should not be in there, and who are spending money from a benefit, or hard-earned money from their partners, on the pokie machines. If there are areas that this Government needs to stick its nosy beak into, maybe it should focus on those areas, because many of those people are its own core members. I simply say that politically correct legislation like this is doing us a huge amount of good. Members have seen how New Zealand First is on the rise, and continues to rise in the polls.

If members are really concerned about the well-being of Māori women who smoke, then I would ask Dr Hutchison how come Māori women live longer than Māori men if the health of so many Māori women is so poorly affected by smoking? The figures are there. How come the Japanese live longer than everybody, yet they smoke more than anybody? There are a whole heap of inconsistencies in the arguments that have been put forward. I do not believe that this bill, in any way, shape, or form, stacks up to what people say are the reasons for passing it.

I note the genuine concerns of some members of this Parliament, and I appreciate them. I note Steve Chadwick’s concerns. However, I also have a deep suspicion that for every one person who votes for this bill out of a genuine belief that he or she is doing the right thing, some other Labour people will have been whipped into it.

I have a few corrections to make again. I just want to emphasise that this is not an anti-smoking bill. I say that very clearly, because we do understand that smoking is an addiction. If that addiction happens at a very early age, then people who are addicted to nicotine need help, and that is something this Government is prepared to do. We have Quitline and smoking cessation programmes, and it is very important to get that message across. Seventy-five percent of New Zealanders do not smoke, and that is the aspect of choice that we were talking about. This amendment bill is protecting the air for those 75 percent who choose not to smoke. All we are asking is that smokers go outside, and then come back and carry on with their drinking.

The Returned Services Association issue is a difficult one, but the select committee made the decision to take it across the board in the interests of consistency of argument and a level playing field wherever there is a liquor licence. I know that the Hospitality Association is looking at us today and imploring us not to make exemptions, because we would be creating an unfair commercial environment. This bill went even further than it was originally intended, because we did originally consider separate rooms, but then we decided that that would not work. It would be like peeing in a swimming pool—it just mixes around. We have to take it right across the board and have an all-or-nothing approach.

In relation to Returned Services Associations, I also point out that only 12 percent of people over 65 smoke. That would mean that nearly 90 percent of the Returned Services Association patrons who are truly old soldiers—whom we respect, value and thank for their contribution to our lives today—do not smoke. So we are very aware of that here.

I also want to point out that we are talking about the rolling effect of Returned Services Associations, and about how far we can take a bill. I have had a wonderful letter today from Ray Wolf, the president of the Marlborough Returned Services Association, saying: “We congratulate you. The Marlborough Returned Services Association welcomes the move to ban smoking in the club.” Only 5 percent of its patrons are smokers, so I think we will slowly see an incremental change. We certainly do not want to be known as the nanny State.

Larry Baldock brought up the issue of the environment. He is absolutely right about cars and homes, but it is about bringing people with us, and about how far one can go. I just want to remind the Committee that this bill first came in in 1990. It is now 13 years later, and this is about as far as we are prepared to go here today. I think the issue of air pollution, which somebody else brought up, is a different aspect and one for an environmental air standard to deal with.

The vexed issue of prison cells was one that came before the select committee, and we decided to treat only the cell as if it were the prisoner’s own home—not the yard, dining room, or anywhere else in a prison. The Department of Corrections implored us to keep the cells provision in the bill, simply because it has to manage prisoners in prisons. On that advice, we treated the cell as the prisoner’s own room—unless a prisoner has a room mate, in which case the smoke-free provision applies if the room mate does not want the other prisoner to smoke.

I just wanted to make it quite clear to members of the Committee who are interested and have come today that this is not an anti-smokers bill.

I am a reformed smoker. I gave up some time back, and I would remind those members who are speaking against this bill that much of the freedom from smoking they now enjoy has not always been there. Once upon a time, people smoked in other people’s homes all the time. The staffroom in the school I taught in was a smoking staffroom, and everybody put up with it. Larry Baldock spoke on behalf of children, and I point out that smokers up and down the country smoked in their homes—it was a normal thing to do. However, the culture has changed because people decided that it was not right, and not fair to non-smokers. Now all of us can be fairly sure that when people come into our homes, they will not light up. People no longer light up in the staffrooms up and down the country; they respect the rights of others.

There is only one place where that is not the case, and that is in the pubs. I like going into pubs, but I do not like coming out smelling like an ashtray. I do not like going home, taking off my clothes, and waking up the next morning and finding that they still smell. The smokers I know say that they do not enjoy that density of smoke either. As a former smoker, I can recall that it was not a lot of fun being surrounded by other people smoking.

This bill is in the interests of all of us. Smoking is an exceedingly unhealthy habit. Imposing one’s smoke on other people is an exceedingly unfriendly thing to do, and most people realise that. They will get used to it in the pubs, and they will get used to it very quickly, but I find the support of United Future members for this bill particularly strange. They seem to think that it is OK to go on smoking in bars, but it is not OK.

This is a good bill. I thank Ms Chadwick for her efforts. On behalf of those of us who no longer smoke, I say well done. Ms Chadwick is in a long line of people who have been doing a grand job in making this place a little healthier for all of us.

I am a non-smoker, and I have been a non-smoker for—

💬 Jill Pettis: Do you ever do anything?

—probably longer than that member has been a smoker. If the member thinks I have not had an enjoyable life, I tell her that she is completely wrong. Indeed, I have never known the member to be right, so it is no surprise she is wrong yet again, on something else.

We hear of people going down to the pub or the club to have a cigarette after work so they do not smoke in front of their children.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: You don’t go to the pub to have a smoke; you go to have a beer.

They go to the pub and the club so they do not smoke in front of their children. What is wrong with that? Why do we not trust New Zealanders to make their own decisions? Why can the owner of a bar not make the decision as to whether the bar is a smoke-free bar? Why can the owner of a club not make the decision as to whether the club is a non-smoking club? I accept that there should be a standard as to air quality, and we will be supporting Peter Dunne’s amendment in that regard. I know that we can change air very, very rapidly. Does the member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, disagree? I tell members that a ship’s hold can suck out air faster than one can say the words. [Interruption]

There is a serious side to this. This is robbing people of their freedoms. People have a legal right to smoke. Do members want to see schoolteachers leave the school area totally—the buildings, the playground—stand on the sidewalk, and smoke cigarettes in front of everybody?

💬 Rod Donald: In front of the schoolchildren.

Is that what members want? Damien O’Connor laughs; he thinks it is funny. It is a sad thing to see teachers go out and stand on the pavement to have a smoke. It is terrible, and I think we should respect the rights of all teachers.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Do you think they should do it in front of pupils?

Let me put it this way: I would prefer a little bit of honesty, a little bit of integrity, and a little bit of respect in this. I have a very high regard for teachers.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: And marijuana, too?

I am glad the member brings that up, because I find the Greens’ position on this absolutely loopy.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Why are you surprised?

Only a year ago, Rod Donald from the Greens was advocating that everybody who supported the Greens should go and make a public protest by smoking cannabis cigarettes in front of everybody, then get in their cars and drive home. That is what he was advocating, and at a public meeting when I said he had one of his members going out doing that, he said: “No, I’ve got two.” Those people think it is responsible to advocate smoking marijuana and then driving home. That is an absolute disgrace. They then complain about people going into a pub or a club and getting the smell of cigarettes on their jackets, or whatever. I say to the Green Party members that they should not go in the pub or the club; they should sit at home and do their thing there.

I have every sympathy for those who join the Returned Services Association. Its members fought for this country in the war, and some fought for Britain in the war. They are entitled to go to their club and watch the All Blacks beat the South African and Australian rugby teams and have a cigarette and a pint of beer. Members on the other side of the Chamber know it is only fair that those people should be entitled to do that.

I see in this bill that people cannot smoke in internal spaces on a ship, but that they must go outside to smoke.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I was saying how stupid this bill is when it comes to ships. To illustrate the point, people on a tanker cannot smoke outside the wheelhouse or the accommodation; they have to confine their smoking within the ship—[Interruption] Even Mr Duynhoven knows that. Now we are debating legislation that states that people have to go outside, where there is a huge fire risk to the ship and to the well-being of the people. That is how daft this bill is. That is just one aspect of it. I urge members to rethink this bill and amend it so that it makes sense. Or they could look at my amendment, which suggests that the matter should go to public referendum.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Hon Peter Dunne moved a motion at the beginning of the Committee stage to refer this bill back to the Health Committee. Our vote was mistakenly cast as a split vote, when it should have been 13 in favour of the motion. I seek leave to have that vote—

We have to correct that vote in the House, rather than in Committee. We will do that.

💬 PETER BROWN: I give members notice that that is coming.

I rise to speak again on the title of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, because, as I said in my first speech on the title, I think the proper title should be the “Smoke-free (Selective Environments) Amendment Bill”. The reason is that the bill—if it is to be taken seriously—has left out some environments that are vitally important.

I need to finish the story I began in my first speech on the title. I know that many members will be anxious to hear the end of the story. It relates to a young man, who, after his recent Christian conversion, was still struggling to give up the terrible habit of cigarette smoking—it is a very addictive habit, and we have great sympathy for those who battle it; as I said earlier, I battled it for many years myself. He was rather concerned as to whether he was a sinner because he was continuing to smoke, so he went to see his pastor, and said: “If I smoke cigarettes will I still be able to go to heaven?” The pastor looked at him very thoughtfully, and said: “Well, son, it’s not really my position to be able to make those kinds of declarations. I can’t tell you, but if you keep it up you’ll find out sooner than you really want to know.”

There is no doubt that smoking is unhealthy but so is drinking too much soft drink or eating too much fast food, and we are not considering banning those. We should remember that the reason for this bill is to reduce the harm caused by second-hand smoke. It is not about whether a person chooses to smoke; it is about whether others are subjected to the effects of that smoking against their will.

I welcome the progress that has been made over the years. I remember when I first began working, in 1972, for New Zealand Insurance in Tauranga. We had a smoko room, and people who were not smokers had to endure their morning tea in the midst of a smoke-filled room. I have a smile on my face these days when I see the smokers having to stand outside on the footpath in the pouring rain to have their smoke, whilst those who do not smoke are able to enjoy the comfort of what is still often called the smoko room.

My concern with this bill is that there are two environments that it does not address, and it should. As I mentioned earlier, they are the car and the home. I call for support for my amendment from those who put the “Second-hand smoke kills” advertisement in the Independent, and on all those who agreed with it, the Cancer Society of New Zealand, Diabetes New Zealand, Action on Smoking and Health, and the rest of the huge list who were convinced enough about second-hand smoke being dangerous to our health that they put that advertisement in the paper and called upon MPs to support this legislation. Tonight I call on them to support the amendment I am tabling that will deal at least with the environment of the private automobile and address the issue of children under the age of 12 being subjected to the second-hand smoke of a driver—a caregiver, or whoever it may be—against their will. That is an environment we should be guaranteeing to be smoke-free for the young people of our country.

I will not try to address the issue of smoking in the home on this occasion. I will not add that to my amendment, because everybody will run for cover and we will get nothing done. But I appeal to members of the Committee to consider making sure that this legislation can ensure a smoke-free environment for children being driven to and fro in vehicles, just as much as it does to those who want to enjoy a smoke-free environment in a restaurant. If we believe second-hand smoke kills, we should protect those who cannot protect themselves—the children of our country—and hopefully that message will eventually pass on to parents who subject their children to smoke-filled homes, and then wonder why those children suffer from respiratory problems later in life. If we cannot make it a crime, at least we may send the right signal by requiring them to think about it when they take their children out in the car.

I was quite happy to take a call later, but as this is a wide-ranging debate and there is now an opportunity, I am happy to speak now. The point I want to start with is something that struck me as I listened to my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison, a person for whom I have tremendous respect. The thing that struck me about his contribution is something that I think is fair to say of all members who have made contributions. Some people have very genuine concerns about the effect of smoking on health—both first-hand smoking and second-hand smoking—but Paul Hutchison’s contribution was specifically concerned with the effect that second-hand smoke in pubs might have on in utero babies. The question has to be asked. If we have made progress on pointing out the damage that is caused by alcohol consumption during pregnancy, what are those young mums doing in the pubs at that time, anyway?

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Some may not know they’re pregnant.

I guess that is true, but having found out that they are pregnant, which they should have found out after a relatively short period of time—and Damien O’Connor should know the answers—I suggest those people would be better to stay away from the pub environment, and not drink or smoke.

The second thing that struck me during the dinner break was Ron Mark’s suggestion, just prior to the dinner break, that people go down to the gym and take some exercise. I was amazed by the number of people who actually listened to Ron Mark. The place was packed, to the extent that there were no running machines, so I went out and had a run down Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place.

💬 Darren Hughes: Did you see Winston?

No, I did not, but that is a good question. When I ran down Lambton Quay I was struck by the large number of people waiting for buses. As we ran past those people, a high proportion were smoking and I had to inhale their used smoke. So I want to ask the member promoting the bill, Steve Chadwick, why my health should be put at risk—or do I not have a right to run down Lambton Quay? One cannot run down Lambton Quay at that time without passing people who are waiting for the bus and smoking heavily. Why are the rights of people working in the hospitality industry of far more importance than mine? I look forward to the member who is promoting the bill answering that question.

I then proceeded to run down Courtenay Place, and was struck by the number of people enjoying a leisurely drink at the end of a day’s work. A very high proportion of those people were smoking. I ask another question of the member promoting this bill. What sort of research has been done on the smoking rates of people who visit hotels? We hear the figure bandied around, and I do not doubt that 25 percent of New Zealanders are smokers, but I want to know from the member whether the people who use pubs and clubs, etc., represent a higher proportion of smokers, and whether that fact has been taken into account.

The third thing I want to know from the member who is promoting the bill is what sort of work has been done on the practicality of implementing this legislation. I accept that it has been driven by people who are idealistic about this crusade to cut down the rate of smoking and the risk of second-hand smoke damage to people’s health, but I do not think there has been any work done on the practicality.

When I interjected earlier, I challenged Damien O’Connor to answer what effect this sort of legislation would have on a battling small country pub on the West Coast, to which he responded: “It would have no effect at all, economically.”

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Means two things.

That is right. It means one of two things. Either people will completely ignore the legislation, or the smoke police will be standing right outside, making sure those people never enter the pub in the first place. If that is the option, the industry’s economics will certainly be greatly affected. But I guarantee that the former option will be the one. People on the West Coast will completely ignore this legislation.

The other thing that struck me over the dinner break was, if it were a cold, wet night and people were drinking happily in Courtenay Place, or wherever else, would they all go outside to smoke? What sort of effect would that have on Courtenay Place, if a hundred people poured out of bars and pubs—

💬 Russell Fairbrother: They won’t!

Russell Fairbrother said they will not. That is exactly right. They will stay and drink in the pubs, they will stay and defy the law, and if Parliament is silly enough to listen to Sue Kedgley later, there will be no culpability on those people, at all. But what will happen to the person running the business? Members should answer that question.

I would like to take over from where my colleague David Carter left off. Overseas examples that Action on Smoking and Health and other anti-tobacco lobby groups love to quote are quite instructive. The example most often put forward is that of California. Apparently we are supposed to consider ourselves favourably with California, where the climate is significantly different from the one in New Zealand. In fact, if we had the climate that California has, smoking outside would not be nearly the problem that it is here.

David Carter asked whether people on the West Coast would go outside when the weather is wet and cold, in the middle of winter. I doubt it very much.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Only wet!

Lynda Scott says that it is only wet. I thank her for that. I think that they will not go outside, whether or not it is wet or cold. But what has happened in New York? We should look at the New York example. It was put forward initially as a very good example for us, because the climate is somewhat similar to ours. There is now a lot of public nuisance on the streets there. People are forced to go outside to smoke, because it is the law, although that is in question at the moment. People go on to the streets and cause a lot of public disturbance, and the police are having a great deal of difficulty controlling people, who have had far too much to drink, going outside to smoke. In fact, I read a story recently in The Economist—a great source of information—which the members who were in the Chamber earlier will have heard. A bouncer working at one club was trying to prevent people, who had been at other premises earlier in the night and who had had far too much to drink, from coming into his club—he was not allowing them to enter—and he was stabbed. That is quite an extreme example, I will admit, but there is a lot of public disturbance on the streets of New York. Again, that is not something that we want to see in New Zealand.

Another issue that I would like to go back to is the Returned Services Association. The member in the chair who is promoting the bill, Steve Chadwick, said earlier on that she would like to correct the things that people have been saying about the Returned Services Association. I have had considerable contact with the Returned Services Association since the bill was tabled in the House. Steve Chadwick says that only 12 percent of the over-65s smoke. That may well be a fact, although I am not quite sure where that figure has come from. Even so, not all over-65s attend a Returned Services Association. The clubs who wrote to me said that the vast majority of their members smoked, and I had a large number of letters from people who said that they were not smokers, and that they did not object to smoking at their local branch of the Returned Services Association. They said that they went there for the social contact, and if they objected strongly to the smoke and did not want people to be smoking there, they would not bother going. That is a significant fact.

There was a very interesting letter to the editor of the Dominion Post quite recently, from somebody who called himself an “old digger”. He was in the Second World War and was provided with cigarettes at the front, and became addicted as a result. When he went off to war he was not a smoker, so the Government basically had given him his addiction. He wrote: “My local RSA club charges an annual subscription and issues a membership swipe card.” In effect, he was saying that it was a private club. The membership swipe card prohibits the entry of the general public into his local club. He went on to say that the Prime Minister has said, in no uncertain terms, that there will be no exceptions to the smoking ban. His reply to that was: “Well, I have news for you. I intend to keep smoking at my RSA club in the designated area. I won’t put up with her attempt to stop me, at my age, from having the pleasure of a quiet beer and a cigarette!”. And who can blame him? He has served his time for this country. He has given this country the freedom that every one of us in this Parliament enjoys, and we are about to take his freedoms from him. “Old diggers”, he went on to say, “should fight again for their freedom—the freedom to do what they want in their own private clubs, without interference from a dictatorial Government.”

That sums up the attitude we are seeing in this legislation. There is a loss of freedom, a loss of choice, and a loss of personal liberty, taken by a Government that thinks it knows best, and that tells the people of this nation how to live their lives. For that reason, the ACT party is opposing this bill.

I want to go back to a couple of comments that have been raised during the course of this debate on the title, to date. Members have raised, in what has been agreed should be a wide-ranging debate, a number of issues regarding the practicality of the legislation. While we will explore those in more detail as we move through the parts of the bill, some questions have been raised that neither the promoter of the bill nor the Associate Minister of Health, who has taken one or two calls, has answered.

I want to go back to one that was raised by Mr Worth some time ago, relating to the cigar bar in Christchurch. My colleague Mr Alexander made reference to it, as well. That enterprise was set up specifically to provide a place where people who may like to enjoy a drink or a meal, and a cigar or two, are able to go, pay for the privilege of doing that, and enjoy themselves. It is not a place to which members of the general non - cigar-smoking public would go. The question posed, which has not yet been answered, is why an organisation like that has to be proscribed—as it will be under this bill. Members should bear in mind that that is part of the same agenda that saw a cigar-lovers’ magazine banned by the health zealots a little while ago, because it was apparently offensive in some way—even though one could download it from the Internet, if one were so inclined.

But there is a real point of principle here. If we are to believe the promoters of this bill, it has been introduced because people do not have choices. But it then denies people the opportunity of saying, as in this instance, that they may like to run a cigar bar, knowing full well the implications of the atmosphere within that bar, and the risks that may be attendant upon those who go there. Equally, we may want to set up a smoking bar within our club, a smoking dining room within our restaurant, or whatever else. Those options have not been permitted, and, more important, when questions have been raised about why they have not been permitted, there have not been any answers. There has been a blanket statement that the bill is about occupational safety and health, and we have not had an answer to the question of why, if it is about occupational safety and health, we have to have a different standard of legislation in respect of this activity. The promoter of the bill, I think it was, drew attention to the matter of unsafe building sites, but we do not have specific legislation for them. The general occupational safety and health legislation is held to apply in those cases.

We are left with the conclusion that there is another agenda afoot here, and I think that was betrayed somewhat by the promoter of the bill, when she said that this legislation had its origins in the late 1980s and that this is as far as the Government is going—and she sort of petered out, by saying—“at this stage”. So clearly more legislation is intended. We need to know what else is intended, and when it will be implemented. If the Government’s intention is to take further steps and this bill is only the first step down a path, then the people who are worried about the legislation’s implications now need to know what lies ahead and on what time frame it will be happening. We need to know that so we do not get into the sort of situation, for instance, that the cigar bar in Christchurch—and I think there is one in Auckland—have got into, by investing heavily in a business that will, essentially, be proscribed by law, potentially as early as this evening.

In a country that talks about having an open, competitive economy where people have the opportunity to try their hand and to succeed or fail, as the case may be, to have activities that are not in themselves illegal proscribed by law is an absurdity. Some people have frivolously made comments about what goes on in the street, as a result of another piece of legislation that this Parliament passed recently. One could mount an argument to say that, technically, smoking will now be banned in the street because that is where the hookers’ workplace is. That is a clear example of the sort of absurdity that we are getting into.

We need to know the real intention here. Why is it that on the one hand we can hold an activity to be legal—Ms Chadwick said that this is not anti-smoking legislation per se—but on the other hand we just make it impossible for people to actually indulge in the activity? There is a word for that. I raised a point of order about it before, so I will not do so again. But I think we are entitled to some answers as to the real motivation here. If people are carrying on an activity that is held to be legal, how can we then seek to proscribe the legality of their carrying it out? Why can there not be alternative venues put in place? Why do people not have choices? The best choice I know is that if people do not like a smoky bar or a restaurant, they should either stay away from it or get out of it. If people do not like, as I do not, the stench of smelly clothes and all that sort of thing, then they should not put themselves into that circumstance. Why do we need the hand of the law to proscribe people’s participation? That question has not been answered.

I move, That the question be now put.

When I last spoke I put some statistical information before the Committee and I made some comments about the zealot group in New Zealand, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Those people were zealots when I was here in Parliament before in 1982-3 and I am staggered to see that they are still getting stronger.

💬 Hon David Carter: Because the Government finances them.

So ASH is a Government body, and we have the Government members all supporting this legislation. I want to quote from one of the newspapers that uses some of ASH’s research and compares it with other research. I will quote totally from this journal, which states: “Here is some new info in the controversial debate about the perils of second-hand smoke. ASH’s research shows the relative risk of developing lung cancer from second-hand smoke is 1.24, and heart disease is 1.3 for second-hand smoke at home and 1.21 for second-hand smoke at work.”

I will not go into any further details on that, but that is apparently what ASH says. The article went on to state: “Here are some figures that ASH is not likely to tell you about, gleaned from the International Journal of Cancer, the International Journal of Epidemiology, the Pharmaceutical Journal, and The Lancet.” Now we know that it is about 1.3 percent for second-hand smoke at home and 1.21 for second-hand smoke at work. The article continues: “The relative risk for the following factors causing lung cancer: dairy products, 2.85,”—that is twice the rate for second-hand smoke—“custard, 1.7”. Custard is more dangerous than second-hand smoke. It then states: “Fried meat, 1.54, manual work, compared to non-manual work, 1.4”. By that sort of logic, Labour Party members should give up manual work, because it is bad for them.

💬 Hon David Carter: They have.

Well, yes, they have. The article continues on: “Drinking milk, 1.73”—that is about 40 percent more than second-hand smoke. We are going to put milk in schools—we are going to give our kids free milk in schools—and it is worse than second-hand smoke.

I assure members that the next statistic is the most serious one of the lot, and I am terribly concerned about it myself. It states: “The relative risk for the following factors causing heart disease—baldness, 1.23”. I am an asthmatic as well, so I am on the way out—I am gone. Baldness is worse than second-hand smoke.

💬 Hon David Carter: You should come over to the gym.

I do go to the gym; maybe that is what keeps me going. Now I like biscuits and I often have more than one biscuit a day, but eating one biscuit a day has a 1.49 percent risk of causing heart disease. That is more than passive second-hand smoke—eating one biscuit. If one eats two biscuits or three biscuits one is gone, according to ASH.

Those are the statistics. That is the information from the International Journal of Cancer, the International Journal of Epidemiology, the Pharmaceutical Journal, and The Lancet. One cannot be better informed than that; those are world-respected journals. I look across to the other side of the Chamber and I know some of the Government members will be affected by this next statistic: snoring has an 1.8 percent risk. That is well in excess of second-hand smoke. For bus driving in heavy traffic, the figure is 1.6 percent. For some members—and I look at Craig McNair here, although he is going to remedy this—never being married presents a 2.9 percent risk. It is just as well that Craig McNair is getting married; otherwise he would be in big trouble. Members can imagine that if they were snoring, bald, single bus drivers who were biscuit eaters, they would be out of here. We would just have to give them a box, and they would be gone.

💬 Hon David Carter: Is this your valedictory?

Some members are suggesting this is my valedictory, but it just goes to show how ridiculous some of the statistics really are. Here we are, being made to pass legislation that talks about a 1.3 percent risk from second-hand smoke at home and a 1.21 percent risk from second-hand smoke at work. But drinking the beer that is served in the bars is probably more of a risk than the second-hand smoke that people are supposed to be worrying about. The bartenders who are handing the beers across the bar are doing more damage to people than any damage to them from second-hand smoke.

💬 Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think we have had a very significant debate on the title, and I am aware that the Government is about to move a closure motion. I just want to receive clarification as to how you will treat the rest of the debate. As far as the title is concerned, we have certainly had more than a fair share of time. But I just want an assurance from you, as we now move to the body of the legislation, that there will be plenty of opportunity to actually get into the parts, and that you do not propose to curtail that part of the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I take the point that you have made.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could you just check those figures, as there is a general air of amazement around the Chamber at what you have just announced.

💬 Hon David Carter: We voted in favour.

National voted in favour? Well, we have a long way to go yet. [Interruption] The National Party voted in favour of it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Before you took the Chair there was actually a split vote on the matter we were dealing with, so we would like to cast two votes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Well, I expected you to do that.