Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

This part deals with the commencement date, and it also has the interpretation provisions, which, basically, are the definitions that apply within this bill.

The commencement date is 1 January 2004, which allows a very short time for people to get used to the major changes that occur under this bill. If we look at what happened in California, we see that it initially brought in changes to make restaurants smoke-free, then, 3 to 4 years later, it brought in smoke-free environments in pubs and clubs. I do have some real concerns that, by moving this legislation so fast, we will create civil disobedience. People are going to say they are not prepared to accept this legislation, and they will simply and utterly ignore it. That is not what we want to see. We want to see, as we have seen over the past 10 years, people slowly moving towards understanding the very negative health effects of smoking, and understanding that second-hand smoke is detrimental.

I remember the very first time someone got in my car, lit up, and, about to take the first puff, asked me whether I minded. I remember the first time I said yes. It really felt good to stand up for my rights as a non-smoker. I have to say that a few years after that I did become a smoker for some time, but, being reformed now—

💬 Hon David Carter: It was stress. It was the stress of the job.

Yes. It was the stress of the job.

💬 Darren Hughes: Being a member of the National Party caucus will do that to you.

No, it was actually when I went nursing. So many nurses at that time did smoke, but we have learnt. When people look at the relative risks of smoking, they see that their relative risk of having a heart attack is three, and their relative risk of getting lung cancer is 20, compared with those who do not smoke. Those are quite staggering results. The evidence around second-hand smoke has been a little patchy. I do think that some of the evidence has been overestimated, but there is no doubt that second-hand smoke does affect people, especially a worker in an environment that is very thick with smoke.

The interpretation provisions in this bill include things like “dedicated smoking room”. That means an internal area of a hospital or a care institution. We certainly do not want to see—and I promoted this provision—our elderly in residential care having to trundle out into the rain and the cold to have a smoke. By that stage, when they are in residential care, quite frankly, if a smoke is all they enjoy, they should be able to have a smoke. So we did allow for dedicated smoking rooms to exist in rest homes, disability care institutions, and mental health institutions.

I was very pleased when I heard earlier speakers talking about schools. When the bill first came in, it actually had provision for dedicated smoking rooms within schools. But 40 percent of schools have already gone totally smoke-free, and they do not want that provision. We heard a lot of submissions on that fact. The people our children look up to—and teachers are the people they look up to; they are role models for them—should not have smoking rooms; it should not become the norm that teachers are smoking on school-grounds. So schools were taken out of that provision. We also took out early childhood centres, so that younger children are not exposed to second-hand smoke. The risks of bronchitis and asthma are very real with young children.

Another definition is that of “open area”. With pubs and clubs, of course, people can go outside into beer gardens and the like to have a cigarette, then go back inside to enjoy their beer. So “open area” has been defined.

The taxi federation was very keen to have smoking banned in taxis, especially for those people, like myself, who do not smoke now and do not want to get into a taxi that stinks of cigarette smoke, and for taxi-drivers who do not smoke. They certainly do not want to have to put up with it. For them to stop people from smoking in their taxis is very difficult if the law does not state it is illegal. Operating a taxi is defined as travelling time and resting time, so it is very clear that smoking in taxis will be banned. Taxi-drivers will be able to put up a sign saying so, and it will be enforceable.

I want to speak about the amendments to clause 1A and clause 2 that I have put, and that are on Supplementary Order Paper 117. I am proposing an amendment that deletes the reference to new section 6B that appears in clause 1A(3), which states that several provisions “come into force on the day 12 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.”, and inserts a new subclause 5A stating: “Section 6B comes into force on the date of commencement of the first regulations made under section 39(1).” What that is about is that the proposal I will be advancing in further amendments, as we proceed—to establish an air quality standard—hinges on the proposal taking effect after that quality standard has been established. So this amendment to the commencement provision is needed, if we are to achieve the goal of saying that an air quality standard is to be promulgated by—I forget the date—2006, and to take effect in 2007. So that is what those two amendments to clause 1A deal with.

I am also proposing an amendment to clause 2 that inserts after the definition of “managers”, simply for alphabetical reasons, a definition of “minimum air quality standard” as being a standard set by regulations to be made under section 39A, which I will be proposing a little later on be inserted into the bill. I will be proposing that we take some time to allow the Ministry of Health officials who claim to be expert in these areas—they are medically qualified people who have suddenly developed an expertise in ventilation, filtration, and all forms of engineering and life in general, which I find devastating, fascinating, and utterly unbelievable—to have the opportunity to consult widely with those who actually know something about this, and are not just simply guided by the prejudice of the Dr Laugesens of this world. That man has made a career out of ripping off public funding simply to gallivant around the world, going to conferences at the public’s expense. The fact is that the ministry ought to be given some chance to redeem itself by taking time to consult widely and develop a proper air standard, which can then be implemented. That is what the definition inserted by my amendment to clause 2 implies.

I notice a couple of other interesting things with regard to the definition clause of the bill, relating to the definitions of “herbal smoking product” and also “additive”. I have checked with both the Associate Minister of Health and the sponsor, who assure me that these particular definitions encompass cannabis.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: So it should.

“So it should.” says the member opposite, who spends his life going up and down this country campaigning for everyone to smoke cannabis, literally from the day people are born. There is a word for that. [Interruption] Oh, it has always been that party’s policy. He says he is not sure what his party’s policy is! It is the pro-cannabis party. It is happy to be identified as such. Here those members are, standing up in the Chamber tonight and trumpeting the need for cannabis to be legalised because it is so good for people, while, at the same time, trying to deny the guys in the Returned Services Association clubs the right to light up a cigarette. That is the complete abnormality of the Greens’ position.

I notice that when we look at the definitions that are contained in here, we see that they actually limit the Greens ability to campaign for cannabis, quite considerably. I wonder why the Greens, given their advocacy for cannabis, are supporting this bill, because they will not actually be able to have their great smoke-ups that they like to do—they will also be caught by this bill. But I think I know why they are supporting it. They actually know that this law is essentially stupid, unenforceable, and unworkable, and will simply be ignored. They will carry on in the way they are doing, smug in their self-satisfaction that they have contributed to a situation where other people’s rights have been trampled upon, where people’s freedoms of association have been threatened, where we have removed any ability for a reasoned debate, and where we have removed any ability for designated areas.

One of the lunacies that the previous member highlighted is that we can have designated smoking areas within hospitals, of all places, but we cannot let the cigar bars in Christchurch or Auckland, for instance, carry on. I would have thought that hospitals, as a symbol of health protection and health promotion, were the last place within which members would want a designated smoking area.

💬 Richard Worth: Hurray for Mr Dunne!

Absolutely; I will take that from the member opposite; maybe if we have a Monacan raise, but I will take it as well. The point is that the definition clause does highlight a number of the contradictions and absurdities within this legislation.

I would like to confine my contribution to the commencement date of this bill. It is complex. If this bill goes through as it is, one part comes in on one date, another part comes in on another date, and yet another part comes in on yet another date.

I have a Supplementary Order Paper in my name suggesting that this bill, because it is controversial, because it is delicate, and because it is sensitive, should go to the public of New Zealand. In my mind, this House stuffed up on the Prostitution Reform Bill. The letters that we get daily tell me that this House got it all wrong, though members might think with pride they have done something worthwhile. This House only a fortnight ago stuffed up big time on the Death with Dignity Bill. Parliament denied the incurably ill and the sick any time to put their case formally to a select committee. That was all we were asking that day. The letters I have got, the emails, the faxes, and the telephone calls, tell me New Zealanders really resent that we did not even give them time to put a formal case expressing their concerns.

Let us not get a hat trick, let us not stuff up for the third time, but let us ask the public what they really want. Let us get the bill in order as best we possibly can, then put it out for public referendum. And we should make sure it is binding, so that the House cannot do what it did with the 99 MPs question and the crime question that were on the ballot paper the election before last. Let us have a binding referendum and ask New Zealanders whether they want this sort of legislation. Do they want to stop old, retired soldiers from going into Returned Services Association clubs and having a beer and a smoke whilst they watch the All Blacks beat South Africa, or indeed, watch the All Blacks thrash the Australians, or—God forbid—have to watch the All Blacks lose to Australia? They might then need two cigarettes, or even a cigar, goodness me, and a couple of Scotches to go with it. Do we resent New Zealand—

💬 Pita Paraone: Or losing to England!

That would be even worse. It has been known. I have to say, before anybody says something on that side of the Chamber, I was disappointed as much as that member over there.

But, seriously, this bill really is going to hurt the retired soldiers who go and have a fag in their Returned Services Association clubs. It is going to hurt their feelings. It is going to restrict them immeasurably. These guys have earned the right to go into the Returned Services Association clubs and have a smoke. Fathers who do not want to smoke at home with their young children want to go to a bar and have a cigarette away from their families. I appeal to my colleagues here, who want to give it some thought, that this bill is about restricting smoking, and it is better to restrict smoking in the home, where the youngsters are, than restrict it in the bar.

There is no argument that the air should be fresh, and we are totally supportive of the Hon Peter Dunne’s Supplementary Order Paper that advocates changing the air frequently and properly. We totally support it, because it is really a safe air bill, and technology can do that. But we should not be imposing this on every New Zealander.

I urge members over there to think seriously about adopting my Supplementary Order Paper, which states that this bill should be subject to a binding referendum. Steve Chadwick was the member who told us not so long ago that 75 percent of New Zealanders do not smoke, so members could expect that New Zealanders would say that, yes, they want this bill. There is nothing to lose; let them have their choice. This bill is not going to come in immediately, so we have time to have a referendum. We have time to say to New Zealanders that this is the best we can do in the House, this is what we want to do, and this is why we are doing it—we want to restrict smoking—“Tell us whether you want it to be our law. You tell us whether you agree with this sort of legislation.” Then we can have a free, clear conscience. But simply to impose this on everybody because we have a bee in our bonnet that this is the way to go, and we know better than every New Zealander out there, is totally wrong. There are some major flaws in this bill.

💬 Darren Hughes: Name six.

I have not got enough time left in my speech, unless the member will agree to give me an extension.

I acknowledge that the previous speaker, Peter Brown, has read the bill and rightly identified a few problems that can be improved on, and one is the commencement. The dates in clause 1A are not all aligned, and the Government intends to bring in an amendment to fix that in a technical way to ensure that the provisions around offences line up with the introduction of the main provisions, and I put that on notice. There has been widespread consultation on this matter. I sat on the select committee for a year and went up and down the country hearing many, many submissions on the bill. There were a large number of views from both sides of the argument. It was a very balanced debate, and in the end that is why I feel confident that what we are moving ahead with is supported by a wide range of people up and down the country.

I would also like to identify a few other improvements that the Government will be making through amendments. Some of them relate to technical difficulties brought up by cigarette companies in their attempts to sell cigarettes in some retail outlets. We are trying to ensure that in clause 2, “Interpretation”, we identify what are tobacco cartons, packages, faces, and pouches, and ensure that where cigarettes are sold they are not sold alongside products that would normally be sold to children and thereby perhaps tempt children to buy tobacco products. The other changes we are proposing are, as I said, to clarify the definition of cartons and packages. In the last couple of weeks there was an attempt by one company to get around the proposals in this bill by coming up with a carton of, I would have to say, unusual dimensions. That has forced us to clarify in the bill the sizes of a carton, the sizes of a pack, and the face of a tobacco product to make sure that the generally agreed position of there being 100-count tobacco packages and 40-count cartons on display in one place can be adhered to by the cigarette companies. We have had to clarify those things through a Supplementary Order Paper, which I will be putting up, to ensure that it gives effect to the intent of Steve Chadwick’s bill.

I think we are making reasonable progress on these issues, and I will take the opportunity to speak on a few other amendments as they come up. We will not be, as was previously indicated, supporting the amendments put up by United Future. Many countries have considered the air-quality issue—Ireland, California, and numerous other countries, and states in Australia—and they have all failed to accept it, aside from the issue of the cost. One of the things we heard from right across the spectrum was that if we are going to make changes to protect workers, then we should do it to all hospitality establishments. The issue with an air-quality standard and an extensive process of consultation, as the member proposes, to come up with a no doubt very expensive system, would mean that many, many establishments would go broke and could not afford that.

In the interest of protecting workers, we have decided that we maintain a level playing field. In fact, people in the industry have supported that position.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: The Minister should read the amendment before he speaks.

I am aware of the amendment. Mr Dunne might maintain that a proper air-quality standard can be reached, but the evidence—after investigation by not just New Zealand officials but by those in Ireland, in California, and throughout the world—shows that it is not reasonable to have an air-quality standard.

Before I introduce an amendment I have to Part 1, I would like to comment on an interesting fact. During the select committee process United Future supported the report and the bill all the way through. Indeed, the United Future member on the Health Committee, Judy Turner, was quoted in the paper explaining why she did not go for ventilation systems. She said that the problem with ventilation systems was that one would need a ventilation system the strength of a tornado in order to be effective. So she supported the bill all the way through, with no minority report opposing it, then, suddenly, along came Peter Dunne, who started speaking and sounding like a representative of the tobacco industry.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry; I did not hear that comment. People were talking.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I will take you through it. Earlier this afternoon the member alleged that there is some link between the tobacco industry and United Future or me on this matter. I took a point of order and pointed out that that allegation had been made previously by Action on Smoking and Health, and had gone as far as the Privileges Committee. I made the point that there has been no link, is no link, and will be no link. The Speaker ruled at the time that my comments were in order and that the member should withdraw. She should do the same now, and, frankly, she should be warned about making similar comments in the future.

Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will please be seated. The point of order is quite clear. The member is quite correct. It is out of order to suggest that a member is influenced by an outside organisation. I ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

You have misrepresented what I said. I have written down here what I said. The member has misrepresented what I said. Can I please read out what I said? I would like you to tell me whether saying that somebody sounds like a member of the tobacco industry is defamatory.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to withdraw and apologise for that remark.

I withdraw and apologise. I am astonished. If I cannot say that certain members of this—

💬 Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

I have not finished what I am saying.

💬 Richard Worth: It seems quite clear that the member is challenging your ruling. That is clearly out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I was not too sure whether the member was saying that. Members cannot make any comment on the ruling after the ruling has been given, but I was not too sure what the member was doing so I did not call it.

I was saying that some of the arguments made in this Committee tonight sound like the clichés, the discredited arguments, of the tobacco industry. That is the point that I am making—that many of the arguments that we have here sound like the discredited arguments of the tobacco industry, which I have already pointed out. We have a report here that shows that for four decades the tobacco industry has been trying to influence this House and oppose every piece of legislation to control smoking. I argue that the same discredited arguments are being used here. The point about cannabis has been made. Mr Dunne has been making defamatory comments about us. He is the party that is tough on cannabis and soft on smoking.

I would like to introduce an amendment that relates to toy tobacco products. I am sure many members have seen that these particular toy tobacco products are on sale in $2 shops all over New Zealand. They have a specific purpose. They are aimed at children under 3 years of age, and, basically, their purpose is to try to teach young children that smoking is cool and fun. We want to introduce into the list of definitions, a definition of “toy tobacco product”, which would state that such a product is an object that looks like a tobacco product or a smokers pipe, can be used to simulate smoking, but cannot be smoked, is not confectionary, and has a primary purpose other than to help people to stop smoking. When we speak of the tobacco industry, we must be aware that cigarette toys are being sold to children as young as 3, and that, basically, the tobacco industry has been targeting young people with its campaigns for many decades. Philip Morris has actually said in its advertising material that today’s young person is tomorrow’s potential regular customer and that the vast majority of smokers begin to smoke in their teens—and that is true. So if we are serious about trying to stop young people from smoking and becoming addicted, then we must seek to make it illegal to sell such products to people under the age of 18.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am seeking some assistance from you to clarify your ruling on the points of order that occurred previously in relation to the speech made by my colleague Sue Kedgley. When a member claims that a statement has been made about him or her, and seeks that the member who made the statement should have to withdraw and apologise, I would have thought that, in the interests of natural justice, the member who is accused of making the statement should have the opportunity to clarify what their statement was in order that the chair can then determine whether that statement breaches the Standing Orders. The second part of my point of order is that I would have expected that the point of order made by the Hon Peter Dunne was in relation to “an imputation of improper motives against a member,”—Standing Order 117. I know there are Standing Orders referring to the influence of outside parties on members—that is clearly outside of the Standing Orders. However, I make the point that my colleague Sue Kedgley did not impute any improper motives or any influence of an outside party on Mr Dunne. She simply compared his words to the words that other people had used. I want your clarification that that is a breach of the Standing Orders. My impression is that the situation was misrepresented to you by the Hon Peter Dunne.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The one thing I agree with in that point of order is that Standing Order 117, “Personal reflections” is the clear one. There are a number of Speaker’s rulings, which I am just attempting to find at the moment, that essentially indicate that if a member takes offence, that is enough to trigger the Standing Order. I took offence at the comments. I took offence at them for the reasons that I stated in the point of order. I also took offence because of the fact that this matter had been raised once already in this debate this afternoon and ruled on in my favour by the presiding officer at the time, as had been the case with the previous charge, which ended up going to the Privileges Committee. That was also ruled on in my favour, and the organisation concerned made an unconditional apology. In this instance, I say that the provision of Standing Order 117 means that I am entitled to take offence at the comments made by the member and ask that they be withdrawn. It is not a question of whether the member likes what was said, or likes what I said about her, or anything else. The point at issue here is that under that Standing Order I have taken offence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is entitled to invoke Standing Order 117. I just caution members to be very careful in this area, as there has been some dispute previously, and we need to take a more temperate view of the statements.

It is my privilege to speak in support of an amendment that is recorded in Supplementary Order Paper 95. I am absolutely delighted that the chairman of the Health Committee is in the chair at the Table at the moment, because I earnestly solicit the support of herself and her colleagues for the merit of this amendment. It relates to cigar bars, and I think it is an exciting amendment in the context of the raft of amendments that have come before the Committee in the course of this process. I think Supplementary Order Paper 117, in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne, is probably the best amendment before the Committee tonight, but I would also say that Supplementary Order Paper 95, dealing with cigar bars, also has undoubted pure and intrinsic merit in itself.

I would like, if I may for a moment, to deal with that amendment, which is concerned with altering the definitions in clause 2. It proposes that there be inserted the definition of “cigar bar”, which means licensed premises at which cigars and tobacco-related smoking products are sold, and in a particular calendar year that has been nominated, 31 December 2002, that there was generated from that sale 10 percent or more of its total annual gross annual income from the on-site sale of tobacco products and the rental of on-site humidors, not including any sales from vending machines and which continue to sell such products.

So it is not a warrant that cigar bars may be set up in the future. But it seeks to preserve what are speciality premises with, I would say, a designed ambience. If we are concerned to protect property rights, which I believe we should be, then I would say that the small number of cigar bars that exist throughout New Zealand should have a continued future. How could it be argued that this legislation would be imperilled by an exception as minor as that?

So I would like for a moment, if I might, to talk about cigar bars. There are four cigar bars in New Zealand. It is very interesting that in New York cigar bars were excluded from the draconian impacts of very similar legislation to this. The other cigar bars in New Zealand, apart from the Cuba Cigar Bar, are Casa del Oro situated in Auckland, where ex-President Clinton was a favoured customer; Stogies Cigar Bar in Christchurch; and the Cigar Bar in Queenstown. I would like at this point, if I might, to read what the employees of one of those cigar bars, who signed en masse and without coercion, said: “We are the bartenders at Cuba Cigar Bar in Parnell, Auckland. We understand there is a proposal before you to completely ban smoking in all bars. We have bar managers’ certificates. We have been employed at this establishment for about 2 years. We’re seriously worried about our future, as a ban on smoking in this bar will affect its patronage drastically. We know this, because we’ve discussed the situation over the last month or so with many of our customers, of which about 80 percent smoke cigars and/or cigarettes. We don’t believe statements we have read that there will be little or no effect upon bar patronage, especially in an establishment such as the one we’re very happily working in. We’ve heard that in New York cigar bars are exempt from smoking bans, and, for the sake of our jobs, we earnestly request that you exempt our bar from any smoking restrictions.” How could the MP for Rotorua turn down that earnest request from those people, who want to continue in work?

Let me just finish, in the short time I have available, by talking about what these cigar bars are. I would like to take, as an example, the Cuba Cigar Bar. It has 14 private humidors, as well as three communal humidors. There is an elegant display of a worldwide collection of cigars. There are monthly cigar club meetings, with lectures by cigar aficionados.

Can I first of all congratulate the sponsor of this bill, Steve Chadwick, and also those who went before her—Judy Keall and Tuku Morgan—who started this bill.

💬 Peter Brown: Very much a former member.

Yes, he was a past member of New Zealand First, an enlightened member of New Zealand First, who brought in this bill. [Interruption] They want to deny his ownership now, but they were quite proud at the time. He brought in this bill and started its process through the House. I want to say to Tuku Morgan, if he is listening tonight: “Good things do happen. They just take a little time.”, as the advertisement says. I would also like to congratulate the Health Committee, because I think it put an awful lot of work into hearing submissions on this bill. It took the issue very seriously. The bill was not rushed through. I heard Mr Peter Brown say that we should step back; that we should take our time. But this bill started in the late 1990s. How much time does one need to think about a bill? I see Bruce Robertson sitting up in the gallery. He first met with me about this bill 3 years ago. So it is not as if we have not had time, and the public have not had time, to discuss the issues that are set out in it.

I consider the bill to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation before the House in this term, and probably since 1989-90 when we had our first smoke-free legislation. I believe it is a really important public health issue for New Zealanders. I listened to the debate and I heard Peter Dunne speaking. I respect the fact that Peter Dunne has his own views, and he is entitled to them. But I do not agree with his comments about Professor Murray Laugesen. I have known Murray Laugesen for many years. Murray Laugesen certainly has not, to my knowledge—and I am sure if it was said outside this House he would take it up—ever ripped off any public funding in order to gallivant around the world. In fact, Murray Laugesen was responsible, in many ways, for the work that went into the first legislation.

Can I tell members how proud I was to be a Minister in this New Zealand Parliament at the World Health Assembly this year, when every single country that belongs to the World Health Organization signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Every single country signed the convention. Even those Third World countries that grow tobacco signed the convention on tobacco control. They did that because every country recognises the impact of tobacco on the health of its people. Every one of those countries wants to minimise the impact of tobacco on the health of its people, and every one of those countries signed up. It took years to get everybody into the position where they did sign up, but they acknowledge the impact of tobacco on health.

I listened to Dail Jones. I know he was out of this House for a while, but I did not realise that his name was Rip Van Winkle. He has been asleep for years. He has been asleep for 20 years, because he does not know that evidence and science today can link tobacco consumption with cancer, and with other illnesses in New Zealand and around the world.

💬 Dail Jones: Where is the proof?

A man who could deny that is a man who does not believe in science. The science tells us clearly that consumption of tobacco affects the health of thousands of New Zealanders.

I say that we should give a thought to those who work in environments where they have to breathe in somebody else’s tobacco smoke, day in and day out. I heard Dail Jones say in the second reading debate that those people do not have to work there. There are many New Zealanders who do not have a lot of choice about their workplace. There are a lot of New Zealanders who cannot flit from one job to another, and pick themselves up a list position and get into Parliament. They have to go to work every day, working in the hospitality industry, working in bars and clubs etc., and earning a decent living with decent people. Why should they not have the protection that ensures they do not have to inhale somebody else’s cigarette smoke?

There are almost 400 deaths a year from the inhalation of second-hand smoke. I believe that we ought to take account of the lives we could save. I do not blame smokers. I believe that smokers are people who have been hooked on to an addictive drug, and they are stuck with it. It is very hard to get off it. In fact, it is believed that it is harder to get off cigarette smoking than many other things. So we must have compassion and provide help for smokers. I believe that this legislation is very foresighted indeed.

Before I come to Part 1, I would like to comment on something the Minister said. She suffers, of course, from the same intellectual dishonesty that many of the other speakers on the Government side of the Committee suffer from. We had a protracted debate on the title about the studies that have been done. I mentioned in that debate that the World Health Organization has long known the very weak link between passive smoking and cancer.

💬 Hon Annette King: Not true.

That is correct, and there are many other studies that back that. I come now to the commencement clause. The commencement dates are, as the New Zealand First member pointed out, all over the place. Some clauses come into effect 3 months after the date on which the legislation receives the royal assent.

💬 Peter Brown: Who pointed that out?

It was the member; it was very well noticed. Other clauses come into force on 1 January 2004, on 1 February 2004, and on 1 February 2005. It is well known that the Labour Government, and also the anti-tobacco lobby groups, would like the commencement dates to be almost immediate, not allowing businesses time to accommodate the changes, at all.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Prosecute retrospectively.

That is absolutely right—they would like to prosecute retrospectively. They will not get the opportunity, thank goodness, although this Government is getting very good at retrospective legislation, as we know from last week.

I refer for a moment to the anti-tobacco lobby groups and to the fact that they would like to see changes overnight. They have a lot to answer for really. They receive $13.7 million of taxpayer funding a year, and, last week, many of them sent health bureaucrats, 25 of them, and some of their own activists, to Helsinki for a conference, as did the Ministry of Health.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Twenty-five bureaucrats!

Yes, 25.

💬 Hon Member: How much did it cost?

It cost a lot of money. I will now give a very conservative estimate of the costs, because we do not have the full facts yet. I rang Air New Zealand today and found out that the cheapest return flight to Helsinki, economy class, is $3,000—and I bet Murray Laugesen, who has been mentioned in the debate tonight, did not travel economy, but let us say just for a moment that he did. So $3,000 × 25 people is $75,000. It was not a cheap conference. The registration fee was about $1,100, perhaps a little more.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Did you say 25 people?

Twenty-five people—just about all of them receiving taxpayer funding. I would be interested if the Minister would stand and tell us whether that money has come from Vote Health. Certainly some of it came from the $13.7 million that goes to the anti-tobacco lobby groups. Action on Smoking and Health, Quitline, and the like, and many Māori health providers receive that money, as well. I have not mentioned accommodation costs yet. A conservative estimate of that, at least $25,000, means that all up we are looking at about $125,000 to send 25 people to Helsinki, last week, from 3 to 8 August, in the sun—

💬 Pita Paraone: Double that!

My colleague says to double that. He is probably right, but I did not want to overstate the obvious. Those people had a nice little holiday in the sun. The programme was not difficult. I would like to know what they will do. Will they come back and tell everybody? Why did it take 25 people to go to Helsinki to be told that smoking is bad for people? Even this side of the Committee admits that smoking is bad for them.

💬 Hon Member: They don’t trust each other!

That is right, they do not trust each other to pass on the information. Members on this side of the Committee know that smoking is bad for people. The bone of contention, of course, is how bad passive smoking is, and that is what this bill is all about. I know it is of great interest that we sent 25 people overseas to a conference, but goodness knows why that number was necessary.

I come back to the commencement dates for a moment. There are groups that will miss out, and the commencement date will not apply to all of them. The groups that spring to my mind and that have not been mentioned very much at all tonight, are marae. Why are commencement dates not going to have any effect on marae? The reason is that marae are not affected by this bill. It is fine to smoke on marae. People will not be able to smoke in any indoor public place in the country, except marae. Why that is, I do not know. It is well known that young, female Māori have the highest incidence of smoking in the country. They have the highest incidence of lung cancer. What sort of message is this legislation sending to people when it exempts from its provisions those who are most affected? It is no example at all.

I am pleased to take a call to clarify some of the issues that have been raised. Marae are not mentioned in this bill, but if they have a liquor licence, or have workers, the smoke-free provisions apply, as they do to a church hall or a bingo hall. Almost all marae in New Zealand are smoke-free. I also bring up the matter of hospitals. A member asked about hospitals. Perhaps he or she has not caught up with the news that District Health Boards New Zealand has supported hospitals going smoke-free. They have already gone smoke-free, which is absolutely wonderful.

I have an amendment I wish to talk to members about. We worked with the retail industry and the cigarette industry on point of sale. My amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 120 attempts to clarify the situation in respect of packets at point of sale. I have here a packet of cigarettes—just to show members that we all know what one is. But do members also know how some in the industry are trying to get around “packets”? We are trying to work with those who work with the ministry in a very constructive way by putting in my amendment a definition that clarifies what we are trying to do when we talk about the visual impact at point of sale, and simply not have amazing artistic creations promoting cigarettes. The other point about promotion that I want to show members an example of is the inclusion of Māori on signage at the point of sale: “SMOKING KILLS Ka mate koe i te kai hikareti”, which members will notice is already on packets. this is included in the amendment.

I also want to show members an example of some of the creativity in the industry, which the bill deals with—that is, the inducements to purchase cigarettes and nicotine. I have here a lighter—two for the price of one—and a little bottle opener. These are inducements to get young kids who might want the opener to take the packet of cigarettes, as well. That aspect has been clarified in the definition. All we are attempting to do in my amendment—and we had agreement from the industry—is to try to keep the visual impact to the current levels. I thank the industry for working constructively with the ministry on this matter.

I will finish by speaking about ventilation systems. The Health Committee looked long and hard at ventilation systems, including filtration and vacuum systems, and there was not one level of support from scientific analysis that ventilation systems work.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Even from NIWAR?

Let us talk about the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, which compared the study on the Casadron system—a system very similar to the machine used in the hospitality clubs of New Zealand—with the findings of Japanese and German studies.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd told the Health Committee that the Casadron system was not effective. That was the feedback we got. Ventilation systems set two standards of comfort: a comfort standard and a health standard. Nowhere in the world has any country been able to set a health air-quality standard. Ventilation systems certainly do work in terms of removing the irritants in cigarette smoke, but they do not remove the carcinogens in sidestream smoke. That was the scientific evidence given to the select committee, and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd did not support the Casadron system.

Also, there was some controversy around the robustness of the science used in the Bream Bay study, which looked at the situation on a Tuesday afternoon—and one has to ask how many smokers were there on a Tuesday.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I respect the member for telling us the effects of this bill on various industries and workplaces. I seek leave of the Committee to ask the member to explain the detail as it pertains to ships.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member in the chair is quite entitled to continue her speech or to take another call, but the member cannot seek leave for her.

I can clarify for that member that ships in New Zealand include those that are within the 12-mile limit. If they are within the 12-mile limit, they are in the New Zealand zone. The Health Committee asked Ministry of Health officials to work with the shipping industry and come back with something that works. The result of that consultation with the industry is in the bill. I am very pleased we undertook that system.

I want to show members some examples of the cleverness we tried to get around in terms of visual displays, and I advise members in the Chamber to look at them. They are very, very creative. We may get our heads around one visual display and find that acceptable, but once we start getting the tilting of packages, suddenly we find the impact of promotion of cigarette packets increases enormously. I thank the industry for working with us to come up with a definition that works so that the visual impact at point of sale is minimised. It is absolutely wonderful that the industry worked with us and that we found a compromise solution together. That is covered in my definition.

With regard to cigar bars, I am sure that the honourable member has wonderful intentions with his promotion on behalf of people who have gone to him about cigar bars. Cigar bars that have a liquor licence and have paid employees are included. We have taken the consistency of argument right across the board to include places that have liquor licences and workers. That is to protect the 10,500 hospitality workers in this country from the effects of second-hand smoke.

I shall take a very brief call to address some concerns raised by the Green member Sue Kedgley regarding my participation at the Health Committee. I state upfront that I am committed to the issues that were raised about a safe work environment for New Zealand workers in terms of second-hand smoke. I support the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment.

One of the issues that came up, and on which we had a lot of submissions, was the appropriateness of ventilation systems. The evidence that seemed to stack up at the time was that no existing ventilation system, short of a ventilation system—and I quote my words—“that was the strength of a gale-force wind”, was able to remove the harmful carcinogens from a facility. The problem was that we restricted our thinking and the scope of the bill to existing technology. Mr Dunne’s amendment—and I do not feel compromised as a spokesperson on health supporting that amendment—is forward-looking and requires an approved air-quality standard. It also requires that developers produce the technology so that an air-quality standard can be reached. Even if that is not technically possible at present, adopting this amendment would mean that the legislation will allow for future development. I wanted to take a quick call to clarify that now, as a sort of credibility issue was at stake.

I do not accept that every provision in the bill is exactly as I would have written it myself. However, the overriding issue for me is worker safety. Regardless of the suspicion that people hang over the evidence of second-hand smoke being detrimental to people’s health, there is sufficient evidence and backing from medical professions to suggest that those of us with no medical background need to take heed, and I plan to do that.

I want the member Steve Chadwick, who is obviously in the habit of answering one or two of the questions that were raised, to clarify for the committee the situation regarding maraes. Heather Roy suggested earlier that maraes were exempted, and I had a very helpful conversation with a Labour member who said that that was not actually true if they had licensed premises or employed staff. I wonder whether the member would be able to name any marae that has bothered to have licensed premises.

💬 Steve Chadwick: They could get a liquor licence.

I know that they can get a liquor licence. I want to know whether any, or many of them, have. I guarantee that they have not. My second question is whether they actually bother to employ staff. Then the further helpful advice—

💬 Jill Pettis: When was the last time that member was on a marae?

Frequently.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Name one.

Onuku. Has the member been there?

💬 Jim Peters: Where’s that?

Akaroa Harbour. The second question raised in the explanation I received from that very helpful Labour colleague of Steve Chadwick’s was that the Government had decided to treat maraes the same as churches.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Why?

This was its reason for passing legislation to exempt maraes if they did not employ staff and if they did not have licensed premises.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: So you can smoke in church.

I am not sure whether I can name any church where people smoke. Perhaps the member could list those. Then there was the further worry—the person who helped me was of a similar belief to myself—the issue of incense and candles in churches was raised.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: The burning of the incense.

I would not like to see that affected by the legislation. I shall move to some of the amendments spoken to by my colleague Richard Worth to clearly exempt cigar bars. Certainly, I will be supporting that amendment. It would be no wish of mine at all to enter such a cigar bar, but I cannot imagine any person going into a cigar bar who would object to being there. I do not think that that is logical. I want Steve Chadwick to reflect on her explanation, when acknowledging that there were four such bars in New Zealand, and who said no, the Government was not prepared to entertain any exemption, because of 10,500 hospitality workers. I assure that member that those four cigar bars would not be employing 10,500 people.

💬 Jill Pettis: She never said that.

She did say that. If Jill Pettis woke up and listened, she would realise that that was said.

I shall talk about the commencement date of the amendment moved by Peter Dunne. I am pleased that Damien O’Connor took a call and said that the Government would not be supporting the amendments around air-quality standards. I was in a dilemma as to whether I should support Mr Dunne’s amendment. He has provided a very sensible solution to this ridiculous legislation, but it is clear that the Government has already taken a position on this conscience vote, and will not be supporting it. So in that case I will be supporting the legislation being commenced as soon as possible, because I want people to see the damage of this legislation out on Courtenay Place, and the Strip in Christchurch as quickly as possible. I want that member to go back to her marginal seat in Wanganui and walk down the street when people are standing out there on a cold, miserable night because her legislation has forced them to stand outside and smoke. She might be wandering along a 3-metre footpath in deep conversation with somebody, but because so many people have had to obey the law, and have all come outside to have a cigarette, she and her companion will have to go in single file, or step out into the gutter just to get past. The people will then be complaining about the mess that is left outside.

Hotels currently provide ashtrays. Who will provide the ashtrays for the people to extinguish their cigarettes when they have finished with them outside? That is the sort of thing that this ridiculous legislation has not thought of. Jill Pettis shakes her head—she had not thought of it. I ask Jill Pettis why she supports legislation when she has not thought about the practicalities of it. Is the hotel going to put an ashtray out there, or will that be another cost that will be imposed on the council? What about the mess that will be left? What about what has happened in other parts of the world where this stupid legislation has been passed, where people buy a beer and open a tab, take the opportunity of saying to the publican “I’m just slipping out for a smoke.”, and then clear off altogether? That is what has happened overseas.

I suppose it was inevitable that we would have the old race issue raised here. The member asked, “What about marae?”. The member might not know that many marae do have licences from time to time. Many marae are educational institutions, and run educational programmes, such as kōhanga reo, and many others. Many marae employ people, and where that occurs, those places will be smoke-free. There is no need to specify marae, church halls, or any other place. We are making a judgment based on whether a building is a place of work, a place of education, or licensed premises, so there is therefore no need to specify. Does that answer the question for Mr Carter?

Members from ACT would like us to put “marae” up front. Members asked before why we do not have a ban on marae, and I tell them that we have a smoke-free ban where a marae is a place of education, where it employs people, or where there is a licence in place. The objective of this bill is to protect people in those places of work; it is not to specify where smoking should or should not take place in a private place. The issue here is to protect workers.

I will very briefly go back to the ventilation issue. Why did they not decide to have air quality standards in New York? Why did they not decide to have air quality standards in Ireland? From 1 January next year smoking will be banned in all licensed premises in Ireland. Coming from the West Coast, where there is a good proud Irish heritage, I just about fell over when I heard that myself. It does not seem to go hand in hand with an Irish bar, but, thankfully, the Irish are an intelligent race—the best of whom came out to New Zealand, of course—and they have realised that to improve the health status of people in Ireland they have to bring in some measures to stop smoking in bars, to try to help the workers, and, ultimately, all the patrons of the bar, who are suffering from the effects of second-hand smoke.

That is why they did not decide to go along the lines of Mr Peter Dunne’s amendment and accept air quality standards. Regardless of the complicated bureaucracy that would be needed to set up the standard, and to decide on where it should be, and what is appropriate, one would then need to go around and enforce it on what I suppose would be a half-hourly basis—would that be fair, Mr Dunne? No, the only fair way to approach this is to have a level playing field, which is something that the hospitality industry has advocated for a long time, and which is fair to all participants in the hospitality industry.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Rubbish!

The hospitality industry has advocated for that, because, as was originally proposed in the bill, it does not accept that premises can have smoking and non-smoking areas. It is simply not viable; it is not physically possible. Therefore, the only sensible conclusion is that any provisions brought in by this bill should be fair to one and all. I accept that.

💬 Hon David Carter: They won’t believe that.

I think they will, because the West Coast does have a poor health status, with there being more of us there who smoke than should do so, and who perhaps drink a little too much, and we do have a health problem. I am sure we will see an improvement in the health status of the workers in West Coast establishments, as we will with workers in establishments up and down this country, and, ultimately, with their patrons. That will be a beneficial side effect of this bill, which is aimed at protecting the health of people who are working in risky environments. We do not turn our back on that in any other area—whether it be on the roads, on construction sites, or in a car—so we are not turning our back on it here. That is why I applaud the efforts of the member here, and why we are bringing in technical amendments in this part to improve the operation of the bill.

I rise to speak in support of this bill, and to commend Steve Chadwick for the very good work she has done in progressing this bill. I also commend her predecessors Judy Keall and others who have done considerable work on this issue. First of all, I will address some of the points made earlier by the Hon Peter Dunne in terms of the Green position. He criticised the Greens for supporting cannabis coming under the auspices of this bill, under the area of herbal tobacco. Of course, if we had not supported cannabis being in this bill, he would have been even more critical, but he criticises us now nevertheless because he has got to have a go.

Mr Dunne said he did not know what our policy was; he was confused. [Interruption] No, it does not. It has been consistent since 1999, and I suggest that the honourable member should read the policy, because he has been going around the country misleading people about the Green Party policy. He misled this Parliament earlier in the debate about our policy, so I suggest that he should read it before he tells us all that he is an expert on it. I would never suggest that he was deliberately misleading the Parliament, because he was not doing that, he just did not know what he was talking about.

The Green policy has been consistent on these issues since 1999. We support an R18 rating for cannabis, and we support cannabis coming under the Smoke-free Environments Act—that has been our consistent policy. We are totally consistent when it comes to tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis—they should be given an R18 rating; they should not be promoted or advertised; there should be restrictions to protect other people’s safety—for example, other people’s air quality with things like the smoke-free environments legislation—and we should not make people criminals, simply because of personal use, whether it is tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis. Mr Dunne and United Future, on the other hand, are not consistent, because they consistently oppose any restrictions on tobacco or alcohol consumption, to the degree that Mr Dunne has become extremely sensitive on the issue.

💬 Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is quite inappropriate for Nandor Tanczos to describe Peter Dunne as Peter Dunne; he is the Hon Peter Dunne. Surely, those old courtesies should be pursued in a determined way.

My apologies.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know this bill is wide-ranging, but we are actually talking about the commencement date, and I have not heard the member talk about anything on the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am sure the member will move to the commencement date and the interpretations.

Speaking to the point of order, first of all I understood that the agreement of the House was that this would be a wide-ranging debate. Secondly, I was replying to allegations made by the Hon Peter Dunne in his speech. It seems to me to be unfair if he can make allegations, and I cannot reply to them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. I have not yet pulled the member up, so would he please continue his speech.

But at the same time that he opposes this legislation, he supports people being made criminals for personal use of cannabis. I consider that an inconsistent position.

I move on to the question of Mr Dunne’s amendment. I came very close to supporting that amendment. Unlike Mr Dunne, I do not support or oppose amendments to legislation on the basis of who puts them up. Green Party members make their decisions based on the merit of the argument. I am sympathetic to the view that legislation like this should take an approach based on outcomes, rather than on mechanisms. The objective is to provide a safe environment, and it should be up to the premises how that is defined.

If I were convinced that the amendment was workable, I would be supporting it, but there are a couple of issues that do need to be addressed. The amendment is silent on who would bear the significant costs of ensuring compliance, because costs are not just the cost of installing the equipment, but the cost of maintaining it and running it consistently. Given the very limited resources of public health officials, who will do the ongoing checking to make sure that the equipment is working adequately and is actually being used? The amendment is silent on that. It is just an easy way to avoid the intention of the legislation.

I am persuaded that that is the intention of the amendment, because it comes into effect no sooner than 1 February 2007. That is not “no later than” 2007; that is “no sooner than” 2007. That date, and the ease by which the amendment would be got around by any premises wishing to do that, convince me that the intention is actually to find ways by which people can get around the bill, and so I cannot support that amendment. I do support the bill and the amendments of my colleague Sue Kedgley. Once again, I thank Steve Chadwick for the very good work she has done.

I just want to clarify the situation regarding the marae. If the member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, could just take us through it—

💬 Hon David Carter: Or the Minister in charge of the bill.

Or the Minister in charge of the bill, Mr O’Connor. For a change, I will talk about clause 2, “Interpretation”. It provides a definition for “early childhood centre”, “registered school”, “residential disability care institution”, “volunteer”, “workplace”, and “licensed premises”. As I understand it, if the marae does not have an early childhood centre or a registered school, does not employ anyone, and does not have licensed premises, then people could still smoke on the marae. That would be the case. I raise that point because there has been some doubt and ambiguity about the whole thing.

Of course, I am an immigrant to New Zealand, as people say. I am Rip Van Winkle, as the Minister said tonight in her rather vitriolic attack. In the scheme of things, how does one actually define a marae? As I understand it, it is the open place outside the meeting house. That is where all the talking tends to take place. That is the actual definition of the marae. How does that fit in to all those things? Does one stand out there and have a smoke? Because that is what a marae actually is. Or does one go into the various whare? We have a degree of confusion about this bill that needs to be clarified and, to take the earlier point, perhaps more consideration should have been given to it.

Where and how on a marae does smoking take place? The place is not defined anywhere. Nowadays, the definition of a marae is given to the buildings, which is, strictly, not the proper definition, as I am sure Ms Tariana Turia would say. We are going to strict Māori definitions these days. I thought “Māori” meant “normal” but she now tells me it means “natural”. There are two other definitions in the seventh edition of Henry Williams’ Dictionary of the Māori Language.

What does “marae” actually mean? What are we talking about in this context? If someone is smoking in a building—the “John Waititi” marae, or, as it is sometimes not properly called, the Hoani Waititi marae, an original urban marae of the late 60s and early 70s—what is the situation there with regard to smoking in the building? It seems to me that, in that sort of building, with all these exemptions in the bill, people could smoke quite freely without any difficulty, even though it is a public place. There is some considerable doubt about the whole thing.

Of course, as far as the cigar bar is concerned, Mr Worth need not have any problem. The new answer from the Labour Party is that one just turns it into a brothel. Is it not perfectly set up for one? Has he thought of that proposal? That is the Labour Party’s answer to everything at the moment. The cigar bar can be turned into something formerly illegal. It seems to me that that is what the Labour Party is getting at. That is the Labour Party’s solution, from the member’s description of the cigar bar.

💬 Richard Worth: Not the same.

Is it not the same? I do not go into cigar bars, or into those other institutions, so I would not be able to tell. Mr Worth tells me it is not the same as a brothel.

💬 Richard Worth: Ask Mr Cosgrove.

He tells me to ask Mr Cosgrove. One sometimes has to be careful as to how one replies to interjections, or one can get into trouble! I will leave it at that point. I am trying to be helpful because I think there are problems with how one deals wih the marae situation, and I think I have explained that it is not as easy as it might seem.

Firstly, I say to Mr Dail Jones that sometimes a cigar always is a cigar.

Speaking strictly to clause 1A “Commencement”, I note the buried dates, ranging from section 6 coming into force on 1 January 2004 to various other sections that come into force at other dates. I understand that that is to accommodate the commercial arrangements of the marketers. One of the things about that is, indeed, the commercial arrangements. In my speech on the second reading, I mentioned that the Gresham Hotel in Dunedin, which has gone smoke-free, was absolutely incredulous at the remarkable response it had to that, with a clientele going from about 600 per week initially to 2,000 per week. The bands in the area love going there, because they can play in a smoke-free environment.

I was most interested in some of the remarks from the Minister of Health, because when she first came in, she had a letter from the ministry that stated that the greatest gains in health would come from health promotion, disease prevention, and the integration of primary and secondary health. The Minister has made a remarkable balls-up of most of that, but it is good to see her supporting the Tuku Morgan amendment here, which focuses absolutely on health promotion and disease prevention.

I have heard several members speak about Dr Murray Laugeson. I would like to pay tribute to his work, because for many years, with great commitment and great passion, he has worked extremely hard to ensure that the information we have in New Zealand is of an absolutely best-practice, world-class quality, has been published in international, peer-review papers, and has data that is very solid indeed.

As well, Professor Rodney Jackson from Auckland University has made the point time and time again that the greatest gains in health will come from the simple things—right diet, exercise, and quitting smoking. That is what this bill is all about; there is no question about that. But I get a little cynical when I hear Heather Roy talking about the money being spent. On this occasion, it is cynicism about the Labour Government—the tax-rapacious Labour Government—that actually gets over $800 million a year from the tobacco tax, and spends a miserly $37 million or so—

💬 Hon David Carter: $13.7 million.

Is that all it is? Well, that is even worse than I thought.

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s the quality of expenditure that you worry about.

Both quality and quantity are absolutely important here, but I am very concerned that so little is spent in this area, when health promotion and disease prevention have been identified as the areas where the greatest gains would come from.

I noted Marc Alexander when he spoke earlier on occupational safety and health laws in New Zealand, because there is no doubt that those laws have not been enforced. In 2001 the Occupational Safety and Health Service handbook defined second-hand smokers as a significant hazard, capable of causing serious harm and damage. Theoretically, employers around the country are required to identify and control hazards, but that enforcement has just not occurred. It is quite right to say that if that provision were being enforced appropriately, there might be no need for this special legislation. It is one of the areas that make me uncomfortable.

The other area is the question of smoking in private clubs, venues, Returned Services Associations, or other organisations. I give notice that I have put forward an amendment that would cover smoking in private facilities.

I want to take a brief call to make a couple of points. Firstly, one of the revelations that has become clear during this stage of the debate is that a number of the provisions are linked to the holding of a liquor licence. So if a cigar bar ceased to hold a liquor licence—if I heard Ms Chadwick correctly—it would be able to continue to operate. Is that not what she said? So the cigar bar is dead under all circumstances?

💬 Steve Chadwick: They have a paid worker.

If they have a paid worker? This is where we get into a whole lot of nonsense, because the argument that has been promoted throughout this debate is that smoking tobacco is bad for people and is a practice not to be encouraged. I accept all of that, but the argument here does not turn on that. The argument now turns on whether one has a paid worker, so it has nothing to do with the health issue, but everything to do with something else altogether—which brings the whole set of provisions in this bill into absolute disrepute.

I want to go on and talk about the comments that a number of members have made about the amendment I have proposed, which will be discussed more in the debate on Part 2 regarding air-quality systems. I will deal with some of the comments that have been made in the following way. Firstly, the responsibility for the maintenance, purchase, and operation of those systems would be with the premises concerned. If they chose not to go down that path, then by 2007 they would be mandatorily smoke-free. So the option rests with them, and if they choose to go down the path of installing the relevant equipment, maintaining that equipment, and abiding by the standards, etc., then the responsibility rests with them.

The Associate Minister talked inadequately about overseas experience, and I want to draw to his attention a couple of things. The University of Glamorgan has recently conducted studies on the Irish situation, and has demonstrated that it is possible to remove all of the particulate from smoke on the premises up to a rate of 82-plus percent. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research study, released at the weekend, on the work done at the Bream Bay Club at Ruakaka, demonstrated a similarly high rate of extraction—not just recycling of the air, but extraction of the particulate, which is the cause of a huge amount of the problem.

I have material from New Zealand manufacturers saying that they are capable of achieving standards of up to 95 percent. The place I was at last week—the Beaujolais Bar, where we launched the Supplementary Order Paper—has a machine with a 99.9 percent extraction rate. I have material from the United States—and people have spoken about the United States today—which demonstrates that the Comair Eagles 5,000 product is capable of significant elimination, and so on and so forth.

It is clear from the debate today that the select committee had certain evidence in mind at the point it made its determination. If we believe in the integrity of the people promoting the argument and accept that they acted on a best-faith basis, surely they should now be prepared to analyse the fresh information that has come to light and to determine whether, in the light of that information, the procedures they are advancing right now need to be carried forward. That was why right at the beginning I moved the amendment that the bill be referred back to the select committee to enable a greater examination of these issues.

I have heard all sorts of extraordinary claims by the promoter of the bill, and a wad of information has been sent to me by a variety of people in New Zealand, Australia, and elsewhere, all debunking those claims. Yet what we now get is a plaintive cry from the Minister and the sponsor of the bill saying that at the time they considered this matter, none of that information was available. Basically, they are now saying: “Tough! That’s what we are going with.”

That is a totally inadequate response, and it will produce unworkable law. Unworkable law brings this Parliament into disrepute and will be ignored. People will flout it, and they will challenge, firstly, the “health police”, and secondly, the New Zealand Police, because that is the ultimate objective—to hand this law over to the police to conduct smoking raids on bars and restaurants. That will not happen—life will carry on pretty much as usual, and the patrons who smoke in bars will do so with impunity, because this law is incapable of being enforced, and it will certainly not achieve the objectives designed for it. Parliament once again will be a public laughing stock for having rejected the opportunity to do something worthwhile and chosen instead to indulge in pure fantasy politics.

The Hon Peter Dunne is absolutely right. This legislation is nothing to do with health, protecting people’s health, stopping young people from seeing people smoking, or protecting employees from second-hand smoke—which is a matter of dubious statistics at best. The World Health Organization has come out and said that 400 people dying each year from second-hand smoke is a very dodgy statistic. Dr Paul Hutchison might be a very good gynaecologist and obstetrician, but I would like to inform him that the Gresham Hotel has been closed for the last 18 months and was an abysmal failure.

I would like to ask those honourable members over there who owns their lives? All of those people in the Government who voted to send Peter Brown’s Death with Dignity Bill to the select committee thought for a moment that they might own their own lives. This bill is all about telling other people what to do with their lives. It is about a bossy-boots, nanny State. It has nothing to do with protecting people’s health; it is all about control. If it were about protecting people’s health, it would not be such—I think that I am allowed to say this—hypocritical legislation. It is hypocritical legislation because if it were true to principle—I agree that it would be bad principle—it would ban smoking in private homes. It would not exempt maraes.

The point was raised by the Hon Peter Dunne that if a cigar bar gets rids of its liquor licence—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: And its full-time employees.

No, I just want to continue with that, because volunteers are redefined in this legislation as employees, exactly as under the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill. Volunteers are now employees, courtesy of this Labour Government. That is why we are seeing school camps closing down. That is why volunteers all over the country are stopping doing what they do, which is volunteering, because their employers will be liable under the legislation that this Government is passing.

I have run a couple of restaurants in my time, and I have done a helluva lot of working in restaurants, carrying plates and serving drinks, etc. I would like to inform this Government that restaurants are private places. Who pays the rent? Who pays for the liquor licence? Who has to put in all the extra toilets to comply with the liquor licence? Who has to set all the spaces out between the tables to comply with the liquor licence? Not the Government. Who takes the risk? Who borrows the money? Who goes into debt and mortgages his or her home to set up these businesses? Who pays the taxes? It is private individuals; people who own their own lives. It is about property rights, and they do it from choice. Why should they not have the choice of being smoke-free?

💬 Sue Kedgley: Who pays the costs if they get sick?

The honourable member Sue Kedgley asks who pays the costs when they get sick. Actually, the smokers pay the costs when they get sick, because the tax that the Government takes from smokers pays for those costs 10 times over.

Taking up that point from the Green Party, I remember listening to another member of the Green Party, Sue Bradford. Before she became an MP, she was an advocate for unemployed workers’ rights—a contradiction in terms, but we will not go there—and was fighting the fact that the Government of the day had increased the tax on cigarettes. She said that was unfair to unemployed people and people on benefits, because they needed their cigarettes—they were the only luxury they had in life. Oh dear, how the worm has turned! Again, with legislation like this we get this hypocritical situation. A party wants to ban people from smoking cigarettes, but does not mind if they smoke cannabis.

If a marae is exempt because it does not have a licence and does not have paid employees, and if I open a café that does not have a licence and does not have paid employees, why am I not exempt too? If this is not about control and bossyboots Government telling people how to live their lives, answer me that. If a victim of a sex crime cannot have a cigarette at his or her place of work, and they know that the person who perpetrated that crime can smoke in his or her prison cell, what sort of legislation are we passing here? This Government pretends to be concerned about victims’ rights. What about the victims it is banning from having cigarettes, and at the same time allowing the perpetrators of those crimes to have a cigarette in their prison cells? Why should prisons be exempt? Why should maraes be exempt?

I want to talk a little bit about the commencement of this bill, which is really the commencement of the end of freedom of choice. What if, for example, I were to ask individuals to come into my home and cater for a function I was having? Strictly speaking, they would now be my employees! Will I now be able to smoke in the privacy of my own home, or not? These are my employees, providing hospitality in my home, in the company of my friends who might or might not smoke. It is my home and my choice, and the company will then forbid me from smoking in my own home, presumably to be consistent. There is no mention of that in the bill, so I would love a bit of clarification on that point. It makes no sense whatsoever.

When I walk down the Strip in Christchurch as a pedestrian, I do not have much choice. I have to walk on the pavement. But if I walk past the Strip, I am bombarded by smoke. So what is the Government going to do? Will it now turn round and forbid people to smoke on the pavement? I do not have a choice—I have to walk past there. It is true that I could go a different way, or perhaps go by taxi, but I will not know that until I am bombarded by smoke in the first place. There is a whole lot of inconsistency here.

That is also increasingly true of a lot of ethnic restaurants in Christchurch, which are mom-and-pop operations, and some have children involved. I am talking about Korean restaurants, Vietnamese restaurants, and so on, where all the workers smoke. These restaurants do not have employees as such, because they are family-owned businesses. Will they be allowed to have smoking in their restaurants? Those restaurants could have a sign out the front, saying: “This is a family-owned and operated restaurant that allows smoking, because a Korean family, a Vietnamese family”—or whoever—“works here. There are no employees. We all enjoy smoking. You’re welcome to come in.” Will they be exempt? The logic outlined before about employers simply does not figure in that particular context in this legislation.

I turn to the other point that Deborah Coddington brought out. I have to underline again that it makes no sense to treat prisoners any differently from anybody else. To turn round and hide behind the notion that a prison cell is somehow a person’s home, in the way that a hotel room is, is an absolute nonsense. When people commit crimes, they go to prison. It is not their home; it is a cell. It is part of the punishment, so take away their cigarettes. But I suspect very strongly that this Labour Government does not have the kahunas to take that right away from prisoners, because it is too damn hard. They do not want problems in the prisons, and they want to protect their own patch. However, it is OK to go after the innocent law-abiding people. That is fine—let them suffer. Deprive them of their choice, but give prisoners, who have chosen to commit crimes, the right to smoke. That makes absolutely no sense. If we want consistency in this bill, at least address all these other issues. You have not, and you will not, so get rid of this legislation. It does not bear close scrutiny.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Please leave the Chair out of the discussion.

I withdraw and apologise. This proposed legislation is an absolute nonsense. It has everything to do with taking away the rights of individuals to decide for themselves. I have outlined a number of scenarios in the hospitality industry that make a mockery of the very idea that employees need to be protected. If we jump from a room to a womb, we have the absolute nonsensical situation of a pregnant woman, for example, being allowed to smoke. Where will the politically correct anti-smoking Nazis be on that one? By their line of logic, that should be child abuse. I do not see that anywhere in the legislation, either.

If the legislation is about consistency, then take it away and redraft it. If it is about common sense, at least look at the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment, because it makes sense. In fact, if members go along with that amendment, we will end up with a healthier environment. Not only will it get rid of smoking, it will get rid of all the other impurities in the air. Otherwise, this legislation is a crock. It just does not stand up.

I would like to support the sentiments of the previous speaker, and also commend to the Committee the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Peter Dunne. I think it is a tragedy that on an issue that should be a conscience vote Labour has forced its members to vote in a particular way, without regard to the importance of the issues that arise in legislation of this type.

Having commended the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Peter Dunne, I am nevertheless drawn to the attractiveness of another Supplementary Order Paper, which is Supplementary Order Paper 106. That is the one I would like to speak about now. It is a Supplementary Order Paper of outstanding merit—I do not think anyone would deny that—and it is similarly concerned with the issue of cigars, but not, I hesitate to say, with cigar bars. It centres on section 32A, in clause 8A, and relates to displays of cigars.

It is an interesting aspect of this legislation that it is concerned with, primarily, a smoke-free environment, but it goes further than that—I think in a most insidious way—to block displays of tobacco products. As others, including Nandor Tanczos, have said, this is not about the outlawing of cigarettes; it is about the smoking of cigarettes in bars, clubs, and places of that nature. So I would just like to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 106 in that context, because it is about making changes to the section relating to compliant product display.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: And who is the outstanding member who moved Supplementary Order Paper 106?

I take pride in the fact that I have been given the opportunity, on behalf of the Committee, to move Supplementary Order Paper 106!

The explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper states: “As presently drafted, two paragraphs limit the number of tobacco packages to be displayed to 100 and the number of tobacco cartons to be displayed to 40. The commercial result of that restriction will be that retailers will not display cigars and the displays will be limited to cigarettes and cigarillos.“The bill proposes that retailers will not need to meet the display limitation in respect of cigars which in any event are only carried by non-tobacconists in limited numbers.”

Can I just say these things about this particular Supplementary Order Paper. The bill imposes a restriction on the number of tobacco product packages that may be displayed at each point of sale. The bill also provides—and this is fair enough—that tobacco products should not be displayed adjacent to children’s products. The bill also prevents tobacco products from being placed on shop counters. So, very clearly, the thrust of the bill’s restrictions on product display is to reduce the impact of tobacco product displays on children. But the result is a grossly anti-competitive situation, as the permissible number of packages on display will be far less than the number of different packages that are available on the market. Retailers will be forced to deny display opportunities to many slower-selling brands, and that is quite contrary, I would suggest, to the principles of the Commerce Act. Only the major brands will be on display, thereby depriving minor brands of the opportunity to compete.

That is particularly punitive for cigars, and that is why Supplementary Order Paper 106 is being valiantly and, I hope, triumphantly promoted. The cigar market in New Zealand is less than 0.2 percent of the total tobacco market. The product has no real appeal to children, and is smoked only by a few adults. Yet these legal products, cigars, will simply disappear from display shelves, because even the small amount of display space they require will be allocated to faster-selling brands of cigarette. So what I am seeking, I say to the member of Parliament for Rotorua, is that this Supplementary Order Paper be treated with favourable consideration by a whipped Government, and I hope the member will oblige me in that regard.

I must say that Supplementary Order Paper 106, which was described as being of outstanding merit, may not really fall into the category of “outstanding”, but certainly that argument was expounded with outstanding merit. There is no doubt about that.

When I hear the somewhat shrill tones of Deborah Coddington talking about who owns one’s life, I just wonder what she would have said 13 years ago when the Smoke-free Environments Bill first came into the House, and how she would have felt retrospectively had she come into this Chamber then, when it was hung heavily with cigarette, cigarillo, and cigar smoke, as were aircraft, trains, and all manner of public places. People just take for granted the huge leap forward that came with that somewhat controversial—at the time—legislation back in 1990. So when she asks who owns one’s life and claims the bill is all about control, I would say that the very opposite of that is the case.

This bill, in my view, is all about freedom—the freedom to be able to go about one’s business, free from tobacco smoke. I think that that particularly applies to children and, as I mentioned before, to babies in utero, who have no choice. One of the things that I think is absolutely vital is, indeed, to give children the opportunity to achieve their potential. Here we have a bill that certainly gives a much greater possibility of them having that opportunity.

I want just to make a few comments on the question of private property and marae, because that issue has been talked about to quite a great extent. If a private facility does not have a drinking licence and has no employees, then there is no reason in my mind for there to be a ban on smoking there. I think that private facilities should indeed be respected where adults are present, and that may or may not apply to a marae, to a Returned Services Association, or to any other private club.

Hence the perhaps outstanding merit of the Supplementary Order Paper, about to be numbered, that I have signalled in relation to smoking in private facilities. As I was saying, if a club, a Returned Services Association, or any other organisation is privately owned and does not have paid employees, then that club, Returned Services Association, or other organisation, which could include a marae, should be exempt from the legislation. I think that would be—

💬 Dail Jones: For volunteers.

Yes, that is absolutely right. I think that has outstanding merit, just to make it absolutely clear what constitutes the difference between an establishment where there are paid employees, which should certainly fall under the occupational safety and health laws, anyway, and one without paid employees.

Just to finish, I mention Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. [Interruption] I am getting signals from the sponsor of the bill. I want to say only that enforcing the measure in that Supplementary Order Paper would be awfully difficult. I understand that right now councils throughout the country have problems with regard to enforcing the swimming pool regulations, and are boggling at the thought of additional dog regulations. The clean-air regulations would, indeed, be extremely costly to administer.

The bill has, obviously, brought about some confusion about the classification of marae. The Health Committee discussed for some time whether marae should be included or excluded from the bill. If members look through the bill, they will see that there is no specific mention of marae. I suspect there was some difficulty with the drafting. The same difficulty arises with owner-operators who do not employ anybody: are they covered? Again, that is not clear in the bill, at all. What has happened—I suspect this snuck by some of us at the select committee—is that they are excluded because they are not specifically included in some of the clauses. Certainly, if there are no employees on a marae or there is no liquor licence for a marae, then smoking is not prohibited on that marae.

At the time when this matter was being discussed at the select committee, there was talk about whether a marae was somebody’s home. Certainly, some of the members on the select committee felt that people considered their marae to be like their home. But that did not carry over. We have talked about having a level playing ground and having some balance, but that did not carry over to other areas that some of the other committee members felt people would consider as their home. So there are anomalies in the bill that mean there is not a level playing field, at all. Labour members in particular said that that is very necessary, and tried to get the hospitality people involved in that line of argument, but it really does not stand up.

Another area that I have not mentioned, but would like to, is that of ventilation systems. I would like to support the amendments of the Hon Peter Dunne. It has taken United Future quite some time to reach this point. In fact, at the select committee I was the only person to support ventilation systems, but I must give credit to United Future for, at least, coming to its senses and doing the right thing in the final instance. The ACT party acknowledges that sometimes people take a little bit of time to come round to the right way of thinking. We will give United Future the benefit of the doubt, and will support its amendments to this part and those relating to ventilation systems.

If there is a minimum air standard, which is what Mr Dunne’s amendment is about, the ventilation systems will sort themselves out. If premises do not reach a particular standard of air quality, then the ventilation system will not be allowed to operate. If, however, the ventilation system can remove offending carcinogens and particles from the air, then the ventilation system will be allowed. This would seem to make perfect sense, and for that reason ACT will support these ventilation systems. [Interruption] Obviously, somebody needs to go round and test ventilation systems.

It seems that many members in the Committee have not actually read the report of the Bream Bay National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. I took a great deal of delight in reading it. It is a very good report. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research is an organisation respected by just about every party in the House. Its scientific knowledge is good, its research is well documented, and, certainly, the statistical significance of that research is very credible. Members who have not had the opportunity to see that report, or who have not read it because they think ventilation systems have nothing to offer, should take the time to read it.

It is important to look to the future, and not just to look retrospectively, or at the moment. Advancements are being made in all areas at the moment. Ventilation systems are improving all the time. If we can support having a minimum air standard of a particular level, then that is a very happy compromise so that the rights of smokers can be balanced with the rights of non-smokers. That provides the ideal situation for everybody. So ACT New Zealand will support those amendments. [Interruption]

I was part of the new committee, which did not hear all the evidence, but the new ones did not come forward. The new system that is talked about in the report of the Bream Bay National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research was not put forward and discussed by the select committee, at all. So that evidence is new. We now have the opportunity to look at that evidence, take it into account, and put it into action. I suggest that the opponents of this amendment should look very carefully at that report, because it has a lot to offer.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will be very brief. I raised this issue with the previous Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the Committee to report progress.

Progress reported.