Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I want to canvass with you, because I think it would be useful in terms of the discussion that has just gone on, your sense of how you will interpret the ruling given to the House by the Speaker relating to the time and conduct of this debate. We have already had drawn to our attention by one member the fact that he has a number of amendments to move on behalf of a particular group of organisations, and I know Mr Prebble has raised matters relating to the breadth of the debate. I seek your guidance as to how you will interpret the provisions in terms of speaking allocation, given those matters and also the Speaker’s ruling that we have just had the benefit of.

Certainly, the Speaker has given a very clear ruling that there will be a wide-ranging debate, and that is how it will be.

Part 2, which is rather confusing in its drafting, goes to the heart of many of the issues that the bill seeks to address. It deals with the insertion of a new Part 1, “Smoke-free workplaces and public areas”. That is the set of sections in what would theoretically be clause 3, but it actually inserts new sections 4, 5, 5A, 6, 6A, 7A, and so on into the principal Act; sections that will be at the core of this legislation.

One of the issues that drives this—and I want to relate to this right now, because I will come back later, if I may, in the debate on this matter—is the issue of air quality. As members will be aware, I have put Supplementary Order Paper 117 before the Committee, which has a number of proposed amendments to the bill to provide for an air quality standard to be applied, rather than the arbitrary ban that is currently proposed in this measure. One of the pieces of evidence that I cite in respect of the validity of air quality measures is the report by Gavin Fisher and Lou Reddish of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research regarding air quality inside the Bream Bay Club at Ruakaka. This report has been dismissed as irrelevant, technically deficient, and various other phrases by both the Health Committee and, I think it is called, the National Health Advisory Committee, or some other equally grandiloquent title.

I note the comments by Mr Fisher in this morning’s Dominion Post that the dismissal of his evidence was grossly ill-informed, that he had never been invited to present any opinion in support of his view to either the select committee or the officials who had made the recommendations, and that he stood by the evidence he gave. In fact, he made the very telling point, I thought, that if one wants to have some view as to the level of acceptability of air, one has to have an air quality standard to start with. One cannot in isolation determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable if there is no standard by which to measure it. If we read what the bill will achieve in having a total ban, we will see that it says there will be no smoking in bars, restaurants, clubs, etc., but it does not say, ipso facto, that the quality of air will be any better. It does not even draw that distinction, because it simply takes one end of the stick without looking at the other.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that acceptable air quality can be achieved through a proper ventilation system. The amendments that I have proposed go to the heart of this by saying very clearly that the onus would be on bar owners and premise owners to determine whether they want to install the ventilation systems that would enable an air quality standard to be achieved and maintained. But the bill does not even give them that choice. It decides arbitrarily for them that nothing—forever—will be put in place that will give them the opportunity to test for themselves whether they can establish a decent air quality standard.

I received some material this morning from the United States that shows there was a significant loss of jobs in New York immediately after the introduction of the ban there, because premises simply closed down. The same happened in Manitoba and in other parts of the United States and North America where such measures have been applied. I find it ironic that, on the one hand, this bill is being touted as a measure that will improve workers’ safety and that, on the other hand, one of the immediate consequences of the implementation of measures of this type in other places has been worker unemployment. I would have thought that members of the Government, in particular, who have a professed and longstanding commitment to employment opportunities, would find it somewhat concerning that people will lose their jobs as a result of this legislation.

As members will be aware, the National Party is having a conscience vote on this bill, but as I am a doctor and was a geriatrician, I saw the consequences all the time of what smoking does to New Zealanders. That is not just active smoking. It also involves passive smoking and what we now call second-hand smoke. Only 30 percent of New Zealanders smoke; 70 percent do not. A lot of people in that 70 percent would quite like to go down to the pub or the club, but the cigarette smoke puts them off. I conducted a bit of a survey in my electorate. Everybody wanted smoke-free restaurants. There was a bit more ambivalence about pubs and clubs, but the large majority of people certainly wanted smoke-free environments.

I will be supporting this bill, because we have to remember that strokes, heart attacks, and arterial diseases are the leading causes of death in this country and cost our health system a huge amount of money. People who have smoked in the past are just encouraged to go back to smoking when they go down to the pub, and if they have never been smokers, they do not stand the environment for very long. So 70 percent of people out there may decide they want to go down to the pub or club on a Friday or a Saturday night, if it is a smoke-free environment.

The Health Committee made considerable changes to Part 2, which is where the most significant changes are. One of the ridiculous things that had been put into the bill by a Supplementary Order Paper we changed was a provision to allow smoking rooms at schools. Most schools in New Zealand have gone totally smoke-free. To reintroduce a smoking room would have been ridiculous, so that provision was taken out and smoking is now prohibited at schools and early childhood centres. If we want our children to grow up healthy, we do not want their main role models—after their parents, teachers come next—smoking in the school environment. We do not want children to see smoking and think that it is cool, because it is not. It affects their health and will contribute to major ill health when they get older.

We also looked at dedicated smoking rooms in hospital care institutions, residential disability care institutions, and rest homes. Let us face it, if people get to a rest home and are still alive and still smoking, we should be kind to them. We cannot really kick people out into the rain to have a cigarette outside at that stage, so we were kind and generous and understood that situation.

💬 Peter Brown: Why are you doing it in RSAs?

People who go to Returned Services Associations can still walk and get about. That is not quite so easy when one is in a rest home, so we allowed for dedicated smoking rooms in rest homes. Members will ask why we did that in hospital care institutions. The fact is that some people are absolutely desperate. I would like to see all people, especially in hospitals, not smoking. It is amazing how many people on their first visit to the coronary care unit, when a staff member walks in and says, “Stop the smoking right now.”, do so. But why should people wait until they get to the coronary care unit, which costs them and the country huge amounts of money, and which is a cost to their health? It is much better to give up now—and so many people have. Huge numbers of New Zealanders have given up smoking, and they are better off for it. We want to encourage that, and we want to encourage it in a social situation.

Originally two environments had been looked at, resulting from a division into smoking and non-smoking areas. That would have imposed huge compliance costs on a large number of businesses—small businesses that could not physically divide a space into two areas—so it seemed better to have a level playing field with all pubs and clubs involved. If we took clubs out, every business would licence itself as a club and it would be an utterly unfair playing field for pubs, so, because this legislation is trying to improve public health and the health of our nation, we have moved it forward.

I had a really good look at the issue of ventilation air standards. We went to the Australian Capital Territory where there is a ventilation air standard, and there is evidence that carcinogens cannot be removed. The other thing we were told in Australia was that everyone turns ventilation systems off. They are very expensive to run when hot air is being dragged out, and buildings need to be heated to a large degree in winter and cooled in summer. The Australians found when they audited ventilation systems that most had been turned off.

I would just like to comment to the member who has just resumed her seat—

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Dr Scott.

—Dr Scott, yes—that no ACT member of Parliament smokes, and I am not in favour of promoting smoking. But I find it intriguing that that politically correct committee, in exempting marae, ignores the fact that smoking by young Māori women is a significant problem. When I ask why that is, I am told: “That’s our home.” If one asks a returned serviceman what his home is, he will say it is the Returned Services Association. In the case of returned servicemen, Parliament provided them with free cigarettes during the Second World War and made them all addicts. Now we are turning our backs on them and saying that because they are returned servicemen we will be tough on them, but we are so politically correct we will ignore the problem with young Māori women.

I turn to a question that I have—[Interruption] I ask the member not to interrupt.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I’m trying to help.

The member is not helping me. I have a question for the promoter of the bill. She is also the chair of the Health Committee, and that is a clear conflict of interest. I want to know whether the member knew that the Ministry of Health was paying $2.1 million to lobby MPs on behalf of her bill. Did she know? If she did, that is a disgrace. If she did not know, why did she not vote for Mr Dunne’s amendment that the bill be sent back to the select committee, so it could have had Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) come before it to be asked why it did not tell the committee it was being paid by the Government to do that lobbying? I say to the Committee that, in my time in Parliament, I have never seen that. I think it is corruption. There is no doubt that it is against the public service code for—

💬 Hon John Tamihere: The member has seen a lot about corruption.

Did the member who is interjecting on me know about it? I want to know whether he knew $2.1 million was being spent. Did he know that the contract states: “Promote a supportive public climate for enhancing smoke-free environment protection in legislation”, “Engage secure support from the public and political networks”, and “Visit key portfolio MPs and Māori MPs”? That member is a Māori MP. Was he lobbied by ASH?

💬 Hon John Tamihere: I can’t recall.

Now he cannot recall. The amount was $2.1 million, and he cannot recall whether he got his share. Did ASH bring it in a paper bag, or does he get paper bags full of money so often that he cannot remember when they arrive? [Interruption] Koha, yes. Someone from ASH would have come and said: “I’ve got some koha for you here, Minister—our share of your $2.1 million—and we’d like your support for Steve Chadwick’s bill.”

I want ask Steve Chadwick whether she knew that these lobby groups, when they appeared in front of the committee, were paid political lobbyists—paid for by the Government? She is being silent now. Does she not think she has any obligation to the Committee?

I ask the member why we should support her bill when she is not even prepared to answer questions like that. She sat there as chair—apparently, she volunteered to stand down—but I ask whether she cannot see that that is a conflict of interest. Does she not see that her bill has compromised this Parliament? Where is the integrity of any MP who can vote for this bill, knowing that he or she may have been influenced by money being paid—I believe, improperly; I actually believe illegally—to ASH, the smoke-free environment group and the other Māori group.

I note that those groups were instructed to write letters to the paper, but did they say they were being paid by the taxpayer to do that? Did Steve Chadwick know, or was she just a tool? If she was a tool, why will she not take an opportunity—and why did she not take the first available opportunity—to set the record straight? Or is she so convinced of the political correctness of this cause that she believes the end justify the means—which, of course, is what the left always believes? Will she take a call and set the record straight.

I start my discussion by agreeing wholeheartedly with the comments that have just been made by the Hon Richard Prebble. In my work of patiently seeking answers from this Government about how much money the Ministry of Health has actually spent on lobbying MPs, I have come to suspect that the sum of $2.1 million is a gross understatement. I think that when further papers are finally provided, we will find that a significantly larger amount of money has been corruptly spent on trying to lobby members of Parliament to support a member’s bill. I think that that is a disgrace, and if Steve Chadwick as the promoter of this bill knew of that at the time, she should state it tonight in this debate. If she did not know about it, she should take the opportunity of clarifying that tonight in the Chamber.

I want to move to another point, and to a large number of amendments on which I intend to seek calls for discussion tonight. I attended a function in Christchurch last week for the Hospitality Association of New Zealand’s annual award dinner. About half a dozen MPs were at that function, and I was staggered by the depth of ill feeling towards the Government expressed by people who came up to take their awards. The ill feeling was not only about this legislation, but that was the focus, specifically, of their attention. It is hard enough in that industry to make a dollar. The competition is extreme, and many, many establishments will go out of business because of this stupid legislation.

Let me discuss my very first amendment tabled in the Chamber tonight. If members look at clause 6B, they will see that it repeals section 12 and substitutes a new section 12. I suggest that we vote tonight to add a new subsection to that section that will exempt the Little River Hotel on State Highway 75 at Little River. That is what the people of that establishment have asked me to do. I had written to that hotel last week and asked what the effect of this legislation would be on its business. The response was that it would probably put it out of business. Little River is a small community in the electorate of Banks Peninsula, and I will take note of how Ruth Dyson votes. I will note whether she is prepared to hear the pleas of her own constituents. Little River has a local school of around 100 pupils. The school is now under pressure, because Mr Mallard is about to rip the guts out of rural New Zealand by closing schools of that size. The other focus of that community is the Little River pub. I tell Ms Chadwick that I do not go there often, but I suspect that probably 70 percent of its patrons smoke. No patron of that hotel is forced to be there on any evening. They are there for the camaraderie and friendship they develop in that establishment—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Camaraderie?

That is right. Does the member not understand that word? It means friendship, and that is what these people go for. It is a chance for them to socialise, to have a beer, and to enjoy a cigarette. Nobody forces them into that hotel, but if that member tonight votes against my amendment, he will threaten its very existence.

We have another amendment. The Kaikanui Hotel is at 67 Williams Street, Kaiapoi, in the Waimakariri electorate of Clayton Cosgrove. Let us see tonight whether he is prepared to support the plea that has been made by the proprietors of the Kaikanui Hotel in Kaiapoi. That is a larger centre—not as small a locality as Little River—but, again, the people there know what has happened in New York and in many states in the United States where this legislation has been brought in. It has meant a dramatic decline in the revenue taken by hospitality establishments—and that threatens the very viability of the Kaikanui Hotel.

I think that for many members on this side of the Chamber, the debate tonight is very much tainted by the knowledge that the Government spent $2.1 million lobbying MPs to try to get them to support a member’s bill. That has never happened before, and the Government will not explain why it did that. The member in the chair, who is the sponsor of the bill, has not taken a call to explain why that money was given, why there was an expressed objective that the task of the Action on Smoking and Health organisation was to lobby individual MPs on a member’s bill. Out in the streets, a lot of Labour members have said: “Look, I know you’re concerned about this, but this is a private member’s bill.”, as if somehow that takes away its significance. But now we know that it is not really a member’s bill; it is a Government bill in disguise, and the Government has taken $2.1 million from the taxpayer in order to lobby MPs to try to get them to support it. Richard Prebble has quite correctly described that as corruption. I can think of no other word to describe it.

Tonight we are discussing an issue that is more about freedom of choice—freedom to decide where we go and what we do. Yes, Governments will always play a part in establishing general regulations for conduct in this country, but they do not get involved in the minutiae of how we lead our daily lives. They do not say to people—except in this case—that they must eat San Bran and go for a compulsory jog every day. With this bill, the Government is getting into the day-to-day lives of New Zealanders, when most people are big enough to make up their own minds and make choices about their lives, with minimal Government involvement.

For this bill, I went and did a bit of research in my hometown of Dunedin. I went on a pub-crawl, of sorts, and spoke to a number of small business operators. They are described in the bill as proprietors of licensed premises, but they are small business operators. I spoke to non-smokers and smokers, to staff and publicans, and I could not find anybody who supported the bill. Some of those small pubs will go out of business as a result of this legislation—particularly small country pubs. Many that I have listed in an amendment I am putting forward say they will go out of business because of it. There is one small pub, the Vulcan Hotel in St Bathans, where sometimes in the middle of winter it is incredibly cold, whose clientele swear that some people could go out and have a near-death experience, simply because of going out for a cigarette. I suspect that those people will stay at home, and a lot of those businesses will be closed down as a result.

Let us remember that small country pubs, and a lot of pubs in towns like Dunedin, where I live, are focal points for their communities. They are meeting places for their local communities. That is what is at risk here. I remember speaking to one old chap by the name of Ron at the Waterloo Hotel. He said: “I went to war, and now I am wondering whether or not I should just have handed my gun to the Germans, because the country that I fought for is starting to take away some of the freedoms that I hold dear.”

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

Before the dinner break I was talking about a returned serviceman called Ron, whom I met when I visited the Waterloo Hotel in Dunedin. Ron went to World War II, and he is now beginning to wonder what he fought for, because he feels he is having some of his basic freedoms and pleasures removed from his life. That is what has moved me tonight to put forward a list of amendments—they are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 154—in which I have listed a number of taverns and hotels that would like to be exempted from this bill. These include the Lauder Tavern, Glenfalloch Restaurant, The Chancellor Dunedin, Vulcan Hotel, Rydges Queenstown, Portsider Tavern, Wharf Casino, Nugget Point Resort, Aspen on Queenstown, Blacks Hotel, The Statesman, Heriot Hotel, Moeraki Tavern, Valley Lodge Hotel, Heffs Hotel, Cock and Bull Dunedin, Black Dog, Gardens Sports Tavern, Fitzroy Pub on the Park, Waterloo Hotel, Oriental Tavern, Greater Green Island Town and Country Club, Golden Fleece Hotel, Paddy’s Café and Bar, Famous Kellys, Frankton Arm Tavern, Grand Tavern, The Outback, Fraser’s Bar and Grill, St Kilda Tavern, Normanby Tavern, Dicey O’Riley’s, Bentley’s Hotel, Tippler’s Bar Café, North Western Hotel, and the Mosgiel Tavern.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member who is seeking the call, but I want to clear up a matter that has arisen, I suspect, inadvertently, and it may well require the Speaker to be recalled. On 17 September, when we were last discussing the bill, the Speaker was recalled on the question of the scope of the debate. I want to quote from the ruling he gave then, because I think it is at variance with the ruling he gave this afternoon: “An instruction to take a bill part by part relates to the parts of the bill that are before the committee.” Members may recall that there was a discussion about how the bill was drafted. “I did rule earlier this year that the insertion of new parts in a principal Act is a factor for the Chair to take into account before accepting the closure, and the Chair should do that here.” The confusion is that if we look at the bill, the part we are now debating has parts inserted into it, and so too does Part 3, which we will get to eventually. When the Speaker ruled before the start of the debate today, he appeared to me to change his ruling to say that he certainly agreed there should be the widest possible debate on this part, not on both parts. Yet, when I refer to his ruling of 17 September, he makes the point that where there are parts inserted in a bill by a part, then that is scope for a wide-ranging debate. I apologise to Mr Woolerton, who I know is keen to take a call, but I do not think there is any option at this stage but for the Speaker to be recalled to clarify the intent of this ruling, and I so move.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that the Speaker ruled earlier today that there should be a wide-ranging debate on that part. That is my understanding. His reason, as I understand it, is that we are on this part now. He gave an instruction to the House to take into account the fact that the debate is happening now, and his ruling was to do with the part as it now stands.

Mr Chairperson, I genuinely do not wish to delay things unduly but I need to be clear on this point. Is it your understanding that the ruling given by the Speaker today relates purely to the part he expects us to be debating today, but that it also relates to Part 3—when we eventually get to it—given his earlier comment that where bills insert new parts in a principal Act, it is a factor for the Chair to take into account before accepting the closure? If your understanding of the Speaker’s ruling is that it relates only to this part, and not to Part 3—whenever we get to it—then that matter needs to be clarified.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that it would apply to any part where parts have been inserted. That definitely means the part we are currently on, and it may well also take into account Part 3, where parts have been inserted.

I would like to take a call in response to some rather serious allegations laid by the leader of ACT about the lobbying of MPs, and particularly the lobbying of myself as the sponsor of this bill. I want to read out, for the record, a letter from the chairperson of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) to the New Zealand Herald, which clarifies the position that “ASH is not an agent of the Ministry of Health, nor its employee”—that statement is in clause 27 of ASH’s contract—“nor an uncritical paid agent of the Ministry. The Government has never gagged ASH, but supports it to help reduce tobacco consumption, which is a 60 percent reduction since ASH was founded 21 years ago”. That is a wonderful record. “ASH does not always agree with Government. For example, we want cigarettes to be put under the counter, but Government is not ready yet for this. We opposed fines on smokers in bars in the current bill, and Government now agrees. Most of our Government contract funds this year were paid for media advertising to inform the public about the risks of cigarette smoke, just as the Government has paid for anti-smoking campaigns since 1948. ASH was created to work with the media and encourage strong publicity and policy on smoking. When this bill is passed we will focus on the high level of toxins in New Zealand cigarette smoke. We will need continued funding, Government or otherwise, to further reduce the tobacco road toll.”

I have not been personally lobbied by ASH, but as the sponsor of this bill I have certainly valued its support, just as I valued its support when I was in charge of a children and women’s health service in a hospital. I knew about ASH and Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore long before many members in the House. I value their contribution to the reduction in smoking in this country—as I value the contributions from many other lobbyists, who give me as the sponsor of this bill very valuable information. These include Professor Alistair Woodward, the professor of public health at the Wellington school of medicine; the College of General Practitioners; Dr Diana North, medical director of the National Heart Foundation; and Hugh McAlister, a very respected cardiologist.

I have in my hand one of ASH’s very good political updates that gives information to all members of Parliament, so I hope we can continue with better-informed debate. As the member sponsoring the bill, I can assure the Committee that I welcome and value continued information from these lobby groups, and I hope they do not give up supporting all politicians so that we can have informed debate in the House. I quite accept the fact that the Minister responsible will look at the contracts to make sure we are not lobbied as members. I was very careful not to go out with tobacco industry representatives and have a paid lunch, and I was also very careful to tell the tobacco industry, which mercilessly lobbied me, that it would not be right or proper—as representatives of the Hospitality Association of New Zealand present in the gallery know—to have lobbying on the bill accepted once the Health Committee had written its report for the House. It would have been quite improper. I knew my boundaries as the member sponsoring the bill, but I hope that the Government continues its robust funding of those lobbyists, who have had a profound impact on the reduction of smoking in this country.

I for one do not care who has been lobbying the member. I can certainly say that Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has been lobbying me. I like lobbying, and I think that lobbyists add to the House. They bring their biased point of view to any argument, and it is helpful to talk to lobbyists from both sides. But I hope that, in listening to lobbyists, I am not like the member who just sat down and who believes just one side of the lobbying. I think it is healthy to have cynicism on both sides, and therein get closer to the truth.

When I am contemplating this bill, I think back to my father. I think of my grandfather. I think of grandparents, male and female, and of people in the district I grew up with, and I wonder what they would have thought of this legislation. I wonder what they would have thought of liberalising prostitution and of the talk of liberalising marijuana, or, as it is euphemistically phrased, legalising marijuana for medicinal use. I think to myself that they would really wonder what sort of arena this Doug Woolerton had got himself involved in. They would wonder whether the lunatics had indeed taken over the asylum.

We have two—only two—legal drugs in this country. It has been that way in Western civilisation for hundreds and hundreds of years. One is tobacco and the other is alcohol. We have never promoted the health benefits of either, although the wine industry is wont to promote a glass of wine each day as beneficial for one’s health. I have no problem with ASH or anybody else promoting the message or saying that smoking is not good for one’s health. But I object most strenuously to the barring of cigarette smoking in all public places. The legislation bars smoking in all public places, except, of course—and this is where my mother, father, grandfather, and grandmother would really come apart—in prison. If people go to jail, they can have a fag.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Or hospital.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: In hospital, also, as the member said, people can have a fag, but they cannot have a fag in a pub. In any other Parliament, in any other time, they would say that this ban was quite, quite mad, and that is what I think it is. I think it is a contradiction. I think it is intolerance to the highest degree, and I think it is quite, quite mad. In fact, the only way that it would be acceptable in any way to the public of New Zealand would be the way it has been promoted in this House—and I believe it has been promoted dishonestly.

The promotion says that smoking affects the smoker—and that it also affects everybody else. It is said that thousands of people are dying in this country through second-hand smoke. That is bunkum—absolute bunkum. Any person who has ever had a fag is in the statistics as having died because of smoking. If people had been smokers when they were 18 but had given up smoking years ago, their lungs would now be as healthy as anybody else’s. However, if anything happens to them, it is said that they have died because of smoking. Whatever happens to a person’s heart, foot, left leg, right leg, head, or whatever, is said to happen because that person was a smoker, so he or she goes onto the smoking statistics. That person apparently becomes a victim of second-hand smoke, and that is the only way that this Government can find to make this legislation even part-way logical and get it through this House.

The Government certainly would not get this legislation through if it banned smoking completely. That would be outrageous as far as the public is concerned. The Government could try to reduce the incidence of smoking voluntarily, which is what ASH has tried to do over the years, and, yes, there has been a reduction. But that is not enough for this Government. It wants to force its will on every man, woman, and teenager in this country—at the same time, I might say, that it is talking about legalising other drugs.

I take exception to some of the things the sponsor of the bill, Steve Chadwick, has just said. I want to come back for a moment to the contracts that we have heard so much about over the last couple of weeks. The dishing out of $2.1 million to anti-smoking groups to lobby MPs to support smoke-free legislation is an abuse of power. There is no getting away from that. It is a blatant attempt at political manipulation and a misuse of taxpayers’ money.

My colleague David Carter said before the dinner break that he would not be surprised if the amount was actually more than the $2.1 million that Rodney Hide was quoting last week. We know that the groups Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore, the Smokefree Coalition, and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) have contracts that are very specific about what their duties are, particularly in relation to this bill, a member’s bill, and that lobbying is being paid for with taxpayers’ money. We know that in the last financial year $13.7 million was actually allocated to various groups for the specific purpose of reducing smoking in this country. That in itself is a good thing and will have beneficial health outcomes. But we know about only those three groups; how do we know that the amount is not in fact more than $2.1 million? It might be much closer to the $13.7 million that we know has been spent on lobbying.

We have all seen the T-shirts, the advertisements in the newspapers, and the long list of groups that are involved in the anti-smoking lobby. Most of them receive large sums of Government funding. It does raise more questions. We know about only the contracts with those three groups—ASH, the Smokefree Coalition, and Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore. We do not know about any of the others, and I suspect—

💬 Hon David Carter: There are lots more to come.

I suspect Mr Carter is quite right. When the evidence comes out and we see the other contracts, what are they going to tell us?

I go back to the contracts. Mr Prebble read out what was in the Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore contract before the dinner break, but there are two others. ASH is required to appear on television or radio, or in newspapers, at least 50 times a year, to publish and distribute “media and political updates at least six times a year”, and to “liaise with members of Parliament and political parties”—its people did not bother coming to me; I suspect they knew they would be wasting their time—“to raise awareness of tobacco-related issues and developments”. I move on to the Smokefree Coalition. I can see Steve Chadwick shaking her head; “What does that matter?”, she says. It matters because it is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about. The Smokefree Coalition is required to “create a climate of support for amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act.” Well, it cannot get much more blatant than that, can it? It is spelt out very clearly in that contract that that organisation is to lobby MPs, to advertise, and to write letters to the editor, using taxpayers’ money. That is unacceptable. It is to lobby policy makers, make submissions, issue media releases, and write letters to the editor, as I said.

Just as bad is the fact that these supposedly independent interest groups, which always claim they are independent—and we just heard Steve Chadwick say they are independent, but who do we believe—are not allowed to criticise the Government. They are not allowed to criticise the Government without first discussing it with the Government, and vice versa. They have a very cosy little arrangement. Neither will say anything without first consulting the other. These groups get their stories right, then go out and say how independent they are. Taxpayers’ money has been paid in an attempt to silence these lobby groups.

It was different with Kit Richards. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, declared it completely unacceptable within a public sector organisation for him, a Timberlands employee, to send an email to lobby groups advising them to target certain Ministers. What happened to Kit Richards? He lost his job. That was it—kaput. What is going to happen to the ministry officials who were responsible for formulating these contracts? Nothing. They will stay there on their cosy salaries, and they will stay there for a good long while yet, while this Labour Government is in power. Kit Richards lost his job, but, no, they are fine. We now have ministry officials paying interest groups to lobby certain MPs. It is a misuse of health funding, a breach of the public service code of conduct, and more rank hypocrisy from this Government.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That was a very interesting speech made by the member who has just resumed her seat, and I wonder whether she would consider tabling that contract. I am certain we would all like to see it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. He should look at Speaker’s ruling 1/5 and Speaker’s ruling 1/1 (Supplement).

I start by thanking Steve Chadwick, who sponsors this bill, for finally taking a call. I have spent many hours in this debate, and that is the first time she has taken a call.

I want to comment on the two points she raised. Firstly, she said she has never been lobbied by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Well, I will accept the member’s word, but I do wonder whether she regularly monitors her inwards mail, because I have had numerous letters from ASH asking to come and see me. The letters look like form letters that, I think, went to all members of Parliament. So I suggest that member just check the bottom of her in tray.

Secondly, she read a letter published in the New Zealand Herald from ASH in which, she claimed, the statement was made that the Government has never gagged ASH. That is wrong. I have before me the ASH contract, signed by the Ministry of Health and ASH, and clause 17 reads: “Neither of us may, during or after this agreement, either directly or indirectly criticise the other publicly.” If that is not a gag, I do not know what is. So do not let ASH continue with a whole lot of half-truths and mistruths, saying it was not doing the Government’s work, because it was.

Before the dinner break I spoke passionately about some amendments to the bill that I intend to put forward tonight. I actually wrote to a large number of hospitality establishments in Christchurch, when I realised how deeply they felt about this legislation. They spoke vigorously against the Government’s move—and it is the Government’s move—at the annual hospitality industry awards dinner last week in Christchurch. So I wrote to 350 establishments last Friday, and in those few days more than 100 responded and asked me specifically to put forward an amendment to exclude their particular establishment from this dopey legislation. They include places like the Embankment Tavern, Ferry Road, Christchurch.

💬 Simon Power: A fine spot!

It is an interesting establishment. It is in Mr Tim Barnett’s electorate, and I take this opportunity of telling Mr Barnett that people from that tavern have rung my office and asked me to put forward this amendment on their behalf. They will be looking to that member to support the amendment. Mr Barnett came into Parliament to represent Christchurch Central constituents. That tavern is struggling in a difficult environment and it wants to be excluded from this legislation. It will be watching the vote cast by Mr Tim Barnett tonight.

R Doug Woolerton: There are a certain number of people he cares about, and he doesn’t care about the others.

That could be true. I will ensure, when the vote is cast, that the Embankment Tavern on Ferry Road, in Mr Barnett’s electorate, knows how he voted. Another establishment, Ciao Bella, on Victoria Street, one of the most enjoyable restaurant-bars in Christchurch—also in Mr Barnett’s electorate—has asked me to put forward an amendment to exclude it from this dopey legislation. It too will be looking for the support of Mr Barnett later on this evening. The Redwood Hotel, Main North Road, Christchurch, is, I think, in Mr Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate. I tell Mr Cosgrove that the Redwood Hotel wants to be excluded. I am prepared to put forward an amendment, and I certainly hope the local member, Mr Clayton Cosgrove, will be supporting it. Another establishment, the Valley Inn, at 2 Flavell Street, Heathcote, Christchurch, just happens to be not far from my office, and is in the electorate of Ruth Dyson. In fact, Ruth Dyson lived within 200 metres of this fine establishment. It may have been her local!

💬 Katherine Rich: Not any more.

It may be. We have to give Ruth Dyson the chance. Now that I am telling her that the Valley Inn at Heathcote wishes to be excluded from this legislation, and now that I have agreed to put forward an amendment on its behalf, let us see how Ruth Dyson votes.

I want to pick up on a point that has been made by one or two of the earlier speakers about the nature of the contracts that have been entered into with various agencies, and I want to tell the Committee that the suggestion that some $2.1 million only has been allocated is well short of the mark. There is an insidious industry abroad here—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As I understand, Mr Dunne has spoken before on Part 2, and I should have got the call because I have not spoken before. I believe I am entitled to the call, or any other member who has not spoken before.

The first point I want to make is that Standing Order 178 has been suspended until the end of this year, and possibly into March 2004. The second point is that, under Speaker’s ruling 23/3, I have already called Mr Dunne, and therefore he has the call. I have taken note that Mr Jones is seeking the call.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That Standing Order, as you quite correctly say, has been suspended, but, as I understand it, it has been suspended by the Business Committee to enable those people who are spokesmen on a particular issue to take consecutive calls.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Only.

💬 Dail Jones: Only spokesmen. I am not sure that Mr Dunne is the spokesman on this issue; he is the leader of United Future, but I am not sure whether he is the spokesman. So to give Mr Dunne the call on that basis, when he is not the spokesman, or to give any other members another call, when they are not spokesmen, is not correct use, in my view, of the suspension of that Standing Order. I hope that members make it clear that they are spokesmen on an issue, when they want to take advantage of the suspension of that Standing Order, so that you are not confused.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I first want to say I think—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There will be silence when a point of order is being heard—Speaker’s ruling 16/6.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, there you go. I think it is quite extraordinary—and I want to express the gratitude of the Committee—that we do have someone in the Chair who does know the Standing Orders. It is actually something that a good number of members have commented on, and we do appreciate that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member come to the point. [Interruption]

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Hang on! I think we do have a slight difficulty. You have ruled; you cannot change that. However, the interpretation of the suspended Standing Order, the interpretation of the statement around the suspension, is something you might like to have another look at. It is designed to ensure that the Standing Order that says seniority in the House is to be respected, etc., is followed, whether or not a person has already spoken, but the suspension is also about recognising that minor parties’ spokespersons, who may have spoken before in a debate, have a particular interest, and should be given the opportunity to speak again. It was an act of generosity, I might say, on the part of the larger parties in Opposition, but we do expect that it will be interpreted correctly. But, as I say, we do thank you for your extraordinary command of both the Standing Orders and, particularly, Speakers’ rulings.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I speak to the point of order, Mr Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled and I now intend to call the member.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I raise a fresh point of order, Mr Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member may raise a fresh point of order, but I have already ruled.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: I am grateful for your having given me the call, but I am cognisant of the point raised by Mr Jones and others, and I think that, when I sought the call, several members were seeking the call. Before proceeding, I simply wish to seek your assurance that their rights to gain a call have not been compromised by your giving me the call in this instance—in other words, that they will get a call if they seek it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Dunne. You have made your point. I am the sole judge as to whom I call, and I have already indicated to Mr Jones that he will get a call.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: Mr Chairperson, I point out that you place me in somewhat of a dilemma, because this is a wide-ranging debate, and Mr Speaker has already ruled that there should be the widest possible expression of opinion. I have spoken on this part before, and I have spoken not infrequently on aspects of this bill, and although I am keen to take another call—and if you insist on my doing so, I will happily do so—I do not want to infringe on the rights of any other members. So if you cannot give me an assurance that other members who are seeking the call will be accommodated, I feel that, in fairness to them, I have no option but to sit down at this point.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If you wish to do that, you are perfectly entitled to so.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: I am seeking guidance from you before I make my decision.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member does not have to persist in what is going on at present. If he does not wish to take the call, that is entirely up to him. But I have called the member, and I call him again.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled on this. The member’s point of order had better be a fresh one.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It is certainly a fresh point of order. I have just arrived in the Chamber, as you may have observed. I have come directly all the way over from Bowen House, and I am seeking an assurance that I have not wasted my time—that I will also get a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You have not wasted your time.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: Before that interruption occurred I was saying that the claim that has been made by some members—that the sum of $2.1 million advanced to Action on Smoking and Health and its ilk is a conservative estimate—is absolutely correct, because there is a thriving industry abroad here, which goes something like this: a person works for the Ministry of Health for a period of time, then fans out into one of these organisations and becomes a consultant, a specialist, an adviser, or so on, to that organisation, which then seeks funding from the ministry to promote its good work, in the way that we have seen. But it gets better. When international conference time comes around—and the World Health Organization is par excellence in terms of international conferences—look at who goes as part of the New Zealand delegation! It is wide and inclusive, so all these people who have just left the ministry to go and do good work for these struggling voluntary agencies, which the ministry ends up supporting, end up on the delegation. They end up on the delegation so that they can put on their CV for the next research grant application: “Attended the XYZ conference in an out-of-the-way place.” But it gets even better—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but I just say that interjections while members are standing are out of order, and they will not be tolerated.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: It gets even better, and I will cite one example. Dr Murray Laugesen, who used to be an assistant director within the Ministry of Health here in Wellington, now resides in the exotic location of Waiheke Island and is a reputed international expert on these matters. He is at every conference that comes up. His name is all over these contracts. We see him popping up all over the show. When the Ministry of Health wants to consult an independent adviser on tobacco control policy, whom does it consult? It consults the Dr Laugesens of this world. It is not only incestuous; it is far more than $2.1 million—this is just the tip of the iceberg.

What we have here is an agenda that this bill reflects—and I say this with deference to the member promoting it, because I know she took it over from another member—that the members in charge of the bill are not even fully aware of. They are simply promoting legislation that has been drafted—not by the Government—by Government officials who have a vested interest and an absolute determination to rort the system to get their goals. They find a member who is prepared to take on the sponsorship of this bill, and we end up in this situation. So the revelations last week, shocking as they are, should not come as a great surprise. This practice has been going on for well over a decade. One has only to look at the constant traipsing of people to these international gatherings to see who they are, what they actually seek to achieve, and the frequency with which they pop up again in search of the next research grant.

The point that needs to be considered by the State Services Commission, and by the Auditor-General if he is involved in a review, is not just the specific contract but the whole culture that gives rise to this sort of behaviour, because it is insidious, it is deep, and it is sinister. What it is doing is causing the sort of situation we are seeing promoted in this bill—a situation where nonsense rather than common sense becomes the norm.

Before the bell rings, I want to congratulate Mr Carter on his thoroughness in the amendments he has moved. I hope they are well considered by the Committee. Equally, Katherine Rich put herself on the line by going around every pub in Otago to gain first-hand experience in this matter. That shows the dedication of those members. More important, as this morning’s Dominion Post featured and as a TV3 programme a couple of weeks ago featured, the more one goes out there and talks to people who are affected, the more one gets two reactions: first: “This is nonsense. It will not work. It will be ignored.”, and, secondly: “We do not support what is going on.” Parliament’s choice this evening is either to stand with those people, or to stand with the people on the consultancy gravy train and simply rack up further dollars in their interests.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dail Jones.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to argue the issue, as I spoke before of your prowess in the Chair, but you will find that New Zealand First has had at least one call on this part so far, and, in the order of things, we would expect the call to return to the National Party so that we might rotate through the parties one more time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member and say that I have looked at the proportionality. The National Party has had four speeches and New Zealand First has had one.

Do not get carried away by the polls, Mr Chairman! The fact is the National Party is four times as big as that party. I am serious about this. We are not going to have presiding officers start to make rulings on the basis of polling information, because it is spurious. I am a senior member of the National Party—a front-bench member. I have a contribution to make, and I do expect to be recognised very soon.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

I am new to the way things are being done these days. Of course, when I was here in the old days, we would ask: “What’s a lobby group?” We had never heard of a lobby group in those days. We never had any money, and, as for giving money away to a lobby group, if a member had gone up to Sir Robert Muldoon and said that he or she wanted to give money to a lobby group to lobby for anything, well, that member would have been marched out of this place. The white coats would have come to take the member away. But now that I have come back here to Wellington, I find that the Government not only has set up lobby groups but has set up lobby groups so ex-Government officials can go out and lobby for Government policy. Is the Government not good enough to be able to do that for itself? It is not good enough to be able to do that itself so it has to try to get these lobby groups, by way of subterfuge, to try to fool members. I was probably fooled myself. I received a letter from the Quit Group. That is what the Government should do with this bill—quit it. I did not notice before, but I see from the letter now that the Quit Group is a charitable trust formed by the Cancer Society of New Zealand, the Health Sponsorship Council, and Te Hotu Manawa Māori.

R Doug Woolerton: Who are they?

I have no idea. “... Public money to reduce smoking in New Zealand.” In the letter the group told me I should support this bill. I asked what its authority was for me to do that. Its report, has a heading: “Socially Cued Smoking and Quitting. Preliminary Findings”—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Who wrote the report?

Well, I opened it up and read in the introduction: “Tobacco smoking is a leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. Ministry of Health, 2002. To counter this, an organised tobacco control programme has existed in New Zealand since the mid-1980s.” The report came out in 2002, but the programme started in the mid 1980s. It is a little out of kilter there. In brackets it states: “Laugesen and Swinburn, 2000”. I thought: “Ministry of Health, 2002; that has to be good.”, so I asked the library whether I could read that Ministry of Health report 2002, which surely must have volumes on the effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. The report has about 36 pages. I kept turning the pages—I will not do that now and take up time—and finally I got to page 25. This is supposed to be the definitive Ministry of Health report on the subject in terms of the report recommended to me. This is the authoritative document. This is what I am supposed to rely on as a result of this consultative group. It states: “Past exposure to second-hand smoke is estimated to be responsible for about 347 deaths per year in New Zealand. Second-hand smoke is therefore …”. We have an estimation, then we see “therefore …”. In a court of law people would be absolutely laughed out. I think in any sane place people would be laughed out. “Second-hand smoke is therefore the cause of death comparable to melanoma of the skin, about 200 deaths per year, and the number of people killed each year on the roads, 509 deaths in 1997.” Who is the authority? Woodward and Laugesen 2001. Here is another one: “Exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke increases the risk of heart disease and stroke; Benita at al 1999 Lung Cancer and Since.” They just quote other reports. That is the way this industry goes. One report just quotes another report. It just goes round in a circle. We never get any facts.

I went to the trouble of getting something written by Alistair Woodward and Murray Laugesen, How Many Deaths are Caused by Second-hand Smoke?. In the results section of the whole thing it states: “We do not know how total mortality varies with changing levels of exposure to SHS.” That does not stop them making a decision. They say that they do not know how total mortality varies, but that does not stop them making a decision. Again, in their methods they talk about: “Information on disease risks from SHS was sought by searching the scientific literature.” When people do a research they do it on actual cases. They do not go searching the literature, which other people have written, so that they can write about it. What a load of nonsense!

This is a disgraceful bill that has been totally discredited by the allegations of corruption that surround it.

💬 Dianne Yates: Rubbish!

We have just heard from the retiring member for Hamilton East—and we wish her well in her retirement. People in this country need to understand that this is a member’s bill. The Government, apparently, does not want anything to do with it. However, just like the prostitution legislation, the Government managed to go along to the people’s pot—the big pile of excess tax that it has taken out of the pockets of workers—and scrape up a big fist full of dollars, which it has thrown at Action on Smoking and Health and various other institutions that have gone around the countryside trying to lobby MPs into taking a particular position.

I say to any MPs in this Committee who have listened to that lobbying and now know that they were the victims of direct Government propaganda from the Minister of Health, and from this particular member, that they are participating in a very corrupt practice and should remove themselves from the voting register at the end of this bill. However, we know that they will not because underneath all of this is the big stick of Helen Clark saying to her caucus: “Do as I say or get out.” This bill is just not a reasonable bill. Now, I do not particularly like cigarette smoke. I do not choose to go into a smoky bar and stay there if I do not like it. I do not choose to walk around with a packet of cigarettes rolled up in the cuff my T-shirt, and do not particularly enjoy other people puffing their cigarette smoke into my face. But I do not need a bill like this that absolutely prevents people from participating in that activity in order to protect my best interests. I do not need that.

I want to talk about the purpose of the bill, which is relitigated under Part 2, “Amendments to Part II of the principal Act”. In new Part 1 we have this extraordinary statement: “The purposes of this part are—(a) to prevent the detrimental effect of other people’s smoking on the health of people in workplaces, or in certain public enclosed areas, who do not smoke or do not wish to smoke there;” Well, I will tell members something. When I arrive at Parliament on a Tuesday morning from Christchurch I do not want to get out of the cab and be assaulted by the cigarette smoke of all those who gather underneath the steps of Parliament outside the rubber door, smoke their cigarettes, blow their smoke all over me and everybody else, and throw their filthy butts on the ground. But that will be the effect of this bill in almost every workplace around this country. We will be in an extraordinarily grubby country as a result of this stupid legislation.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: It is only their cigarette butts.

Yes, it is only their cigarette butts that they are throwing around, so Mr Williamson should calm down and show no excitement. I read on: (c) to prevent the detrimental effect of other people’s smoking on the health of young people who are being taught or cared for in registered schools, or early childhood centres.” There is nothing with that. No one wants to see a teacher in a classroom puffing away on a cigarette. No one wants to see the childcare person at the day-care centre sucking on a cigarette with the baby bouncing on the knee. But what about when those people have their break? What about when they go out and they want to have a cigarette? We cannot, on the one hand, say that smoking is a terrible addiction but, on the other hand, ignore the effects of that addiction. I do not want my children in the day-care centre suffering because a teacher at the day-care centre is so strung out for want of a cigarette in the car park or outside somewhere during a break in his or her day. If this legislation is going to put those people into really stressful situations, how will that advance the welfare of the children in their care?

💬 Steve Chadwick: Ha, ha!

The member advancing this bill laughs. What fascinates me is that the member is actually laughing at the huge business community in New Zealand known as the hospitality industry.

I want to—

💬 Paul Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Has not New Zealand First already had two calls, before a return call to United Future?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am looking at the proportionality of those speaking. New Zealand First is roughly half the size of the National Party, therefore it is within its proportionality to get this call. I have noted that the member is seeking the call.

💬 Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You will notice when you look at proportionality that the Green Party has not spoken once in this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is absolutely right. I am sorry; I missed the member. But I will certainly make sure that that is rectified next time. I apologise.

First of all, I look over at the other side, and I want to thank my party and my leadership for being allowed to be in a party that can actually exercise its conscience. I am very glad and proud to be in a party in which I can exercise my conscience either way on an issue as important as this. Unlike some other parties and certain bills, such as the prostitution legislation the great abstainer Ashraf Choudhary—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Running commentaries are out of order. Members should look at Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3).

Unlike in other parties, where at the last minute members have pressure put on them on bills like the prostitution legislation, and where they are not actually allowed to express their freedom of vote, I am very proud to be in a party that allows us to do that. Earlier on I voted for all pieces of this legislation. However, as I thought about this bill—and this was a decision I came to by myself, with my own conscience—and as I thought about what it did—[Interruption] No, there was no leaning on me, and that is why, as I said, I am proud to be in a party that allows me to exercise my conscience. As I looked at this bill I realised how selfish I was, and I had to ask myself the question: who am I to impose my view?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is amazing—this is the first time in this Chamber that I have not been able to hear myself talk.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have called the members to order, and I ask them to desist. This debate appears to be rather raucous, and I have noted that—and I have noted the members who have made the most noise.

I notice that running commentaries, as you said earlier, were going on and on. You actually did not pull the members to order in what I believe was a reasonable amount of time. I ask you to be more decisive on that, if that is all right, just as a suggestion.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I take on board what the member said, and I am looking at someone very close to him.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is a very, very clear Standing Order in this Chamber that members cannot move from their seat in order to interject on a person speaking at a closer proximity. I would have thought there was a very immediate corollary to that, which says that a member cannot move from his seat so he can be closer to the people who are interjecting on him. This member has moved closer to the interjectors and is now complaining about them. I think that if you want to be fair you should make him go back to his seat and let him then resume his speech so that the members interjecting are not found to be closer to him.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his fine contribution. The member is entitled to sit in any seat that has been allocated to his party. He is entitled to do that. I have ruled on it and I am not taking any more points of order unless it is about something different.

I should not impose my will on other people, because I have never really been an avid smoker. I have smoked a cigarette here and there, and I probably have to admit that I have inhaled tobacco smoke.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Was it cannabis?

No, it was not cannabis. We have listened to different people speaking in this Chamber, especially the Green Party members. Sue Kedgley, who is sitting close to me, spoke about different smoking toys that she sees at $2 shops and places like that. As she was talking about that I thought: “OK, maybe you have a good point, people shouldn’t be selling those kinds of smoking toys in $2 shops and all that.” But then I thought back to the many articles that I have read about different MPs in the Green Party. One particular MP who has a half ownership in a shop does not mind selling organic P. One can buy organic P, bongs, or different things.

💬 Simon Power: What are bongs?

They are devices that people use to inhale certain kinds of drugs. I started to think of the word that we talk about outside the Chamber—inside the Chamber it is called the “h” word. The Chairperson knows about it; it is in the Standing Orders. I also started to look at the research on this whole issue, because research has been talked about a lot in this debate. It is very important that we listen to what the so-called experts—Action on Smoking and Health—are saying about second-hand smoke.

We have a lot of MPs in this Parliament who sound like King Canute trying to stem the turning tide. I might say that every effort is being made to filibuster and delay this bill. Every little trick in the book is being used. I want members to know that, as per usual, the parties that are trying to filibuster and delay this bill are completely out of touch with public opinion. The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders are counting the days until this bill is passed. Frankly, they are frustrated by the petty politicking that is taking place in this Chamber, and the efforts to delay and filibuster the passage of this bill.

We have heard a lot about Action on Smoking and Health and the horrors of that organisation and its lobbying. I want to talk about another form of lobbying, which I regard as equally horrifying, and that is the lobbying by the tobacco industry in New Zealand. We have this document that we actually know quite a lot about. George Thomson and Dr Nick Wilson analysed documents and produced a very, very exhaustive report, and I hope all members have read it—The Tobacco Industry in New Zealand: A Case Study of the Behaviour of Multinational Corporations. It reveals that the tobacco industry used every single trick in the book over the last number of decades to oppose every form of tobacco control, to try to influence the political process. It has tried to conceal evidence of the harm of cigarettes, even when it has had absolutely unequivocal knowledge of the harmful and addictive nature of cigarettes. It has tried to conceal the evidence of harm. It has objected to health warnings. It has misled the public about the very real issues involved in second-hand smoke, and so on and so forth.

Quite frankly I would like to see a State Services Commission report investigating this particular report. I would like to see the State Services Commission investigating the potential corruption of the tobacco industry in seeking to influence the political parties in this Parliament in seeking to undermine every effort to restrict the tobacco industry in New Zealand. Perhaps that is why we have a member of British American Tobacco here listening to the debate tonight, and a public relations representative from Philip Morris. No doubt they are absolutely enchanted by the arguments that some members of this Parliament are putting up tonight—the discredited arguments from the tobacco industry.

We do need to get a balance here. On the one hand we have a group that is lobbying to try to restrict the amount of tobacco that is sold in New Zealand, and on the other hand we have a whole industry that is trying to influence the decisions of members of this Parliament, and trying to sell as much as they possibly can of their product, which they know is addictive and harmful. If we had full disclosure of all political party contributions, then I think we could have a very, very interesting investigation of potential corruption in this regard. But unfortunately we do not have full disclosure so we will never know what—

R Doug Woolerton: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The last time I looked at Speakers’ rulings it was not the done thing to accuse anybody or any party in this Chamber of corruption.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is right. Members cannot accuse any party in the Chamber of corruption. There is a Speaker’s ruling on it.

I am very well aware of that. I was making a debating point about my concern. I did not accuse any individual party or MP in this Chamber.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is unacceptable to make a general statement and condemn everybody as guilty when she has no evidence whatsoever. We are sick of the Greens. When Nandor Tanczos first came to this House he said we were drunk under the influence, and he would not name anybody. That is an appalling tactic, and New Zealand First demands that she withdraws and apologises.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the honourable member concerned that under Speaker’s ruling 23/4 it is not proper to make veiled threats of corruption. It is out of order. The member will withdraw.

I will withdraw and apologise, but—

No—offence has been taken, and it can be ruled under Standing Order 117.

💬 SUE KEDGLEY: It can, but there are also issues of debating points. I have already withdrawn and apologised. I have already done so.

I require the member to withdraw.

💬 SUE KEDGLEY: But I have already withdrawn and apologised. I have done it twice now. Everyone is getting very sensitive on this issue. They are quite happy to call—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have just required the member to withdraw and apologise, which she has done.

I have not called the member yet. I am conscious that some members try to break up other members’ speeches. They are only 5-minute speeches, and I will not tolerate frivolous points of order. If it is genuine, I am more than happy. I call the honourable member Peter Dunne.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I have two points. Firstly, when hearing a point of order it is customary not to penalise the member who is speaking in terms of time, and I would assume that that would apply in this instance. Secondly, the point I was raising was that you had just required the member to withdraw and apologise for comments that she had made, and she did so. The convention is that the member then moves on. The member immediately proceeded to comment on the ruling that had just been given by saying that some people were pretty twitchy about that, and that was reopening the subject. She should be brought back to order and told that once she has withdrawn and apologised, that is the end of the matter, and she moves on to her next point.

Thank you. The member had withdrawn and apologised, and she was called. She may continue her speech. She has 30 seconds to go.

💬 SUE KEDGLEY: We do need to get this into perspective. We do need to realise that there is a deliberate effort to filibuster this bill, and that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders strongly support the bill. Frankly, they are appalled by the efforts to undermine a piece of public health legislation that many doctors have said will do more to improve the health of New Zealanders than any other single piece of legislation in this Parliament.

We were listening before to speakers telling us about the good old days.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I note your attempt at adherence to proportionality. However, I have been calling consistently. Since I have been here the National Party has had four calls. You have not called ACT once since I have been here.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

No, I do not need any help with this. I say to the member that the National Party has had six calls and ACT has had two. That is directly in line with proportionality.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not mean to interrupt the doctor’s speech, but she has already had one call on this part of the debate, and there are others who have not had any.

I can assure the member that the honourable member Dr Linda Scott has not had a call on this part, and under the suspension of Standing Order 178 she is entitled to have another call if the Chair so desires. I have made my ruling.

💬 Peter Brown: She has had more than the one call.

Not on this part. I am sorry. I stand corrected.

💬 Peter Brown: Am I right again?

The member is right, and I apologise.

💬 Dr LYNDA SCOTT: Dail Jones was talking before about the good old days. I have to say that recently I was on the Speaker’s tour to Japan and it really did take me back, because we were in a select committee room at the Diet and on the table were a whole lot of cigarettes.

💬 Simon Power: How were they?

💬 Dr LYNDA SCOTT: I did not bother to have one, but some of the members of Parliament did light up. That really did take me back to the days when even our workplaces were not smoke-free. I can remember those days and having to get in the car with my mum when she was smoking, and how dreadful that was. I think that New Zealand has come a very long way, because 70 percent of New Zealanders no longer smoke, and that is a very good thing.

I shall tell members a bit more about my mum. She suffered from every single complication from smoking that one could possibly imagine. First off, she had a heart attack, then clots from her heart attack went to her brain so that she had strokes. She tried her best to give up smoking, but she could not. It then got to the point where she had an aortic aneurysm—she was only in her sixties when all this was happening—and then they told us she would lose her legs if she did not stop smoking. But still she could not stop smoking. She died suddenly from another stroke before she could give up. [Interruption] It was not. It was the smoking. People have to understand that smoking is extremely bad for their health, and so is second-hand smoke. If we can stop any young person from smoking, that is a very good thing, and that will save this country millions of dollars in health dollars.

I am extremely disappointed about what we found out last week about the Ministry of Health contracts. Many anti-smoking groups and non-government organisations have had money for health promotion, and no one disagrees with that. No one disagrees with health dollars going to health promotion programmes. But they crossed the line. The State Services Commission has put out a lot of information stating that State sector employees cannot engage in political lobbying, especially political lobbying for Labour members’ bills, and certainly not the prostitution legislation or the smoke-free legislation. That is crossing a line, and the Ministry of Health contracts in 2000 and 2001 were changed to include that.

The Government used a whole lot of spin to try to pretend that the contracts from the 1990s were exactly the same, but they were not. Those clauses were added to lobby for the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. I am speaking for this bill, but the fact is that that line should not have been crossed. They should not have been lobbying for a specific bill. They should not have been seeing MPs, especially the Māori caucus. Where are they tonight? Are they over there standing up for what they believe? We know that people over on that side of the Chamber do not believe in this bill, but they are not standing up for it. I am standing up on this side of the House giving my views and standing up for what I believe in and for my principles. Where are those members today? They are not here. They do not have anything to say. They are probably out having a smoke, but they will not come in here to stand up for the people who put them into Parliament.

💬 Simon Power: Suppressed.

💬 Dr LYNDA SCOTT: They are totally suppressed and totally whipped into shape by this Government. They do not have the courage of their convictions. At least we can vote according to our conscience, but those MPs cannot. They are whipped into line and told what to do, how to think, and they have to toe the line. This is Helen Clark’s bill. She absolutely hates smoking, and that is why we are here.

💬 Simon Power: She’s not a happy person.

💬 Dr LYNDA SCOTT: No, she is not really a happy person. The specific line that was crossed by $2.1 million of scarce health money going to political lobbying should not have been crossed. I hope that the Government will have a real look at changing that type of action. It knows that the State sector cannot do it, so non-government organisations are paid to do its bidding for this member’s bill, and it is just not acceptable. I shall tell members a little bit about why second-hand smoke affects people when they go into a pub.

This bill is obnoxious. It is all about nanny State going too far. I am a non-smoker and I always have been a non-smoker. In fact, everyone in the ACT caucus is a non-smoker.

R Doug Woolerton: Fools!

However, we oppose this legislation. I know that Mr Woolerton is the heaviest smoker in the Parliament.

💬 Peter Brown: He’s given up.

I thought that he had put on weight recently. Be that as it may, this bill goes too far. The point has been made about the tobacco lobby. We know that internationally it has been a very heavy lobby. I put it to members that no one in this House has experienced that more first-hand than myself. I used to represent 100 percent of New Zealand tobacco growers, as the MP for Tasman when I first came into this Parliament in 1984. There were several hundred tobacco growers in the Motueka district, and it was a very thriving industry with two processing factories. One of the first functions I went to as a newly elected member was the Tobacco Growers Federation annual conference, sponsored by Philip Morris and Rothmans, and all the big international heavyweights were there.

I got up as an eager, young new member and gave a speech, and I made a prediction. I said that their industry was heading for the rocks for two reasons: the tariff protection would come off, and the health issue would be significant—though no one believed it in those days. I was literally invited to leave the meeting. I will never forget that experience.

But those two issues did come to pass, and we have come a long way since that time. I do believe that people should be educated against the health risks and problems, but that issue aside, this bill is no more than the nanny State going too far and seeking absolute control of people’s lives and intruding into their basic freedoms. Although I myself do not smoke, I would defend Mr Woolerton’s right to smoke. I would defend his right to smoke, even though he says he has given up. Has Mr Peters has given up also?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s my business.

Mr Peters has not given up, by the sound of it, but perhaps one day, he will give it up also. But he is quite right: it is his business, and I respect it as his business. Down in Courtenay Place there are many places where people can continue to smoke. I am told that people can go down to Courtenay Place in the wee small hours—when I am tucked up in bed—where they can smoke, drink their whisky, and have a good time. I defend their right to do that. So, we have established that; that is very good.

However, what does concern me is the taint and ooze of corruption emanating from this Government. It is nauseating. When I look at what my colleague Rodney Hide revealed in recent weeks, it is appalling.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Where is Rodney tonight? Is he back in Fiji?

Here is Mr Benson-Pope from Dunedin.

💬 Peter Brown: The fountain of all knowledge.

The fountain of all knowledge! He is the joke of the Parliament. He cannot help himself; he has to start interjecting. For Mr Benson-Pope’s benefit, this is appalling corruption of public officials. And for the Government of the day, it is occurring on its watch. It is not as if it is a sole incident. We saw with the Action on Smoking and Health contracts, some $2,114,500 of public moneys being given by the Government, through agencies of the Government, to lobby groups to lobby for a particular outcome on what is meant to be a member’s bill but is looking more and more like a Government bill with each day. That is appalling.

I say to the member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, who is the sponsor of this bill, that she should be ashamed of herself. However, I would remind the Committee of the shop trading hours legislation. The funniest speech I have ever heard in this Parliament came from Steve Chadwick on that bill. She spent the first half of her speech saying why Easter shopping was appalling and should not be permitted, but should be totally banned, and then she said that there should be an exemption for Rotorua.

I start off by acknowledging Craig McNair’s speech—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

Give us a break, Winston. This is my first speech in months, and I get 10 seconds.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know, and I am here to help. I seek leave for Mr Williamson, because he is not being given a fair go, to have a 30-minute speech if he so wishes.

Craig McNair said something interesting. He said he was grateful to be in a party that gave him the choice as to how he voted, and he also asked himself the question of how he would vote. I want to paraphrase that: I feel lucky that I have allowed myself to have a free choice on this issue tonight. I have asked myself the same question, and I have decided I will vote against this bill because I think it is a bloody stupid bill.

However, I also want to pick up on the comments made by Katherine Rich, who is a list MP, and who said she assiduously went through Otago doing a pub crawl, to find out what the views there were. I want to tell her that as a good constituent MP, I do not do that just as a one-off; I do that on a regular, regular basis. I crawl the pubs of my electorate at least once a week, making sure that I keep a finger on the pulse—I think I would call it that—of what my electorate wants. I want to bring up one example of what it wants. I have put in an amendment for this one example, so I hope Labour members listen to this carefully.

The Howick Returned Services Association came to me at my constituency office and said it desperately needed my help. The old diggers there are smokers. Lots and lots of them—

💬 Jill Pettis: Are dying.

I hear Jill Pettis. I thought Wednesday was her day for elocution lessons, so I do not know what she is still doing here. The old diggers in their 90s—she says they are dying; well, they got to that age—are smokers. What did the Howick Returned Services Association do to try to comply with all the lunatic laws that are coming around? It has spent a fortune on air conditioning systems that evacuate the air every so many seconds, and put purified air back down. It has a special end where no smoke goes, and the non-smokers can go down there. It has another end where, the moment that smoke comes out of your gob, it goes up into a machine and is gone. It has surveyed its members—let us remember this is not just a club where people can walk in off the street; this is a club for members or people who are signed in—and 96 percent said they wanted to keep the option of being able to smoke.

I have not done a formal survey of the club’s members, but I can tell the Committee, because of the reception I get there sometimes, that I would say that the vast bulk of them are Labour Party supporters. And are they dirty on the Labour Party members who are not going to let them have that choice any more! They are a closed group of club members only. They have spent a fortune on air purifiers. Many of them are addicted simply because they were forced into smoking when they were off fighting a war for our freedom—where is the irony in that? They went to war to fight for our freedom, and now we are telling them we are sorry, but we will take their freedom away. They are quite adamant that at the end of the lovely food hall where people can eat, there is a proper no-smoking area that is adhered to. People can go and have a meal without having smoke blown in their face. Another end of the bar is a non-smoking end, and the air there is as crisp and as clear as can be found anywhere. In fact, out on the Pakuranga highway there is more smoke from the fumes of cars than one would ever actually get from cigarettes. But what does this member, Steve Chadwick, and her Labour members say to those old diggers? They say: “We are sorry that you became addicted to something years ago. It is probably not even your own fault, because it was foisted on you when you were in the military. We are sorry that you happen to have lived to 97, because smoking kills—though it did not happen to get you. But now we will start to decide on your behalf what is right and wrong.”

I say that is a disgrace. The once-proud Labour Party should be ashamed tonight. I know there are members over on the Government side of the Chamber who openly say in the corridors of this Parliament that the Government is a disgraceful outfit, and that they are all being whipped into line. I think it is now time for them to front up. It is time for them to face up to this Committee and say they will not be forced into something.

I think it is fine to prohibit smoking when there are no other options. I think smoke-free aeroplanes are correct. I want to let members know I am not a smoker—never have been—and I do not like it. When people are in an environment where they do not have a choice, then I am happy for it to be smoke-free. The air on an aeroplane circulates around and around; the same air goes through the conditioning systems, and people end up smoking someone else’s smoke. But what if one wants to go out to a restaurant? I do not like smoke, so I particularly choose restaurants where there is either a non-smoking section or a light level of smoke in the air, and that is what the situation should be.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is the first time I have spoken on this bill.

💬 Simon Power: Is this the real Paul Adams?

This is Paul Adams of United Future. I am very proud to be in United Future, the common-sense party. That is the party I am speaking on behalf of now. I hope to bring some common sense to the debate on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. I commend Steve Chadwick for the work that she has done on this bill. I am also a non-smoker, and there will be a conscience vote in our party on this legislation. As the debate has gone on I have had to weigh it up, but in the end I have had to look at this issue with my commerce spokesperson’s hat on.

I see that 388 deaths are caused by exposure to second-hand smoke in New Zealand each year. That is a symptom of smoking. But I find that in a lot of legislation that goes through this House—which United Future, with its common-sense policy, will stand against—people look at symptoms, and refuse to look at the causes of problems. Let us take cancer, something that is often spoken about when dealing with this type of legislation. We can deal with the symptoms of cancer all we like, but until we remove the cause of the cancer we have not removed the problem.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which is?

Smoking can be a cause of cancer, but my father has smoked cigarettes all his life and is now well into his 80s. He had a chest X-ray not so long ago, and there were no signs of any effects of his smoking over all those years. So I have had to look at smoking from a common-sense perspective.

If we are concerned with deaths in this nation, we should look at the problem from another angle. My dad drove all his life and, unlike his son, was a very careful and sensible driver, often driving 1½ to 2 hours only. He would pull off the side of the road to do what was correct in his time: take a refreshment. He would often go inside a building and, being a smoker, he would light up. Now, if this legislation goes through, he would go in and, instead of having a smoke, he would have a beer. He could have as high a blood-alcohol level as he is allowed, and—whoop-de-do—he would have saved people’s lives because he had not lit up a cigarette in the bar of the establishment, but had taken the time to have a few pints. He could then gleefully go back out on to the road, knowing that he had saved lives because he had refused to smoke. [Interruption] Members need to have a few good preachers in this place to stir them up a bit, and to get some common sense back into the place. That is what preaching is; it is common-sense. That is why people respond to it. So my old dad could go back on to the road with a system full of alcohol. [Interruption] I say to members of the Opposition that that really gets us going. They should keep it up. My old dad could go back on the road with alcohol in his system. Where is the common sense in that?

If we are really enacting legislation because we are concerned with the lives of New Zealanders, members should ask themselves whether it is common-sense that people who fought for the nation and who have laid down their lives for it cannot, in their latter years, go to their clubs and have a smoke. I will vote against this legislation, not because I am a smoker but because I believe it takes away the right of choice from people and is anti-business. Why should a business that has built itself up as a smokers’ bar—a cigar bar that people can choose to go into—have legislation come through that stands against it?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Hallelujah!

Did the member like that one?

💬 Hon Members: Mr Chair!

I have not finished yet. Many things are detrimental to our health, such as being abused in the House, as many members do to each other. If members did that in the workplace, they would not be able to get away with it. But we somehow chose to come to this wonderful establishment and stand here getting verbally abused by those who stand against us, and we respond to it. But we have chosen to come here.

That was extraordinary. I do not know whether I feel saved or whether I need a shower. The issues in this bill are serious enough for me to have raised them in my electorate of Rangitikei. This is the first time I have taken a call on this bill at all, in the entire time it has been before Parliament. I have been away from Parliament, but I have tabled an amendment today to exclude the Cheltenham tavern from the provisions of this bill. That is important for two reasons. I address these comments primarily to the member in the chair, because they are important points to make.

The Cheltenham tavern, also known locally as the “Chelty”, stands on the route between Feilding and Taupo, at the bottom of Vinegar Hill. The “Chelty” is a pub where local farmers and workers gather on a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night to talk about the events of the district and what is happening in Government, and to reflect on the day’s work.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: And three out of four of them smoke.

Four out of four of them smoke, I say to Mr Williamson. I say to the member in the chair that I called at that tavern—not unlike my colleague Maurice Williamson, who does a thorough job of canvassing the taverns in his electorate—not 2 weeks ago, to find that on the wall of the tavern was an article about the legislation that is being put forward by that particular member, and that the people in the tavern were furious about the legislation. They were absolutely livid. They had a very simple view, which was—if I may paraphrase it and speak in the first person—“I work 60 to 70 hours a week on farms as a labourer, a shearer, a docker, a manager, etc. When I have finished my work at the day’s end and I want to go and have a beer and a cigarette at the ‘Chelty’, no politically correct member of Parliament from Rotorua is going to tell me whether or not I can stand in my local tavern and have a cigarette, after a long week’s work.”

The members on the Government side of the Chamber—in particular, Damien O’Connor as Associate Minister of Agriculture—should listen very carefully to what those members of our community are saying. He knows that people on the West Coast think this legislation is just absolute rubbish. It is not that those people believe that smoking is not bad for them, but that they believe they have a fundamental right to make the choice about whether to have a smoke with their beer at the end of the day. They do not need politicians from the Government side of the House to tell them whether they have earned the right to have a cigarette with their beer.

As the local member of Parliament for those people, I propose an amendment—which I urge common-sense members on the Government side of the Chamber to vote for—that will allow the people at the “Chelty” to have a cigarette when they have their jug, after they have done the work that provides those members with the surpluses they need for their spending on ridiculous social programmes all around New Zealand that benefit nobody, other than the union people who put them here in the first place. Those members should remember the people in communities like that, who provide Government members with the surpluses they need to do their jobs. They have a right to have a cigarette with a beer at the end of a hard day’s work if they wish, and Government members should think long and hard about imposing on the backbone of this country the goody two-shoes, politically correct, flim-flam nonsense that we see in legislation like this.

I say to Steve Chadwick that those people know how to run their lives better than she does, and she should let them get on with learning how to run their lives in a way that makes them happy. She should not burden them with ridiculous legislation that is paid for by those people, who only want to enjoy themselves at the end of a hard week’s work. I say to Government members that this bill is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace, and Government members who favour this legislation will, for the reasons that I have outlined, be facing down communities like Cheltenham at the next election. I will be the first on the platform to remind the hard-working farmers and rural people of New Zealand what those Government members did to their pint of beer, at the end of a hard week’s work.

I move, That the question be now put.

We have heard at least twice in this debate that the vast majority of the public will support this legislation. So why did the people who support it turn down the opportunity to give the public a referendum, as we proposed? If there is confidence that the public will support the bill, let us give them the chance to support it.

I listened to Dr Scott in her two contributions. She is way out of line, and clearly does not understand what this bill is all about. But at least she had the gumption to defend the bill. I do not hear anybody from the Government defending it. It was a very pathetic speech from the member in the chair, and she failed to address—

💬 Hon David Carter: Inaccurate, too.

It was inaccurate, and she failed to address the questions that have been raised in this Chamber. I will put them to her right now, so that she clearly understands them. I will speak slowly, so that Steve Chadwick understands them clearly. My first question is this: did the member know that public money was funding the lobby groups that are lobbying MPs to support this bill? This Committee deserves to be given an answer to that question. If she knew that, why did she not disclose it when she was asked? If she did not—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: The whip is telling her what to say.

Well, if she takes notice of the whip telling her what to say, she is less of a person than I give her credit for. If she did not know about the use of that public money, why did she not support the bill going back to the Health Committee, as proposed by Peter Dunne, in order that the lobby groups could front up to the committee? Those are three questions, and I ask her to take a call and address each one of them.

This bill is a disgrace to Parliament, and it is a disgrace to Government members. I wonder why Damien O’Connor sits there and supports such garbage.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He won’t support it.

Will he not? I would like to think that he will not, but he will sit over there on the Government benches and undermine the working people in this country—and he is a working man. This Government, right now—

💬 Shane Ardern: A long time ago, Peter.

A long time ago? This Government is funding lobby groups to advocate that we stop smoking. I think that everybody in this Parliament would discourage people from smoking—even the people who smoke. We would not encourage people to smoke, but we do not believe in imposing our will on everybody. The Government pays money to the lobby groups; it pays the Prostitutes Collective between $50,000 and $60,000 a month to encourage prostitution. That is where this country is going—where this Labour Government is taking us. This legislation is an imposition on law-abiding citizens—the people who fought for this country in the war.

I ask members this: who will police this legislation? Will Government members go along to gang headquarters when people are having a cigarette there, and say to gang members that they will be taken to court and fined for smoking? But they will go next door to the Returned Services Association—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Read the bill.

Will Damien O’Connor go to the Returned Services Association? Will he walk in and tell people to put their fags out, or otherwise he will take the manager to court? Will he do that, or will he rely on someone else having the gumption to do so? Will Damien O’Connor walk into Returned Services Association premises where one or two people are smoking, and put the manager on the skids?

R Doug Woolerton: No, he won’t.

No, he will not. He will depend on someone else to put the pot on. Does the Government really believe that this legislation will be policed effectively in the little country areas and the little country pubs?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It will be ignored.

It will be ignored. It is absolutely stupid to bring in something like this. It is absolutely stupid. Legitimate smokers, who have been law-abiding all their lives, will feel guilty—

R Doug Woolerton: And still are law-abiding.

And still are law-abiding—and have to go outside. But the gangs will not do that. They will show the fingers to this Government, and to anybody who wants to stop them smoking wherever and whenever they want to smoke. The only place where people can smoke in this country will be in the prisons. So law-abiding people, if they want to have a smoke indoors in some sort of comfort, will have to commit a crime and go to prison.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Or they can go to hospital.

Or they can go to hospital. Does that actually make sense to any member sitting over there on the Government benches? Those members should take a call, instead of just sitting there and making inane comments. They should take a call and explain that. Is it reasonable that a guy cannot have a cigarette in Returned Services Association premises, but that if he commits a crime and is put in prison, he can?

I move, That the question be now put.

Who would have thought that we would stand here in the Chamber of this Parliament with a Labour Government that is going to abolish smoko? This trade union - funded Government is going to abolish smoko. Who would ever have thought that? How could one ever have considered that that would happen? Labour members should just think about what the descendants their forebears down on the West Coast of the South Island, where the Labour Party was born, are saying in the Hokitika pub tonight. This Labour Government is to abolish smoko.

To find out what the publicans and the real people of New Zealand think of this legislation, I went out to the Whangamomona pub. I know that the Prime Minister will know where that is—the first republic in New Zealand, the republic of Whangamomona. I asked the publican what he thought, and he said that the legislation was stupid and he would not prohibit smoking. Then I asked the patrons in the bar what they thought, and they said it was absolutely stupid and they would not stop smoking. They said they would ignore the legislation. I asked the horse in the bar what he thought—and he did not answer. So I asked the “republican” what the horse was doing in the bar, and he said that they could not tie him up out on the road because he runs away home, and then the patron has to stay all night because he has no way of getting home. So the horse is brought into the bar, but he had no view on this bill. He was the only one in that pub who did not have a view on this bill. All the rest were opposed to it. I thought that I needed to consult more widely, so I went to the Awakino Hotel and asked its proprietors. The Awakino Hotel was where the 1996 election campaign was run. Its proprietors said that this legislation would close them down; they would not be able to afford to comply with this legislation.

So then I thought that I had better come back into the metropolis of Stratford and ask members of the Returned Services Association what they thought of it. They said they had gone overseas—and my father’s name is registered there; he went with them—and when they were over there, the Parliament of New Zealand issued them with cigarettes to ease the stress. That is what happened to them, and most of them are now addicted. Some of them did not smoke before they went overseas, but the Parliament of New Zealand used to issue them with army cigarettes to ease the stress, and they all came back from the war as smokers—every single one of them. And they said that now the people they fought to defend are telling them that they cannot come into their Returned Services Association premises and enjoy a fag. Here they are in the Returned Services Association premises in Stratford, enjoying themselves and not causing any problems for anybody—not out on the streets causing mayhem like the group that the politically correct group in the Government supports. None of that! They are certainly not protesting naked in front of the Parliament, or doing any of that sort of stuff. They are there in the Returned Services Association premises looking after themselves and minding their own business, and the PC group in the Government is telling them that they cannot have a fag there. They said they have news for the Government: they may be old and small in numbers, but they can still vote that lot out. And if the Government goes ahead with this stupid piece of politically correct legislation, they said that is what they will do. They said the Government only needs to look at that to see where it will be going.

One of the comments earlier on was interesting, when one of my colleagues talked about the camaraderie of returned service people. The senior Government whip asked what the member meant. I know that if one is in the Labour Party one would certainly not know anything about camaraderie—that is for sure. But I also know that Labour members know about comrades. They have learned a lot about comrades over the years—not about camaraderie—and that is what this bill is about. It is about the comrades and the “sisterhood” uniting—for the first time ever, since they have been together—and they are coming up with this legislation to stop the old diggers in the Stratford Returned Services Association from going down there and enjoying a pint and a fag in the last few days that they will have.

My old father went away to the war in 1940 and came back in 1945. He was totally addicted to cigarettes. The monsoon visor in the old Vauxhall was so black that the tar used to drip on top of one. If I ever pulled it down and had a look underneath, then I could not hold my tea down. My father smoked pipes and cigarettes the whole time that I knew him, and I hated it. I absolutely hated that. As a kid growing up—sitting in the back of the old Vauxhall, waiting outside the Returned Services Association, with all the cigarette smoke in there—I hated that. Like most young people I flirted with a bit of cigarette smoking as a young person but did not keep it up for long, as I absolutely hated it. But I can see absolutely no reason for this stupid piece of legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

In the old days when Labour was in Opposition, I was used to hearing its constant refrain on every Budget night that the Government was taxing the working man’s pleasures. Labour members would get up and talk about the needs of the hard-working people of this country, and of the right of men and women to have a drink and a cigarette on a Friday night to ease their labours and their toils. Back then, Labour Party members understood working men and women—not like this bunch now, with their pristine hands and their prissy attitudes. Back then, Labour was a party that understood working men and women and their plight, but not this bunch now. They are arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, prying, snooping, attitude cops. That is what they are.

This bill is based on a lie. The member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, knows full well that air extractors would clean the air better than if we had an environment of no smoking at all. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research said that, and it is qualified to say it. It is true, but Labour has never been interested in the facts. How come Labour cannot put one statistic behind its argument?

💬 Dianne Yates: We have your health at heart, Winston. We want to save your life.

Now that member looks like a serious cigarette smoker, does she not? But she is not, which proves my point.

My point is that if Labour cares about people, why does it not deal with obesity? In 1997, 11,000 people died from obesity-related diseases—about 20 times more than the spurious number that the member keeps putting up. What is Labour doing about diet and obesity? Nothing. We can pig out and eat all we like, but because Labour does not like smoking, it will stop people from doing what will be—in the environment about which we speak—a safe activity for all those who are associated with it.

This bill is based on a lie. The member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, knows full well that it is based on a lie, and that with regard to hotels and restaurants, there is no need for it if the appropriate air extractors are fitted. The member shakes her head. Is she a scientist?

R Doug Woolerton: No.

No. Is she an expert?

R Doug Woolerton: No.

No. What are her qualifications? What does she do? What makes her an expert? She shakes her head. I hope all the working people in Rotorua come out and punish her at the next election and send her on her way. People who think they can deal with working people that way, without regard for their needs, have, in my view, ideas way above their station. Why is it right that Returned Services Association members, who have put their lives on the line, will not be able to smoke—even though they might be almost unanimous in agreeing that they should be allowed to smoke—yet prisoners can? Is that not a perverted sense of priority? Prisoners can smoke, but war heroes cannot.

💬 Brent Catchpole: They have freedom of choice, obviously.

Yes, they have freedom of choice, because this Government is soft on criminals and tough on hard-working, decent, taxpaying New Zealanders. Prisoners may smoke; war heroes may not.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: This was your bill.

Here is the next lie. The member said this was New Zealand First’s bill. He knows full well that when Tukoroirangi Morgan introduced the bill, he had left New Zealand First and was supporting the National Party. The member knows that, so why tell a lie? Why not tell the truth? True or false: was Tukoroirangi Morgan in New Zealand First when he introduced the bill? Yes or no?

Under my leadership, he would have never even have had the bill drafted, because we believe in freedom of choice for all New Zealanders. We believe in the right of people, after a hard working week, to have a few of the working man’s pleasures. But, then again, those prissy people over there know nothing about workers. Most of them think that “manual labour” is the Prime Minister of Mexico. They have never done a decent day’s work in their lives, and it shows.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I call Heather Roy.

💬 Dianne Yates: She has already spoken, hasn’t she?

I am lucky, I get to speak twice. There is one thing that has not been pointed out in Part 2—

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the good member’s speech, but will you confirm that Heather Roy has had two calls, and that as we are all seeking more, the precedent will be allowed to all of us?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is true, it is a second call.

💬 Rod Donald: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I do not need any assistance on this matter. Heather Roy sought the call. It is her second call, and I have given it to her.

I hope everybody else gets the opportunity to speak twice, too. Part 2, clause 7, refers to new section 17(A), “Penalties”. No one has mentioned these, but I think they are very significant. There was a lot of discussion at the select committee about whether there should be penalties, and the Labour Government did not want any penalties. It wanted law, but that there be no retribution as a result of it. United Future members said they would not support the bill unless there were penalties. The Labour Government must be feeling a little disgruntled about this, I would have thought, because there has been a bit of a U-turn. Here we have a $4,000 fine for establishments that allow smoking within their premises. Originally, we were supposed to have a fine not exceeding $400 for any person not a body-corporate who lit up in any given establishment. An amendment was put forward—by the Green Party, I think—which does not want any individual to be punished for smoking in an establishment.

The Hospitality Association came out—yesterday, I think it was—stating that it was very angry, firstly, about the contracts with Action on Smoking and Health, Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore, and the Smokefree Coalition. The Hospitality Association pays taxes and it has been lobbied against, so the bill will punish it. It will be the body-corporates, establishments, or premises, that will be fined when somebody smokes, but no individual will be responsible. That sends a very strong message to the country, does it not? People are not responsible for their own behaviour in New Zealand any longer.

R Doug Woolerton: It’s socialism.

That is right—we are moving towards “the socialist republic of Aotearoa”, as Richard Prebble is so fond of saying. That is my first point. The other people who are very upset are members of Clubs New Zealand. There are 240,000 members of that association. It sent a letter, and I received mine yesterday—I do not know who else got one. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am finding it very difficult to hear what I am saying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Manners please!

Yes, manners would be good. The first thing that Clubs New Zealand asked was why does the Government accept the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report on vehicle exhaust emissions, but not its report on the air quality trials at the Bream Bay Club?

💬 Peter Brown: That’s a good question.

I thought it was an extremely good question.

R Doug Woolerton: Because it is selective.

That is exactly right, I thank the member. Gavin Fischer is the leading scientist at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, and chairman of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, so why is his methodology for the exhaust emissions report acceptable, but his methodology for the report on the Bream Bay Club not acceptable? What is the answer to that question?

💬 Brent Catchpole: Another good question. Do they have the answer to that?

No—well, I am coming to that. The third question is where is the Ministry of Health report that questions his methodology?

R Doug Woolerton: Tell us!

It is non-existent. Roger Parton, the chief executive of Clubs New Zealand, said in a letter to me: “Is any member of Parliament prepared to give a public response to these questions?” Well, we have demonstrated tonight who is prepared to stand up here and give answers to those questions. This side of the House does—that side of the House remains remarkably silent.

Clubs New Zealand had one more question too, and a very important one: what part did anti-smoking campaigners have in the production of the ministry’s report, and if they had a part, how were they funded? They were funded by the taxpayer! The contracts with Action on Smoking and Health, the Smokefree Coalition, Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore, and goodness only knows who else—which might amount to the best part of $13.7 million—have been paid for by you and me. The workers of this country have paid for them to lobby MPs and different people, and the clean-air standards people have been ignored.

Mr Dunne has put forward amendments that would give us a minimum air quality standard, which would have been a very sensible compromise. Everybody on this side of the House acknowledges that, but most of the select committee were adamant that it was not necessary. They took it as read that ventilation systems were not acceptable, but the compromise would have been to have a minimum air quality standard. If that is able to be met, then the ventilation system is obviously adequate, and that should have been perfectly allowable.

I move, That the question be now put.

When people look back on this bill, it’s passage will be characterised by misinformation, by tactics of deception, by tactics of deceit, by practices that the public are saying are corrupt, by bully-boy tactics, by intolerance—that wonderful word the Prime Minister uses so often; she often says how tolerant she is—by hypocrisy, and by stupidity and misguided priorities. Let us deal with the last one—misguided priorities. I would say to the member who has brought this bill to the House that if she is seriously concerned about saving lives—and she likes to tell me how concerned she is about my people—why does she not focus on the two issues that are affecting Māori, diabetes and obesity? More New Zealanders will be killed by those two conditions than by smoking, in spite of the concocted figures she likes to purport are figures that represent deaths caused by smoking.

Then there is intolerance. I am a non-smoker. I dabbled a little bit with smoking when I was at school, but quickly gave it up because I did not like it. Throughout my entire life I have not smoked. However, I live with, associate with, and socialise with good friends, people I know, people I have a lot of time for, who smoke. On the occasions I do not like their smoking, I simply ask them whether they would mind not smoking, and nine times out of 10 they are only too happy to stub out their cigarettes. Tolerance is a factor. I like going to places where people socialise, and if I go into a bar that is smoke-filled, then it is my choice whether I stay. The market on those occasions does dictate. These sorts of tactics are absolutely intolerable. It is intolerable to have a bunch of nannies and others—some of whom will never be nannies as long as their backsides point to the ground—ramming down the throats of people what they should and should not do.

Another factor is deception and deceit. One of the things I cannot stand is listening to Labour Party people who purport to represent working-class people. The facts are now—and everybody is talking about it out there—that this Chardonnay sipping, spa-bath collection of socialists have no more in common with working-class people than the Tories they criticise. Let us see why. In the old days there was a time when labourers, workers, would proudly stop for smoko. “Smoko” now is a banned word. Now those people have to stop for a cup of tea, or maybe to sip some Chardonnay. There used to be a time when shearers would knock off and go outside and have a fag. But, of course, that is different nowadays, because the fags Labour is interested in are totally different things altogether—and that is acceptable, but having a cigarette is not. That just goes to show, and it has been talked about, and I have heard the accounts here of what people have walked into in bars—[Interruption] I say: “Good on you, Chris.”

I went into the Abrahams bar in Lincoln Road—and Mr Robson should listen up, because it is on his illustrious leader’s back door—and there I met a man who is a jockey. [Interruption] I am talking fags and back doors; the member is getting confused. But it is in his own electorate, right? The young man, a jockey, said exactly the same thing that has been recounted by Mr Shane Ardern. He looked at me—he had a cigarette—and said: “Are you going to vote for this stupid smoking law or not?” I replied that I was voting against it. He said: “Good on you, mate.” I then told him: “Your local man here will be voting for it.”, and he said: “Well, yeah, but he’s probably never done a hard day’s work in his life, and he wouldn’t know what it’s like to get up at 4 o’clock in the morning, go and exercise and train horses, work a full day, then go down to the pub and have a beer and a cigarette with his mates.” But, of course, he will not be able to do that any more because these Chardonnay sipping, spa-bath socialists, who no longer go to smoko—they go to morning tea—do not understand that any more.

Those members have done more to attack working-class people through their taxes and levies—which they promised they would never do when they came to power—than any other Government in the past 9 years that they like to ridicule, and that is a fact. I say to those people that they should vote for this legislation, fill their boots, and have their day, because come the next election, I say to Steve Chadwick, when they have finally thrown the white towel we will have our day. All those blue-collar labourers out there, the working-class people, do not like what the Government is doing. They do not like being told how to live their lives, and they do not like the hypocrisy, the stupidity, or the deceit that is wrapped up in this.

I am pleased to take a second call in this debate, and to make the point that elephants never forget—and neither will New Zealanders when this bill goes through. I think it is high time that some members across the way went to visit a public bar and actually talked to people about this bill, and about its impact on their communities.

I have actually been doing a bit of a pub crawl around the Dunedin pubs, and the very interesting thing is to see posters of Mr David Benson-Pope and Mr Pete Hodgson on the walls, with bright lettering saying: “Give us our rights back.” It is interesting to talk to people this bill will have an impact on. A number of them said: “I have voted Labour all my life, but next election I will not forget this, and I am going to change my vote. I don’t like someone interfering with my life and my ability to choose. I work long and hard.” It is interesting to see how out of touch those members are with some of the workers they purport to represent. I say they should get off their butts, step inside a public bar, and have a drink. I doubt that they have even been to a pub in the last few weeks, because if they had they certainly would not be voting for this bill.

It is interesting that this change is being made in the name of safety—the safety of staff. A fascinating thing is that a number of pubs I visited do not have any staff. The people in those pubs say: “This is my home. Why should anybody tell me that I’m not allowed to do what I want to do in my own home?”. I tell members that when I visited the Greater Green Island Town and Country Club, the people there could not understand why this bill allows people to smoke in prisons, in hospitals, and on marae, but not in their community’s equivalent of a marae—their meeting-place for their community. They are not allowed to smoke in the Greater Green Island Town and Country Club. They will not forget this.

Let us look at some Otago pubs. They are focal points for the community—Foxy’s Lauder Tavern in Lauder. There is not much else there, but it is a place where people meet to talk with one another and catch up on things that are going on. In those communities there are no other places for people to meet and participate. Some of those people are going to stay at home now, rather than go out to their local community. What worries me is that, although we are talking about licensed premises and pubs, it is actually about businesses. Some of these businesses have told me they will shut their doors. Most of those that I visited said that between 60 and 90 percent of their patrons smoke. They choose to smoke. They go to these places to enjoy a bit of company and to talk with one another. It was very interesting to hear some of the comments made by some of the non-smokers in these places. They said that although they did not smoke and did not like smoke, with the ventilation system they barely noticed it, and they would defend the right of their friends to come in after a hard day’s work, to enjoy a drink, and to have a cigarette.

How did the Government ever decide that it had the right to get in and meddle with people’s lives, like it is doing today? What next! Is it going to prescribe what people eat for breakfast? Is it going to tell us we will have to wear matching tracksuits and all go for a walk around the block? This Government is meddling in the day-to-day decisions that most people feel they are able to make for themselves. Sure, Governments get in and look at regulations that determine how people live their lives, but Governments do not get into the trivialities of what people do. What will be next? Maybe there will be alcohol-free pubs.

The arguments that are now being used to ban smoking in pubs could equally be used to ban alcohol in pubs. One may laugh at that suggestion, but 20 years ago people laughed at the suggestion that smoking might be banned. It comes back to some of the old guys I have spoken to, who went to war. They say: “I fought for my country. I fought to have freedom in this country, and now they’re telling me I can’t have a cigarette. What next!”. A lot of these people are Labour voters, and I tell members opposite that some of those people are really het up about this. They are not going to forget. Jill Pettis says that some of those guys at the Returned Services Association clubs are just going to die, but most of them say they will be around for a couple of elections yet. They are determined to live long enough to change their vote, and for some that will be the first time in their life. They certainly will not forget this. We are defending those small pubs here today.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw to your attention that four people have spoken twice in this debate—Lynda Scott, Peter Dunne, Heather Roy, and Katherine Rich—and there are a number of areas in Part 2 that have not yet been covered. The look on your face indicates that you are wavering on whether we should stop. Many people want a second call, and some of them have not even had a first call, including my colleague.

I reinforce the point that Mr Brown has made, and I think you have been attempting to allocate the call on a proportionate basis throughout the evening and that is generally appreciated. I just note that for the two parties of roughly similar size—given a defection—the ACT party and United Future, Heather Roy has had two calls, Mr Prebble has had one, Mr Shirley has had one, making a total of four. For our side, I have had two calls, Mr Adams has had one, making it three calls. Mr Alexander has been seeking a call all evening. I think before you consider a closure, and I do not think you are on the point of doing so right now, you should bear in mind that partial inequality and seek to resolve that, as well, before you finally decide to curtail the debate on this matter.

As senior colleagues in this House ought to know, particularly Mr Brown who is on the Business Committee, the Business Committee has suspended Standing Order 178, and that was endorsed by the Parliament. That means that you have the discretion—in fact, the obligation—to ensure that calls for parties are allocated in proportion to their size, and to enable senior and in fact lead speakers for each party to have more than one call, without there being any obligation on your part to award a first, let alone a second, call to any other member from that party. I just remind you to apply that decision of the Business Committee, and I draw it to the attention of other members of the Parliament.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Just briefly in reply, I have a discretion and I have guidelines, but I certainly have no obligation. These matters rest with the Chair.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Further to the original point of order—firstly, I was about to raise the point that Mr Donald well raised, but, secondly, there have been 33 calls, by my count, on this part. That is, by any measure, a very significant debate around this issue. I have been listening for some time in my room, and for some time in the Chamber. There has been considerable repetition in recent speeches. I think the closure motion is reasonably well put.

I raise another point of order, Mr Chairperson, for your consideration and it is not to do with the proportionality of calls. I have done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation and I tabled 97 amendments before the debate started. I was concerned that the Government would take the opportunity to truncate the debate, and I therefore raised this issue with the Speaker of the House before we went into the Committee stage. He made the point that it would be unlikely that I could expect 100 calls but he certainly suggested that the Chairperson at the time would take note of the considerable number of amendments I have put forward. Despite my calling constantly for the last hour, I have still had only two calls on this part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Does the member have something new to add?

I want to bring it to your attention that my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has been seeking a call. She did defer earlier on to our senior colleague the Hon David Carter. The Hon Georgina te Heuheu has some new material. She has supported this bill, and it would be very interesting to hear her perspective. She has a contribution to make and I ask that you give her that consideration.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you very much. It is important that members have their say. I do not need any help on that point of order, and there is no requirement for a ruling. I hear what you say.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to raise with you the ruling given by Mr Speaker on 17 September 2003, which was: “There must be a very full and wide-ranging debate.” That was the Speaker’s ruling. Before the House went into Committee this afternoon, I raised a point of order with the Speaker to seek his reinforcement that that view still pertained to this debate. He gave the House an assurance that it did. When the House went into Committee and your deputy, Ann Hartley, took the Chair, I raised with her the same point of order, seeking her assurance that there would be a wide-ranging debate. She gave that assurance. I say in response to the point made by Mr Burton that the fact that 33 calls have been taken on this part, firstly, is not unusual for a significant piece of legislation, and, secondly, given the assurances given by the Speaker on two occasions and by the Deputy Speaker in her capacity as Chair of the Committee today, I submit to you that it would be entirely inappropriate to accept a closure motion at this stage. It would be an affront to the rulings that have been given on those previous occasions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member again for refreshing my understanding of comments and rulings that have been made. We will not close the debate yet. We have had 33 speakers, seven of whom have been those putting the question. That means we are really only at the 26-point mark, and 26 speakers is not wide ranging on a significant piece of legislation.

I have spotted up in the gallery behind me one of the Māori leaders in the anti-smoking lobby, and because he is there I have been motivated to stand and speak in this debate. As my colleague Lindsay Tisch indicated, I have been a supporter of this bill up until now. That, possibly, will come as no surprise to colleagues, because, as we know, smoking is a huge issue among Māori communities. It is a huge issue for Māori women, and, more worryingly, it is a huge issue for young Māori women and girls. At the 13, 14, and 15 year age group, smoking is increasingly becoming an issue of major proportions. Nobody would be surprised to learn that when this bill was resuscitated, I as a Māori woman MP was targeted, yet again, by probably all the lobby groups.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Were you on the list?

I am advised that I was on the list, absolutely. I certainly expected I would be lobbied heavily. In fact, for the last few years I have been a supporter of the Māori lobby against smoking. I thought it was worthwhile to be supportive of the activities it has developed and run to discourage Māori from smoking. As a person in this Parliament I have always seen it as important to lend my support to those activities.

Earlier, when it was revealed that the Ministry of Health had made a huge payment to the smoke-free lobby groups, I was hugely disappointed. It is absolutely obscene that that has happened. To be honest, I feel absolutely had. I opened my doors to the anti-smoking groups, particularly those working in the Māori area. I was happy to give them time—probably more time than I have given other lobby groups on other issues—but I feel a bit betrayed. I want the person who is sitting up there at the back, in the gallery behind me, to know that I feel betrayed. It is likely that when those groups came into my office and lobbied hard for something on which there should be a strong lobby, they were in fact taking taxpayers’ money from the Ministry of Health—money that was being pushed their way by the Government and by the member in the chair, Steve Chadwick.

I would like Steve Chadwick to take a call to answer the allegations that have been put in this Chamber, because the matter does amount to corruption. I feel had, that as a Māori MP I willingly opened my door to the lobby groups, listened to them, and gave them good time. I have supported their activities. I went to Christchurch earlier in the year—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: You did their contracts.

Were we the ones who asked those groups to go and specifically lobby MPs? No! Were we the ones who told them to go and lobby Māori MPs? Not at all! That member should hang his head in shame, as should those members opposite and the member in the chair. The member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, should let the taxpayers in Rotorua know she is part of a Government that willingly allows their hard-earned money to be used for lobby groups that push her cause. This is a member’s bill. She could not even get her Government to do it, yet it may as well be a Government bill because the hard-earned money of taxpayers has been used to lobby MPs.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Under the member’s contracts.

That Minister should take a call.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I made a mistake a little earlier when I took an earlier point of order. I listed four people who I believed had taken second calls. I was in error, and I have been told that I should correct that at the earliest possible opportunity. I said Lynda Scott, Peter Dunne, Heather Roy, Katherine Rich, but there was one other, and I think it was David Carter.

I move, That the question be now put.

The first thing I want to say to the Committee is that the privilege of being able to introduce a member’s bill is a very important one, and we now have a member who is in charge of this bill who is treating the Committee with contempt. Questions have been asked, and she has refused to answer them. She took one call and tried to brush off the fact that lobby groups have been paid $2.1 million dollars—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How much?

An amount of $2.1 million has been paid to lobby MPs. She has not said to the Committee how deeply involved she was in this process. Before we went into Committee I described it to the Speaker as corruption. I believe that it is, and I say that the member has an obligation to the Parliament and the country to explain her role in it.

I want to say something else to the member. I received an interesting letter that came through the post and I am quite happy to table it and for people to look at it. It states: “For the last 10 years I have been fighting to get a fair deal for 850,000 smokers in New Zealand, who are now treated as second-class citizens. I am 73 years old and have smoked 40 cigarettes a day for over 50 years, it is costing me $120 a week, more than I ever paid on a mortgage or rent. When they decided that they were going to stop the younger generation from smoking I was all for it, until they made up their mind that it was going to be paid for by the existing smokers only. So that means 25 percent paying for it and 75 percent reaping all the benefits. … It is the successive Governments who turned my generation into nicotine addicts by dumping the tobacco products on them by the truckloads, during their war service, most of them still teenagers. Now we have to pay $27 for a packet of 50 grams of tobacco, $7 worth of tobacco, and a $20 fine, every time we buy one. While every other addict like drugs and alcohol, get all the help they need, only the smokers get to pay for their addiction. … I have got no quarrel with the genuine non-smoker, actually I wish I was one of them. But I have got a gutsful of those anti-smokers, most of them ex-smokers who were forced to give up, because they were lucky enough to have a job. I wonder how Helen Clark would react if all smokers decided to stop donating their blood. … In the last 10 years it has cost me my life savings of $60,000 on smokes, and the younger generation is smoking more than ever before.”

I would like to hear from the promoter of this bill, Steve Chadwick, as to why she is saying to this ex-serviceman that he cannot smoke in his home, the Returned Services Association, yet when it comes to Māori or prisoners she has said that they are exempt. I think that marae should be exempt, but I also think so should the Returned Services Association. I ask Steve Chadwick where her obligation and feeling is to Bert Rovers. Why is it that smokers are the only addicts who have to pay for their addiction? Government members lean over backwards for drug addicts and people with alcohol problems. But they are so politically correct, these second-rate academics, that they want to make a persecuted class out of people who fought for the freedoms that that member now enjoys.

But I now tell that member that she has an obligation to this Committee to explain how her Government gave $2.1 million to lobby groups, to lobby MPs. Not one member of Parliament was told by those professional lobbyists—the sleeze group—about this corruption of our Parliament. How much did she know about it? If she did not know about it, why does she not stand as the chairperson and say that this matter should be referred back to the Health Committee—let us have these lobbyists in front of us and let us have an explanation for their behaviour. She has an obligation to the standards of this Parliament. I do not know of this ever happening before. I know this Government is making us a Third World economic country, but now we are getting Third World politics as well. I seek leave to table the letter of the 73-year-old returned serviceman, Mr Rovers.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The irony of this bill is that the members who stand up and say that it should be all right to smoke cannabis say it is not all right to smoke tobacco. The member for Rotorua says that it is all right to smoke cannabis, but she does not want us smoking tobacco—cannabis is fine, but tobacco is wrong. This is the sort of country where one can go into a public bar in Rotorua and cannot buy a cigarette, but can buy a woman. Then one can go out the door and be able to smoke a cannabis cigarette. That is the vision the member for Rotorua is talking about.

I shall talk about the inconsistency of the Labour Party. Do members remember the scandal that erupted in mid-1999, when Nicky Hager’s book revealed that taxpayers’ money had been funnelled through a public relations firm to get people to write to newspapers and Ministers about the Timberlands sustainable forestry scheme? Do members remember the scandal when it was revealed that taxpayers’ money was funnelled through a public relations firm to get people to lobby members of Parliament? Helen Clark said that was a constitutional affront. She said it was outrageous that taxpayers’ money should be used to lobby political party members and members of Parliament. Do members remember the individual Kit Richards? He sent an email saying people should lobby Ministers. He did not say they should lobby Māoris; he said people should lobby members of Parliament about sustainable forestry. Helen Clark had that man sacked. She rang the State-owned enterprise and made it clear that he had to be sacked, and her argument was that taxpayers’ money should not be used to lobby members of Parliament.

Now we have discovered in the last week that $2 million of taxpayers’ money was funnelled through Action on Smoking and Health, the Smokefree Coalition, and a Māori health organisation to lobby Opposition MPs to support a bill promoted by Steve Chadwick. It is outrageous that that should have happened.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.