Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to refer you to a ruling made by Mr Speaker on 17 September 2003, when we were having a previous discussion about this bill. At the time, we were some way into the debate on Part 2. You may recall that on that occasion Mr Speaker was recalled to the House over a number of issues, including the way in which the bill had been drafted, which is not relevant to this point of order, and the nature of the debate that was to be held. Mr Speaker ruled, and I quote from his ruling, that “there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate.”, which related to Part 2. When we discussed this bill again at our last encounter with it, I raised a similar point of order. I sought an assurance both from you, I think, as Chair, and from the Speaker, that that wide-ranging debate would mean we would have a fairly lengthy debate, which turned out to be the case. At that time there appeared to be some confusion, because I thought that the Speaker had said the debate should be wide-ranging on Part 2 only, and, if you check back over the record, you will find that Mr Speaker, when asked to clarify that point, made it clear that, given the nature of this bill, he felt there should be a wide-ranging debate on each of its parts.

We are now about to embark on the debate on Part 3, which contains a number of quite significant aspects relating to the changes before us. I am simply seeking your assurance that, just as you allowed about 40 calls on Part 2—I am not trying to put a figure into your head—you will be equally prescient and fair in terms of the allocation of the call as we debate Part 3. It might appear on the face of it to be a smaller part than the one we have just dealt with, but it does include a number of significant clauses. In fact, I have some amendments, and I am sure other members do as well, that we will need to tease out quite carefully. I am just seeking your assurance that the Speaker’s ruling that was given last time—affecting both parts of the bill that remained at that time—will apply to the now one remaining part and that there will be as full a debate as is possible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. I ask the member to clarify whether he said the Speaker’s ruling was from 17 September 2002.

17 September 2003.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I was not able to recall one from as far back as 2002. I intend to follow the ruling. Part 3 is a large and important part, and it does insert a new part into the bill. I intend to allow wide-ranging debate. We will see how we go.

I want to share with the public the fact that this bill does not prohibit the smoking or selling of cigarettes. The way the bill is drafted makes very interesting reading. I wonder how many retailers know that there is a very specific and detailed requirement about the signage they have to have if they sell tobacco. I really would appreciate the member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, taking a call to explain the signage specification. Section 23A(1)(h) in clause 8A states that the signage has to be displayed at each point of sale, and that the words “Smoking Kills” has to be printed in black. I wonder why it does not have to be painted in red, to remind people that it is the red Labour Party that intends to dictate to people in every walk of life how they should behave and breathe.

Anyway, the words have to be printed in black and within a black rectangular border that is no wider than an upper case letter “i”. But it also states in paragraph (h)(iii) that those words have to be in the typeface known as Helvetica. I would like the member to take a call and explain to me what that typeface is. What if the retailers fail to express their signage in a Helvetica typeface? Subparagraph (iv) states that it also has to be “in roman font, and upper case and lower case letters, as it is set out above; and (v) the word ‘Kills’ has to be centred below the word ‘Smoking’; ”. This is ridiculous. If we believe that smoking is bad for people, why does that member not go upfront and have a referendum on banning smoking, instead of making the lives of retailers hell but continuing to make the selling of cigarettes legal?

Unlike the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, Judith Tizard, I took the trouble to ring up restaurants and bars in the fantastic Auckland Central area. They are diverse and exciting places. I got a sample of 50 bar and restaurant owners who would like to be exempt from this legislation, including our very own Cigar Lounge, Bar of the Stars, Rose and Crown Tavern, the Corner Bar, and The Elbow Room Auckland Central. I am reading out these names so that when the good people from other parts of New Zealand visit Auckland Central they will know there is a wide choice of fantastic restaurants and bars there. They include: Starks; The Oval; Safari Lounge; Beaches; Verona Café; Harlequin Bar and Café; Hobson’s Lounge Bar; Suede in Symonds Street; QF Tavern; Kenny’s Bar and Grill; Spice Bar; Tabac; Occidental Belgian Beer Cafe; Float; Tavern; O’Neil’s Point Irish Pub; The Muddy Farmer; The Playhouse; Bubble; Lenin Restaurant and Bar; O’Carolls Irish Bar; Sponge Restaurant; The Paddington; Bar De Baz; Queens Head Tavern; Creole Bar and Brasserie; Mr Luckies Cafe; No. 17 Albert Street; Lime at Ponsonby; Pickle; Plum; 24 Seven Bar; Kings Arms Tavern; Allpress Espresso; Quay Sports Bar; Danny Doolan’s; Euro; Green Room; Shed 5; Pog Mahones; Chicane; Platform 54; the Viaduct Grill; Pasha; and The Drake.

That is a sample of just 50 restaurants and bars in Auckland Central. When I talked with their owners, they said they could make very sensible decisions themselves. They said they knew that their patrons would perhaps not like to be exposed to smoke during their meal, so they have separate smoking and non-smoking areas. Usually the patrons of those establishments are very understanding. I do not understand why the member in the chair, and the minority Labour Government, are hell-bent on not allowing those good, responsible people to have a choice about whether their patrons can smoke in their establishments. Certainly, they are entrepreneurs who understand that for their business to prosper they can carry out only those practices that are welcome to, and popular with, their patrons.

Part 3 has within it another Part 2A, which is an interesting way of constructing this bill. It is entitled “Powers of enforcement officers”. Those enforcement officers are allowed to go on to the premises of places where there is a restriction on smoking. I would like to point out that a lot of Returned Services Association members are very upset with this bill. When they went to war and into battle, they were given cigarettes to calm them down. Those fighting men were addicted not from their own choice but because they were told to smoke. Now we are turning round and trying to tell them to stop smoking or they will not be able to go and visit their old friends in Returned Services Association clubs.

I have talked to Returned Services Association members around the country. Last Saturday I was at the Armistice Day celebrations in Papakura, and went back to the Papakura Returned Services Association and talked to members. It became clear that the associations did not want to be singled out as exemptions on their own. They wanted to be recognised with other clubs to have the choice of whether to have smoking in their establishments. With these powers of enforcement, the association is now forced to open its rooms to the enforcement officers who will make sure there is no smoking in their clubs.

New section 30AA in clause 9 refers to supplying tobacco products or herbal smoking. I wonder whether the Greens are particularly keen on that one. I think they would like to see herbal smoking a lot broader—

💬 Rodney Hide: They want to make it compulsory!

Compulsory now—well, there we go! The reference to herbal smoking is an issue that the Greens would be very, very upset about, and I am surprised they are supporting this bill, which wants to have smoking banned in bars, clubs, and public places, because that means they will not be able to partake of their herbal medicines. Herbal products for smoking are banned and the supply is also restricted, so they would need to be careful.

This bill is nothing more than an abuse of the workers. They no longer have the choice. We have considerable restrictions in Part 3 with the supply of tobacco—restrictions on what people can smoke and where they can partake of smoking. I find it disappointing that all clubs, which include the Returned Services Association, were not given the choice to decide themselves whether they would allow their members to smoke. Clubs have to open up their premises to any enforcement officer who wants to walk in off the street to check whether they have set aside a small room out the back, and whether, when it is a freezing-cold night, their members have snuck in a back room to smoke indoors. That is a hardship, particularly on members of the clubs. After all they are club members, and these clubs want to have the option to decide for themselves whether they will be smoking or non-smoking. It is disappointing that this Government does not care about those people, particularly those from the Returned Services Association who went to war and fought for this country. Now they are being told that they are not allowed to make that choice themselves. I think that it is despicable on the part of this Government to enforce a restriction on those men and women who went to war and fought for this country. It is a despicable way to treat those members.

Before I call the next member, I point out that I did say that a fairly wide-ranging debate would be acceptable—wide-ranging in so far as members might seek to explain what they are discussing in terms of what is in Part 3. But let us not range too wide, because we have covered most of those issues in the earlier parts.

I am pleased to take a call to draw us back to Part 3 and the specifics of it. Many of these elements were discussed during the debate on Part 1. But Part 3 is really about compliant product display and signage—that is really all it is. I must admit, on this rather quick call, that we ourselves on the Health Committee did reach a point of a lot of confusion about compliant product display. I can assure that member over there–who is a little confused, obviously; I hope I can help him—that we worked with the industry on this. The Ministry of Health withdrew from the select committee and worked with the industry, and that is why we have this rather interesting figure of 100 packets for sale. The industry worked very well with officials to reach agreement on product display, and the amendments that we have here are a reflection of the working through of those issues with the industry and the officials at the Ministry of Health. So I hope that that helps those members draw back to the Part 3 debate and the specifics of it. We did cover those other wide-ranging issues at the beginning of the debate.

I want to speak to the amendment that I am moving to Part 3 to insert a new clause 11A relating to minimum air-quality standards, which are one of the key issues surrounding this bill. If members believe the argument advanced by the sponsor of the bill, Steve Chadwick, in a very simple phrase it is to say that no such things as minimum air-quality standards can possibly be established. She says it is simply too hard to do that. We can put men on the moon, and can make all sorts of other scientific breakthroughs in medicine and other areas, but according to her we cannot define an air-quality standard. Members should just put those comments to one side, and think about the member who has just resumed her seat as being the promoter of those comments when I tell them the British Medical Journal of 13 August 2003 has just reported a massive study regarding environmental tobacco smoke, which is second-hand smoke. The article states that the actual risks associated with it are minimal, and there would appear to be no rational reason why ventilation cannot be approved for use in the hospitality industry. The report states that small-business persons have been persecuted by their Governments for long enough.

I just want to reflect on that. It is merely the British Medical Journal stating that, and it merely quotes a study undertaken at the University of Glamorgan. There have been other studies undertaken by other reputable international institutions. In our own country, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research undertook a study, which the chairperson of the Health Committee now seeks to discredit. Members will recall that she was asked in the House this afternoon about the basis of the evidence she has to discredit the report of the institute, let alone to discredit the British Medical Journal, the University of Glamorgan, a whole raft of companies, and the vice-president of Firestone International Associates in the United States. They have all talked about the ability and capability of air-quality standards, in terms of ensuring the air is filtered and provides a clean environment. That is all rejected by the sponsor of this bill who, when asked for her evidence this afternoon, had this to say to the House: “I stand by my original comment.” She gave no evidence—no facts—and it was utter prejudice. When the Committee heard her speak a moment or two ago, I am sure the comments made by my colleague Gordon Copeland during the general debate this afternoon about political correctness took on a fresh and very relevant air.

We have here a concerted effort on the part of those behind this bill to deny every fact available in favour of their predetermined prejudice. And their expert, so-called, is the Ministry of Health. The officials are there in that ministry to tell one about disease, illness, and health policy. They have now become, by their own claim, experts on ventilation, engineering, and all sorts of other issues well beyond their ken. Yet, because those officials share the same prejudices as the members who support this bill, they are now held up to be the experts. The British Medical Journal study can go to hell, and likewise the University of Glamorgan. Every other reputable organisation in this country and around the world that has upheld the notion of clean air - quality standards is dismissed, and no reason is given for that. They are dismissed simply because upholding that goes against not the prevailing wisdom but the prevailing politically correct prejudice.

What I really resent about this debate is the utter absence of the real facts being revealed. This bill is not about the health of workers. Nor is it about protecting unborn children, or about all the other arguments that have been raised as to why this prohibition has to be put on. This is about an agenda, which those who promote it simply know they could not achieve if they were open about it. They want to stop every smoker in New Zealand from smoking. They know that is impossible to achieve, and they know they dare not do it by an upfront prohibition, because Dr Cullen would lose several hundred million dollars in excise duty. So they come around by stealth, deny the evidence, and seek to put in place half-baked measures that will be ignored—and properly so, because they are unenforceable. Then, when we ask the promoter of this bill to refute the international evidence, she says the health department advises her, and that she stands by her original answer and has nothing to add to it—as though that gives that member credibility in this field.

This measure is an outrage, and it will make us an international laughing stock. I will have great pleasure, when the public around the world laugh and sneer at New Zealand, in saying whom the instigators of this measure were.

Here we have the sharp end of the “Heleban”. I turn to section 41A, inserted by clause 12, relating to the powers of the enforcement officers. Those of us who were lucky enough went to the Returned Services Association last Sunday. We heard from the men who fought against the Nazis, and lost their comrades while fighting against the Nazis. Now, what do we discover? The “Heleban”, under Steve Chadwick, and Helen Clark, has the power to enter the Returned Services Association—I am reading exactly from section 41A—and to bring at any time a video camera or a device to sample the air. I am not kidding.

In fact, under this legislation the enforcement officers will have to power to stop someone in his or her company car. That person may be driving along, in the back of wherever, on a lonely road at night, and it may be raining. If person is a smoker, he or she is not allowed to light up.

💬 Hon Taito Phillip Field: Nonsense.

I know it is nonsense. That is why I cannot understand why Phillip Field is voting for it. Under this bill, if it comes in, a person will have to stop the car, stand out in the rain, and smoke. Why? Because under section 41A the “health Nazis” can pull up that person. Phillip Field is right; this bill is nonsense. Those “Heleban” officers can parachute in, like the SAS, on to a ship if it is within 13 miles of the shore.

💬 Hon Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member can scream all he likes, but when he refers to members by name I would appreciate it if he used my correct name.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is right. I thank the member for that.

This is a disgusting bill. A ship may be 12 miles off shore and the “Heleban” can parachute in its “health Nazis”, who may see that the captain is in the mess, having a pint. That is what this bill is about. If someone who is sitting at home gets burgled and calls the police, no one comes, because this Government has run the police down. But if someone lights up, the enforcement officers will be there. Mark my words, the “Heleban” will be there, and they will be kicking the doors down.

I take members to section 23A in clause 8A, “Compliant product display”. This Government says it is reducing red tape. Do members know that more than two tobacco cartons of the same kind are not allowed to be exposed for sale at any point of sale? The “Nazis” will kick the door down, and the “Heleban” police will come in. If they discover, my God, that there are three cartons on display, someone will be fined thousands and thousands of dollars. This bill states in section 23A(1)(h) that there has to be a sign stating: “ ‘Smoking Kills’ printed in black—(i) within a black rectangular border that is no wider than an upper case letter ‘i’ in the point size used for the words; and (ii) on a white background within that border; and (iii) in the typeface known as Helvetica; and (iv) in roman font, and upper case and lower case letters, as it is set out above; and (v) with the word ‘Kills’ centred below the word ‘Smoking’; and (vi) in type that is clear and legible, of normal weight …”. The sign must be one square metre in size, or otherwise Helen Clark’s “health Nazis” will kick down the door, drag the person off to court, and fine him or her thousands of dollars.

I am pleased that “Georgie Beyer” is going to take a call to try to explain this rubbish to her local workingmen’s club and to the Returned Services Association, and I say good luck to her.

💬 Georgina Beyer: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

I have not finished.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I have called a point of order.

💬 Georgina Beyer: I would like a ruling from you about the term “health Nazis”, which the member Rodney Hide has used on several occasions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I take the point. It is a matter of taste. We will have a look at that, just to see whether a ruling has been made on that specific issue. If it is not used in relation to members or parties, then I do not think it has been ruled on. I do not need any assistance.

It is quite clear that what I am saying is that they are “health Nazis”, and they are working for Helen Clark. It is her legislation, it is Steve Chadwick’s legislation, and it is Georgina Beyer’s legislation. Who are they working for? This Government.

I say to you, Mr Chairman, that the Returned Services Association fought against this overweening Government telling what we believe to be a free people what to do, when to do it, and how to live. I say that this is a disgraceful bill. It is typical of this Government that it has paid lobbyists to turn up and lobby MPs. It is typical of this Government that it has tried to shut down debate. It is typical of this Government that it would not let members of Parliament call it like it is—“health Nazis”.

I intend to confine my remarks to Part 3 of the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, although I think the words “Enhanced Protection” have been stripped from the legislation. I know that what I say tonight would have the support of Action on Smoking and Health representatives, if they were present in the Chamber. I want to speak to my amendment, which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106. It makes changes to a provision that has been the subject of earlier comment: clause 8A, which inserts new section 23A relating to compliant product displays. The short point is that without my amendment being passed, two paragraphs in the bill as presently drafted limit to 100 the number of tobacco packages to be displayed, and limit to 40 the number of tobacco cartons to be displayed. The commercial result of that restriction will be that retailers will not display cigars. The displays will be limited to cigarettes and cigarillos.

I do not accept the health arguments that lie behind this bill, but for the purposes of what I now say that is irrelevant. This bill is not about restricting legitimate commercial activity. For as long as it remains lawful to sell tobacco and related herbal products, provisions like that should not find their way into the legislation. The bill proposes that retailers will not need to meet the display limitation in respect of cigars, which in any event are carried by non-tobacconists in limited numbers only. I have explained briefly the context in which my Supplementary Order Paper 106 finds its place. The result of the bill as drafted—and I ask the member responsible for the bill, Steve Chadwick, to reflect carefully on this proposition—is that a grossly anti-competitive outcome arises. That is because the permissible number of packages on display will be far less than the number of different packages that are available on the market. The outcome will be that retailers will be forced to deny display opportunities to many slower-selling brands, and that is quite contrary to the principles of the Commerce Act. The consequence will be that only the major brands will be on display, thereby depriving minor brands of the opportunity to compete against them.

It is a sadness for me that issues like this should be the subject of a conscience vote—and for some parties they are. However, in the case of the present minority Government, while this may be in some nominal sense a conscience vote, the reality is very, very different indeed. The reality is that this will be a directed vote, with clear guidance and riding orders being given to Labour Party members to vote this legislation through. That is why I say to the member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, who has current charge of this bill, that careful consideration should be given to the merit of Supplementary Order Paper 106. I am uncertain whether she is a cigar or cigarillo smoker; she may very well be. But even if she does not smoke them, I would think that it should lie within her heart to give consideration to the undoubted merit of the amendment.

The cigar market in New Zealand is less than 0.2 percent of the total tobacco market, and the product has no appeal to children. In fact, it is smoked by few adults. Yet that legal product—and I am talking of cigars—will simply disappear from display shelves, because even the small amount of display space cigars require will be allocated to fast-selling brands of cigarettes. If this amendment is passed, a minuscule amount of permitted display space will enable those few adults who choose to smoke the occasional cigar to be aware of the different and competing products available to them.

I thank that member for a model contribution, in terms of speaking to the relevant part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to delay other speakers, but I wish to raise a point of order that is occasioned largely by the speech that you have just been so complimentary about. I would have been equally complimentary about it. The point of order is that the member raised some very valid technical points. I notice that there are no officials actually present to offer advice to the sponsor of the bill or the Associate Minister, who I saw was around here a moment or two ago, on matters of this nature. I wonder how we can therefore seriously give consideration to matters such as Mr Worth has posed—and Mr Hide—relating to various technical provisions of the Act, if the sponsor of the bill has no professional advice to back her up—or does she simply know it all?

I thank the member for raising that issue. That matter is of course entirely up to the member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, but I thank the member raising it.

I want to speak in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper 92, which affects section 23A(1)(h) in clause 8A. It refers to the use of the Māori language as part of the warning signage to be added to smoking products. In proposing this Supplementary Order Paper I do so in the knowledge that, firstly, Māori is one of two official languages in this country, and, secondly, smoking affects a lot of my relatives and, indeed, those in the Māori community. It seems to me that if this bill is to come into law, then it is only appropriate that the warnings should be indicated in both English and Māori. The words that I would like to have added are: “Ka mate koe i te kai hikareti”. I notice that the interpreter has come back into the Chamber, and is among the officials who could help with this bill.

The reason I support this Supplementary Order Paper is not because I myself am a Māori, but because it is important that we convey to a community that is a large consumer of tobacco products the dangers to one’s health of smoking. With regard to the poor status of Māori health, much of it can be attributed to smoking. I take on board the comments made by speakers who have stood before me, and I agree in principle with what they have said. I think it is important that we append this warning in Māori. I know that a subsequent Supplementary Order Paper may go a little bit further than my one, but I certainly seek the support of the sponsor of this bill for my Supplementary Order Paper. If we are able to do that, then at least we will fulfil our social obligations not only to one part of our community but also to New Zealand.

I know that a lot of the returned servicemen whom people have alluded to tonight are Māori. This issue probably affects them more than a lot of the younger generation. Those Māori soldiers who went to war during the Second World War were fluent Māori speakers, and their first language was Māori. Those who are still alive and still smoke would appreciate that while they would probably have ignored the message, they would have appreciated having their language appended to such products.

💬 Rodney Hide: What differences will it make?

Perhaps they may get a clearer understanding of the effects of smoking on their health. The hope is that that is the difference it would make.

💬 Rodney Hide: If they read it in Māori, will it make a difference?

They will not only read it Māori but have a better understanding of the effects of smoking on their health. That is the point. That is what the warning is all about—to communicate to those who decide to smoke the effects that smoking will have on their health. Kia ora.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the previous speaker, but we did not have an interpretation of what the Māori tag on the relevant packet means, and it may well influence the way I vote in respect of any amendment that may be forthcoming. I ask that a translation be given, in accordance with the Standing Orders.

The member is free to give his own translation if he so wishes.

I am quite happy for the interpreter to interpret.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Smoking will damage your health.]

Speaking to clause 8A, I would like the member in the chair to take a call to explain to us what would happen in the case of a duty-free shop. If I go through the enforcement regulations that the Government will be putting on to retailers—breaching their property rights—I can see nothing that relates to a duty-free shop. We all go into duty-free shops and we see stand after stand of cigarettes and alcohol—all those terrible things that this Government wants to save and protect us from. The bill does not exclude duty-free shops at all. They will be caught. Duty-free shops will not be able to have any “tobacco product exposed for sale … visible from outside the place;”. What is “the place”? Is “the place” the whole airport terminal, or is it the actual area where duty-free goods are being sold, or is it the international terminal? What is it? It is not explained in the bill. That will just lead to endless court cases and case law, and to the courts trying to interpret what the Government has written really badly.

If one moves further down the clause, one sees that unless the place of business is a tobacconist shop, not more than 100 tobacco packages are allowed to be exposed for sale at any point of sale, and not more than 40 tobacco cartons can be exposed for sale at any point of sale. Who will compensate the supermarkets for the huge expense they will be put to when this legislation comes into force? Who will compensate them for this Government breaching their property rights and forcing them to change all their stands so that they comply with this stupid, inane legislation, which will not do anything to protect people’s health or to lift the health of this country? If this Government were really serious about doing that, it would ban smoking and cigarettes altogether. Instead, something like 17 part-time smoke police, or enforcement officers, or whatever they are, will be trying to enforce legislation that is totally unenforceable. Who pays the rent of these businesses? Who pays the wages, the resource consents, the rates? It is not this Government. Owners pay them, because the businesses are their property. So what right does the State have to go in and enforce all this legislation and all these little rules on them?

The Hon Peter Dunne talked about this Government being an expert on ventilation. It is also an expert on signwriting, it seems. I cannot believe that grown-ups actually drafted this law. Will people be running around with little em rulers, checking that the signwriting complies with the law? What will happen to businesses if they do not comply? What will happen if the rectangular border of a sign is “wider than an upper case letter ‘i’ in the point size used for the words;”? The word “Kills” has to be centred below the word “Smoking”. Would the Minister please explain to this Committee what on earth that does for public health? It does nothing for public health. It is just about control, compliance costs, and forcing the Government’s nanny-knows-best, bossy-boots philosophy on all the small retailers around the country.

If the Government wants to enforce those laws, the onus to obey them should be put on the people who break them. If the age for people to be able to buy cigarettes is 18, why force the penalties on to the retailers? Why not put the responsibility on to the people who break the law by buying cigarettes? Why is the Government putting all the penalties on to the retailers?

I can see that the member in the chair is not taking any notice. Obviously, she does not care about duty-free shops and places, because they are not mentioned in the bill. Are they exempt, or will they have to comply? If they do have to comply, how on earth will they do that?

It never ceases to amaze me what foresight some of our forefathers had. New Zealand was called Aotearoa, the Land of the Long White Cloud. Once this law passes, that is what it will be—the land of the long white cloud. All the smokers will be outside and one will be able to see the smoke. Maybe as a tourism promotion, a cloud of smoke will be hanging over New Zealand so that people clearly recognise our fine land when they come here in their planes.

Let us look at the purposes of the bill, in clause 3. One is “to prevent the detrimental effect of other people’s smoking on the health of people in workplaces”. I would question the motive behind the bill. If smoking is really so bad for people, why do we not just ban cigarettes? But, no, we could not do that, because look at the tax take on cigarettes. How could we possibly ban cigarettes? No, this legislation is more anti-business. This legislation loads up small-business people, the very heart of New Zealand business, with extra rules. [Interruption] I am speaking on clause 3, on the purpose of this bill in relation to the workplace.

Let us take a situation where a small business has only one room where, traditionally, the employees have gone to have their break. It used to be called the smoko room. Now what will it be? Will it be a smoko room or a non-smoko room? What I have found with bureaucratic legislation that affects small-business owners is that if I decide my workplace is a smoking workplace, all of a sudden my non-smoking employees will have me up for discrimination, because they are non-smokers. If I make the workplace non-smoking, then, of course, the other employees will have me up for discrimination, because they are smokers. Really, a business cannot win on these sorts of things, and that is a real problem.

Other purposes are “(b) to prevent young people who are being taught or cared for in registered schools or early childhood centres from being influenced by seeing other people smoke there; and (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.” What about other places? Do we not care about young people there? Do we not care about young people in the home? Is not that what we are really concerned about? The trouble is we want to legislate for what we think is right, but, of course, that never works. If we try to protect a little child who is learning to walk, if we put a little cradle around that child so that he or she never falls over, that child will never walk properly. A person has to make decisions for himself or herself.

Business in New Zealand well knows that any business runs on supply and demand. If a restaurant is a smoking restaurant— [Interruption] I am talking about the places referred to in clause 3.

Part 3 deals with the sale of products.

💬 PAUL ADAMS: It does deal with the sale of products. If a restaurant permits smoking, and all of a sudden customers do not go to that restaurant, because they would rather go to a restaurant that does not permit smoking, then soon the owner will wake up and decide that his or her restaurant will become non-smoking. We do not need legislation continually coming in that dictates where we will eat or smoke. Thank you, Mr Chairperson, and seeing as I have been pulled up so many times I shall sit down.

I do intend to stick to a very specific provision within Part 3—that is, section 23A(1)(h) in new clause 8A. Given that the person sponsoring the bill has not seen fit to bring in officials, I assume she will be able to answer the details of this particular issue when I raise it.

I think there is an inconsistency in this bill that almost renders it void. It is to do with typeface and it is to do with the difference between different fonts. I have to say a number of members will not know about serif fonts and sans serif fonts. For those who do not know—and I am sure the member sponsoring the bill does know—a serif is a little wee twirl on the edge of a letter. In relation to a capital T, if it is just a nice, straight vertical line with a cross across the top, it is a sans serif font—a square block.

We find an inconsistency. The bill is talking about a typeface known as Helvetica. It is mandated by this bill. I am sure members of the public will want to know about this in the morning; they will all race to their word processors and select the Helvetica font, and they will see it is a sans serif font. It is a square, very block letter. However, section 23A(1)(h)(iv) states “in roman font”. I ask the member sponsoring this bill whether she realises that a roman font is actually a serif font. It has the little curls on the letters. I can see a major inconsistency—which I am sure most members of the Committee can now spot—and I am sure it will cause a serious problem for the bill’s progress. In fact, I think it might be worth reporting progress, sending the bill back to the select committee, and getting in an expert on fonts, to make sure that that inconsistency—[Interruption] The member laughs, but it is not good enough for Parliament to pass a bill that has that sort of inconsistency in it.

💬 John Carter: What do you want?

I want the member sponsoring the bill to take a call and tell us whether she means serif fonts, in which case Helvetica is out and we have to scrap that provision, or whether she means sans serif fonts, in which case Helvetica is in but the roman font is out. There will be people listening tonight who think this issue is trivial, but the member has put it in the bill.

💬 Georgina Beyer: No.

Georgina Beyer does not think it is trivial. She thinks it is OK for a bill to tell us exactly what particular character set we have to write the warning in—as if New Zealanders are so stupid that they could not read it if it were in a Times New Roman font, or even in an Old English font. Pita Paraone says it should be in Māori. I think that should be optional. If it were in Māori, that would be fine by me.

The member says she does not need officials. She does not have officials here to answer that question. But she has to tell us tonight, as the Committee needs to know. There is a total inconsistency between subparagraph (iv), which provides for a roman font, and subparagraph (iii), which states that the font must be Helvetica. I think she knows the answer, and I am happy to yield if she will take the call and explain that. If she does not, it is quite clear to me that the member sponsoring the bill does not know the difference between those fonts. She has got down to that level of minutiae, to defining what people have to do in terms of their signage—the size and the font of the characters—which is bizarre, in my view, and she has done all of that without knowing what a serif font and a sans serif font are about.

💬 Georgina Beyer: Tell us.

Georgina Beyer wants me to tell the Committee. I am happy to take some time on it, because it is important. I can see the gallery starting to fill up. Those people who have a font addiction will be gathering around their crystal sets. Those who like a nice, square typeface on their “Smoking Kills” warning signs will be outraged that the font will be Times New Roman. I can understand why people would be upset about a roman font. It has the little squiggles and the curls. It can be less clear when someone is standing at a distance. I know that The Times of London uses it for headings because it captures the attention better, but, no, this member says that Helvetica is the way to go. That is an outrage, quite apart from all the other nonsense in this bill, such as allowing smoking in prisons and on marae but not allowing it in restaurants.

I want to talk about the—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Diabetes.

That is right. I want to talk about a provision in Part 3, but before I do so, I want to respond to a couple of comments that have been made in this debate to date. The first one I would like to refer to is Peter Dunne’s comment that if we pass this law, we will become a laughing stock. I would like to contemplate, for a moment, whether California has become a laughing stock. As I recall, the Holmes show interviewed people who said it is fantastic. Is Norway about to become a laughing stock? Is Ireland? Is New York?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but I say to members on the cross benches that under Speaker’s ruling 53/4 they should please note that it is convention not to interject in the cross benches. It muffles the microphone of the person speaking.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept your ruling, of course, but if we are invited by the member to respond to her, clearly we must respond. After all, this particular part of the Chamber is very well filled by members. It is a shame the other sections of the Chamber are not similarly well filled. It is therefore not surprising that our views will be heard better than others. If she desists from asking us questions, we will desist from responding, especially when the questions are so stupid.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): A point of order will be heard in silence. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 16/6. I call Rodney Hide.

💬 Dail Jones: I had not finished my point of order, Mr Chairperson. You allowed Mr Hide to stand up and start a point of order, and now you are having a go at me.

💬 Rodney Hide: I certainly do know those Standing Orders, but I make the point that when a member on his or her feet calls out and asks for a response and that response is not provided, then that member on his or her feet is perfectly entitled to say that members cannot answer and then use it as part of the rhetoric and propaganda of his or her speech. If the member invited a comment, as my learned colleague pointed out, it is a bit rich for the Chair to admonish those of us who were responding. If we sit here like little lambs, Ms Kedgley might think that we support the wacky ideas she is supporting here tonight.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It had better be a fresh point of order, Mr Dunne.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: The speech being made by the member is actually out of order. Given your familiarity with Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders, you will be aware that it is not in order for a member, during the course of his or her speech, to pose it in such a way that it is a series of questions. That is precisely what the member was doing, and is what caused the reaction you properly took exception to. I might add that your comment about muffled sound presumably applies to the sponsor of the bill, who is sitting to next to you, applauding. It must have had the same effect on your microphone as the interjections from the members in this quarter of the Chamber that you took objection to. The issue is about a series of questions being posed during the course of a speech, which has long been held to be out of order because it invites disorder by way of response.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled on this point of order, Mr Hide.

💬 Rodney Hide: This is absolutely a new one. I have two. The first point of order is that you have been very hard on members who are opposed to this bill being within the confines of Part 3. I would like to know when Ms Kedgley was speaking to Part 3, as you never pulled her up. You were very hard on members on the cross benches because of the muffling effect on the microphone. I note that you have said nothing about the member in the chair beside you chipping in over the microphone, which we could hear very clearly. It seems to me that you have to apply the rules consistently in both cases. I make the final point that there has been a series of points of order, and you have not ruled on them.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr Hide for drawing that to my attention. The problem is that the issue was getting quite noisy. I myself was unable to hear what the honourable member was saying. I also want to rule on the issue of the person sitting beside me interjecting on a live microphone. In Committee, members in charge of legislation shall not take an unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. It is good conduct and common courtesy not to do so, and courtesy is contagious. We all prosper if we keep within the spirit of our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

As I was saying, the other place that has similar legislation is New York. There was an article in the New Zealand Herald by someone who was very sceptical about the legislation there and was determined that he would dislike it. He stated that there was just one problem: it works. Its impact has been magnificent. It has been truly wonderful reclaiming the city from smokers, who almost never act considerately. The fact is that the ban works in New York, and it will elsewhere.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not know what we have to do to draw your attention to this matter, but what on earth has what happens in New York, and what someone thinks about New York and this legislation, got to do with Part 3? If you are going to allow Sue Kedgley to debate in such a wide-ranging way, then that is all right for a third reading speech but not for the Committee stage on Part 3—

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

💬 Rodney Hide: I have not finished. You have consistently pulled us up, waved your arms around, and disrupted us. You are sitting there and smiling like a cherub because Sue Kedgley is speaking.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I take exception to that. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the member speaking that this is a wide debate, but relevant to the part. I accept that she has strayed a little, as happened with the previous speaker, so would she come back to the party on Part 3.

The reason I was drawing that example was—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member, and it may be a matter of my lapse of concentration, but I was not sure whether you ruled on the Hon Peter Dunne’s point about a series of questions. I wonder whether the Hon Peter Dunne was right in his interpretation of Standing Orders, and I would not mind some guidance on it.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: In the words of Mr Prebble, I can assist members here. If members refer to Speakers’ ruling 39/6—one made by the eminent Mr Barnard in 1936, the other by Sir Matthew Oram in 1952: “A member may not direct a continuous series of questions during a speech to members on the opposite side of the House.” That was precisely the point I was drawing attention to. Mr Power is quite correct; you did not rule on that. I now invite you to draw to the attention of the member speaking, and to every other member, the ruling of those two eminent Speakers that a member may not direct a continuous series of questions during a speech to members on the opposite side of the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that any questions should be directed through the Chair.

As I was saying, I made that point because other speeches had said that New Zealand would be a laughing stock. I said that far from being a laughing stock, we have been encouraged to follow other nations that have been held up as wonderful examples to us. The arguments of many of those opponents of the bill would stand up, were it not for the fact—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is trifling with the Chair.

💬 Rodney Hide: I am not trifling with the Chair. I say to you that if we tried that, we would not get away with it. What has this got to do with Part 3?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is replying to some of the criticisms made under Speaker’s ruling 38/1, and I am allowing her a certain amount of time to do that. But she must bring her speech to this part of the bill.

💬 Dail Jones: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am making a ruling, Mr Jones. The member must bring her speech to the point. It is a wide debate, but it must be relevant to this part. The member has had enough time to respond to other arguments, so would she please now come to the point.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. While you were ruling, the member to my left, Ms Sue Kedgley, called out in an unparliamentary way on your ruling and said it was pathetic. I think I had to withdraw—

I said you were pathetic, not the Chair.

💬 Rodney Hide: Well, she is now saying that I am pathetic. How many times do we have to explain to this member that when the chairperson is speaking, we should not have someone calling out “You’re pathetic!”? I have to say that she was not looking at me; she was looking at you, sir. I think she should withdraw and apologise. I was asked to withdraw and apologise just for saying that you were a small cherub.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. If the member made such remarks to the Chair, then she should stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Well, I did not, so I will not.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Sue Kedgley.

I wonder what the next interjection will be—

💬 Rodney Hide: She will get one right now! I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You well know that after being pulled up on a point of order, a member taking the call is not allowed to refer to it, at all. I would like you to rule accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member had only just started, and had been speaking for only about 2 seconds. I am listening very carefully to what she has to say.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am seeking just a bit of clarification on the consistency of rulings from the Chair. Can I draw your attention to an incident that happened in the House yesterday when an honourable colleague of mine, Mr Edwin Perry, who does such a tremendous job in the Wairarapa, was thrown out of the House for interjecting whilst a point of order was being taken and simply saying “Hear! Hear!”. Now we have a member who has admitted—and you yourself have noted—an interjection whilst a point of order was being taken, not once, not twice, but three times. Yet you now consider it acceptable that she should remain in the Chamber. I would hate the Committee and all listeners to gain the impression that the Chair is somewhat biased against New Zealand First, so possibly, in order to prevent such a perception taking hold, we could have consistency in rulings, and that member could be invited to leave the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yesterday that ruling was taken with regard to Speaker’s ruling 123/7, which is to do with there being no interjections while questions are taking place. Ms Kedgley had only just risen to her feet, and had been speaking for only a matter of seconds, when there was another point of order. I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt. I take her word as an honourable member.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In respect of what you just said, the exiting of my colleague Edwin Perry yesterday was not to do with question time. It was to do with a point of order I was taking, when seeking that the Minister answer the question. I have never seen such an outrage in my life in Parliament, and I have never seen such a unique circumstance in my time in Parliament. My colleague Mr Mark is pointing out the terrible inconsistency where much worse is being done than just the utterance of the words “Hear! Hear!”. That is hardly an interjection; it is actually an expression of support.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. I cannot relitigate what was done yesterday, and I recognise the situation we are in. I would now like to call the honourable member Sue Kedgley to finish her speech.

Referring once again, as I have previously, to points that have been made in debate, one of the issues I want to speak about is ventilation systems. The Green Party was very attracted by the issue of ventilation systems—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have never seen in my time in Parliament—which is short compared with that of Mr Peters, but he may care to back me up—a person on his or her feet so repeatedly defying the Chair. You have said time and time again that it is Part 3, but now we are hearing about ventilation systems, for goodness’ sake! This is not a third reading speech; it is Part 3—[Interruption] Now she is interrupting me while I am on my feet giving a point of order. I resent the fact that on the four times I have got up to take a point of order, you have done nothing. If it were a New Zealand First, an ACT, or a National MP, he or she would not get one chance, but as it is a Green MP it is all OK because the Greens are supporting the Government on this bill. I think it is a disgrace—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member, but I am on my feet. I ask the honourable member to withdraw and apologise.

I was asking my colleague whether ventilation systems were included in Part 3. If you wish me to withdraw and apologise for that, I will.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This part is not about ventilation; it is about signage.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am about to support Sue Kedgley, which will be rare and unique. She was responding—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I ask for order during a point of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: No, because you don’t throw her out when she interjects.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I tell Mr Hide that he now has his first yellow card under Speaker’s ruling—[Interruption] Leave the Chamber!

💬 Rodney Hide: Good. It just shows the difference.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just go!

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: The point the member raised was in response to comments I made regarding my amendment to insert new clause 11A in Part 3 of the bill. New clause 11A inserts a new section 39A in the principal Act: “Minimum air quality standard”. Much as it pains me to have to do it, I am forced to agree with Sue Kedgley that she was commenting on matters contained in that part. While I would profoundly disagree with what she is about to say, she does have a right to say it. I think that when you reflect upon the content of the bill and the amendments to this part, you will come to the same conclusion and allow her to continue, for whatever time remains, addressing this particular point.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much, Mr Dunne. I appreciate your consideration and wise counsel.

I was referring precisely to the comments Peter Dunne had made about ventilation systems. I was referring to the fact that the Green Party had been very attracted by the idea of having air quality standards, and that we had several caucus discussions about whether that could work, but the truth is, it could not.

In speaking to Part 3 of this Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, I want to focus particularly on clause 8A. We have already heard from my colleague Maurice Williamson about some of the stupidity in this bill. I have not been involved in this bill right the way through the process, but as I look at what is contained in it I find I do not recollect, in my 20 years in this place, such stupidity going into legislation, right down to the size of signs and the number of packages that are allowed to be on shelves. But, given that stupidity, I ask the member responsible for this bill, Steve Chadwick, and the Minister a few things in this Committee about what is going on here.

I am interested that the Government did something very relevant to this legislation back on 16 June 2003, when it signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Not many New Zealanders know about that, but on 16 June the Government signed that convention. If we look at clause 8A and new section 23A(2), we see it provides: “The sign must have at least the lesser of the following areas: (a) 1 square metre: (b) 10% of the area of the display in which the tobacco products are exposed for sale.” The Government has just signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, so the first question I have for the member responsible for this bill is this: is that measure in this bill consistent with that convention? That is my first question to the member responsible for this bill—and, let us face it, this bill is just a facade for a Government measure; we all know Helen Clark is behind it. Is that measure in this bill consistent with the convention that the Government signed on 16 June? I suspect it is not, because if one looks at something that the Minister, who is sitting opposite us in the Chamber, said on 7 October, then one sees that in fact the convention requires health warning messages to cover no less than 30 percent of the principal display. Why on earth is the Government bringing in legislation that is totally inconsistent with the damned Framework Convention on Tobacco Control? That is my first question.

But I have a more important question: how much taxpayers’ money has this Government secretly spent on the whole issue of tobacco control, which this bill now brings to the surface in New Zealand? I have some questions for Government members in this Parliament, and they can answer them. How many meetings in Geneva have Government officials involved in issues relating to Part 3 of this bill been involved in? Would it have been just one, two, or three meetings in Geneva that were involved in sorting out these dopey rules on tobacco control? I charge that Minister over there to tell the Committee this: was it 31 meetings in Geneva that taxpayers’ money has been spent on—31 meetings in Geneva—to sort out the nonsense of all the detailed control on signs and the size of the warnings concerning tobacco?

But the situation gets worse. That is just the meetings in Geneva. It is not just the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which I happen to know a little bit about, that has been involved in that nonsense. The Ministry of Health has been involved in it, too. Do members know how many times that ministry’s officials have been right across the world to Geneva, to play around with the nonsense in Part 3? The member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, who is responsible for this bill, is smiling. The taxpayers may care a little more about this than she does, because Ministry of Health officials have flown across the world 11 times since this Government has been in office, just to play around with the nonsense in Part 3 of the bill as part of signing the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control—11 times to Geneva, but only once to New Delhi.

I have all the background stuff on that here in the Chamber. The Government has been secretive about that; no one knows about it. The officials have been to sunny Noumea, though. As they worked on this stuff they have been to sunny Noumea, but only once to New Delhi, and they have been to Geneva 11 times for 31 meetings. The time involved is a whole month of our officials’ time—and I can see the Minister looking very embarrassed about that, because it is a scandal. I have more to expose about that.

I move, That the question be now put.

Mr Chairman—[Interruption] Am I meant to speak through this?

💬 Rod Donald: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would just like to acknowledge the group in the gallery that has been performing Kia Mau Mana Whenua in Parliament tonight. It is beholden on us to display behaviour in this Chamber that holds this Parliament in high standing, and not to demean ourselves. I invite members to consider that we have a group that is here with a message about changing people’s lives, and I invite all members to reflect on that.

I want to talk principally about Part 2A, which I gather is to be inserted into the Smoke-free Environments Act by clause 12 of this bill—in other words, the powers of the enforcement officers. We must bear in mind that we are talking largely about places of leisure, where people go for a beer and a smoke with whomever they choose to go with. Under this bill, an enforcement officer can go in there with a still or video camera, or a device for taking samples of air, or both. Enforcement officers can inspect those places, take photographs at whim, and, if I am correct—and maybe the member can address this—do not have to produce identification under new section 41A, inserted by clause 12. Under new section 41B, people have to produce identification to enforcement officers, but under new section 41A enforcement officers can go into bars, places of leisure, or Returned Services Association premises and take photographs, samples of the air, or whatever photographs or videos they like to take—all without saying who they are, or what they are doing. There is no restriction in this bill, as far as I can see or understand—and maybe the member will explain this—on passing on photographs that show Mary and Joe or whoever else were together, whenever that was, to the police or to anybody else who may be interested in those people’s whereabouts.

I draw that member’s attention to what occurred when Government members were in Opposition, and they went berserk when Maurice Williamson wanted to bring in a transponder car system, whereby people could be picked up in their cars at any time of day and charged levies. The Labour members, then in Opposition, went berserk over the privacy implications of that, and would not have one single bar of it. I am not advocating that we have such a system; I am just pointing out the hypocrisy that is behind this bill. I hope the member will take a call and explain new section 41A, which allows enforcement officers to walk into bars, restaurants, or anywhere they suspect people are smoking—and it does not even state they have to suspect that, as far as I can see—with video or still cameras, and to take whatever photographs they are inclined to take. I do not think many New Zealanders know that. I do not think many New Zealanders are aware that that is in this bill, and I do not think many of them would agree with that.

The member Steve Chadwick is sitting there in the chair and looking as though she has all the answers. I look forward to her taking a call and telling me whether I am correct. Can all that occur, as I have suggested, without an enforcement officer giving any identification? Enforcement officers have to be given identifying information under a duty specified in section 41B, but do not have to give identification under section 41A, which states that not only can an enforcement officer take cameras into places but he or she can “take photographs or videos with any camera he or she brings with him or her”. I ask the member to explain that to us, as she understands it. I know that she does not have the officials with her, so she will have to go by what she recalls.

I hope she does a better job of explaining that than she did when she was asked this afternoon whether she was aware of the scientific evidence that related to changing the quality of air. I will comment briefly on that issue. In shipping, we can change the air in a compartment space very rapidly. We could put a fork hoist that fumed like nobody’s business in the hold of a ship, measure the air quality, and change it. This bill does not even take into account—

💬 Ron Mark: What about sucking all the air out of the Labour caucus room?

I have to say that sometimes ours gets a little bit hot, too. On a serious note—

I move, That the question be now put.

I start by asking the member in the chair, Steve Chadwick, to clarify the important point that has just been raised by Peter Brown, who said that enforcement officers do not have to identify themselves. I want the member to then read section 41E in clause 12, “Offences in respect of enforcement officers”, which states that: “Every person commits an offence, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, who—(a) intentionally obstructs, hinders, or resists an enforcement officer”. If patrons are in a pub having a beer—and I know that a killjoy like the member does not really imagine that sort of circumstance occurring, but it does happen in pubs up and down the country, as people enjoy a bit of friendship with their mates after a day’s work—and enforcement officers are spying in the bar, doing their job by detecting who is lighting up a smoke, someone who happens to step in front of that officer is not to know that the person is an enforcement officer. Yet the person who does that is up for a $1,000 fine.

💬 Simon Power: They will have a clipboard.

The enforcement officers will have a clipboard. We know they will have a camera; we know they are allowed to have a camera.

Enforcement officers are allowed to go in to pubs and spy on who is there and who should not be there, because that is the sort of law that the member sponsors—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Fear not, the enforcement officer will never be seen again!

I guarantee that the enforcement officer who goes into the “Chelty” will not be welcome. We have heard about the “Chelty”, that well-known pub in the Manawatu, in relation to which we tried to move an exemption today. I understand that while I was away from the Committee this afternoon that exemption was ruled out of order.

David Benson-Pope stopped it.

David Benson-Pope stopped it. I will let everybody know that that member had something to do with the 100 amendments that I tabled being ruled out of order. Those people wanted to have their say.

💬 David Benson-Pope: They were out of order.

The member says that those amendments were out of order. This Committee could have accepted them by leave, but David Benson-Pope did not want people to have that occasion.

I want the member Steve Chadwick to answer the question we have raised. Do enforcement officers have to reveal that they are enforcement officers—yes or no? It is a simple question for Steve Chadwick to answer. She is meant to be sponsoring this bill on behalf of the Rt Hon Helen Clark, so let us find out whether enforcement officers have to identify themselves. Otherwise, how can it be fair that somebody who steps in front of those people, and hinders them from doing their so-called enforcement work, is liable for a $1,000 fine? Why will the member not take a call and clarify that?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: She won’t.

She may do so. She cannot be so ashamed about doing Helen Clark’s work that she will not take a call.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: She is.

She probably is.

When the member takes a call, I want her to clarify for the Committee the issue around fines. I understand that amendments are now being accepted whereby a person who lights up a cigarette anyway in a pub is let off completely scot-free, and the operator or licensee is liable to a fine of $4,000. That cannot be right, can it? I think that is probably what is happening here. Is that happening? I say to Steve Chadwick that members on the Opposition side of the Chamber seem to think that that is the state of affairs. So I think she should rise before the closure motion is taken, and make sure that she answers those valuable questions. We are to vote on this legislation, and we want to know whether we should be voting for it. I doubt whether we will do so.

I certainly want to know about the issue of enforcement officers, because I think it is fundamentally wrong for those sorts of people to go into places armed with a camera, so they can—[Interruption] I am not sure whether they will carry a clipboard. Those people will not be highly intelligent; they will not be able to handle a camera and a clipboard. But I want to know whether, after those people have spied away and taken photographs, there will then be any liability at all on the person who lit up a cigarette. I say to Steve Chadwick that I think it is grossly unfair if she is promoting legislation—

I move, That the question be now put.

I think that this is only the second speech I have made in the entire passage of this bill. I have a couple of points. In respect of clean air, I know that we have allowed the debate to go a little bit wider than it should have on Part 3. Peter Brown made a comment earlier on. I would like to put on record that people who have advocated that one cannot change the air in a room to a sufficient standard should bear in mind that for decades now we have had armoured vehicles in use in Europe that are nuclear, biological, and chemical - capable. To protect the crew, those vehicles have ventilation systems that are able to filter out all nuclear fallout and the radiation that may be contained in dust. If we can do that with armoured vehicles in combat situations, and if we can build tented hospitals and produce sufficient clean air for people to have major surgery, then I am sure that we can clear the air in bars. [Interruption] That is right. All we have to do is to clear the tobacco out of the air.

I appreciate Mr Donald pointing out the group of young folk visiting the Chamber today, because I want them all to understand that Part 3 is probably targeted at those of them who smoke. The member of Parliament in the chair, Steve Chadwick, is a person who does not believe that young people have the right to go and smoke in a bar with their friends. People like Steve Chadwick have passed other bills that enable young people to drink at the age of 18, but those young people are not to dare to have a cigarette while they are in a bar, because the person described in Part 3 as an enforcement officer may be the person standing beside them.

Those people do not come in uniforms. I would have liked Part 3 to provide for a uniform for these officers—an armband with crossed cigarettes in the form of a Nazi swastika, or something like that, because that is the type of person they will be. I say to these young people that those officers will be spying on their every little move, because it would appear, according to the Labour Government—which wants to dictate everything they do in their lives—that young people do not have the brains and the smarts to make up their own minds as to whether they will smoke, where they will smoke, and when they will smoke. These enforcement officers will be in disguise, working undercover in bars, in nightclubs, checking on all these young people—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: In shorts and bobby socks.

Yes, we are bit worried about the type of people who will be employed. Perhaps this is an employment opportunity for any young person who wants to be an enforcement officer. Young people may want to go and see Steve Chadwick in Rotorua and ask for a job, and then they can spy on their mates. They may even pick up a bounty for doing so. How wonderful!

It would seem that the Labour Government is more interested that young ladies should not smoke in bars but be put out on to the footpath and made to look like hookers. This is the Government that legalised prostitution. This legislation is going to push young women smokers—who are not prostitutes—out on the streets at night, while all their mates are in the bar having a drink, enjoying the band, and having a great time. All I am saying is that enough people have expressed their concern that a certain group of New Zealanders are being treated so differently and not being allowed to stay in a bar with their friends and smoke.

This Labour Government does not seem to understand that everybody here is perfectly capable of making a decision for himself or herself. If people go out at night to a bar with their friends to have a quiet drink, and if they choose to be with a person who smokes, they do not want an enforcement officer to be hanging off their shoulder, checking, monitoring, and watching what they are doing. These enforcement officers will be taking samples of air in a place, using any device for that purpose that they bring with them. What device? Are they going to take a big lungful of air, rush outside, blow it into a bag and run away secretly and test or sample it? Are they going to come in with a big vacuum cleaner and hoover up the air, then rush away with a little sealed bag? The bill does not mention whether that device is a scientifically proven, credible device. What sort of legislation is that?

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will say “Aye”, of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it. A party vote is called for?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When this debate commenced, I sought the assurance of the Chair, who was not yourself, that the ruling given by the Speaker on 17 September 2003 that there must be a full and very wide-ranging debate—and I am quoting from his ruling—would be upheld. In seeking that assurance, I noted that some 40 calls had been allowed on Part 2 of the bill before the closure motion was accepted. By my recollection, the debate on this part began at approximately 20 past 8, which means that, at the most, some 16 or 17 calls—not 40 calls—have been accepted. It seems to me that under any reasonable assessment of the Speaker’s ruling that there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate, just 16 or 17 calls—as opposed to 40 on the previous part—does not meet that description. I accept that this part is more specific, but it is not so specific as to warrant the closure being taken so early, so I think that the only course of action is that I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

Speaker Recalled