Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee.

I would like to say at the beginning of this debate that I do not smoke. It is now some 18 months since the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill passed into law. It appears to me that enough time has passed for Parliament now to revisit that legislation, and that we can have a look at what unintended consequences have been created by the passing of that law. The primary effect of the smoke-free law has been that many people are no longer calling into their local pubs or clubs; they are just staying at home. Much of the camaraderie that used to exist in those establishments has now gone, and the reason is that it is all too hard. If people want to have a smoke, they are forced out into the cold. They cannot take their drinks outside; there is a huge issue about what happens to drinks that have not been drunk. Around the country, various measures are being tried to make sure that people are not able to spike drinks.

When people do go outside, they often get hassled by kids who ask them for cigarettes, by pedestrians who are trying to walk by, or by neighbours who are not used to having noise outside the pub or club. In fact, sending people outside has created a whole new set of problems. There have been complaints about noise, obstruction, and litter, as well. Pub and club owners have a sense of responsibility for what is going on outside, yet they are usually unable to do too much about it.

The effect of the law on non-smokers has also been unexpected. Non-smokers have suddenly found that they too have to go outside into the cold, because if they do not go outside with the smokers, there is nobody left in the bar to talk to. That was something nobody predicted when that bill was being passed into law.

In some parts of the country, illegal drinking houses have now been set up in garages and sheds. They do not have liquor licences, and there are no safeguards. There is none of the good host responsibility that needs to take place. I ask Labour members whether that is what they intended; I suspect it is not.

A major effect of the law change has been that small businesses up and down the country have really had a problem. For many, patronage has gone down by about half; others have been forced to close. I received a very desperate letter when the smoke-free law first went through from an owner of one of the cigar bars around New Zealand. He said that nobody goes into his cigar bar unless he or she wants to smoke a cigar. He said that no staff member works at his cigar bar unless he or she likes to smoke cigars, as well. He asked why Labour was trying to destroy his business. I can only presume that that was not the intention of the Government. If that is the case—if it was not the intention of the Government—then the Government should support this bill going to a select committee, so the select committee can have a look at the law that was passed and at what the unintended consequences have been, and can allow for a better balance in the law. That is all I am asking for with this member’s bill.

For some bars, clubs, and pubs, the law change has been an absolute disaster. Patronage has plummeted. The worst thing is that so many promises were given when the bill was going through the House and the Health Committee that heaps and heaps of non-smokers would come in to replace the smokers who might decide to stay at home. That simply did not eventuate in most establishments up and down the country, so many have closed. One of the big consequences is that many staff have been laid off. People who used to work in those places now no longer have jobs. It is not just bar staff, either. All the other suppliers of services and goods to bars and pubs have suffered, as well.

I will read some excerpts from a letter from Jane. She has a small pub in a city area, and her clientele are a lot of older people who enjoy coming in for a beer after they finish work. A lot of people who have retired want to come to enjoy music, play pool, be in good company, and really have a good time. In Jane’s case, she used to employ six bar staff, herself, and a security person. Now she is working on two staff—two bar people, that is all—herself, and a part-time security guard. She has gone from employing eight staff in that establishment, if we count her, to essentially having three and a half. She then states that people who stand in the street and try to have a smoke get hassled by young kids who want to smoke. When the kids are told they cannot have one, they get very abusive, vulgar, and sometimes extremely violent.

Then I have a letter from Annie, who lives in a provincial town. She writes: “I have owned my hotel for 19 years and have suffered through the many changes in the liquor industry, and I have survived until now. I feel so strongly about this breach of human rights that I have started smoking, after being a non-smoker for 30 years. This law has not only adversely affected the hotel industry but also the service providers, such as food, beverage, cleaning, juke box and pool table businesses, and maintenance contractors, electricians, plumbers, and so on. Many people have shed staff to cope with the downturn in income. On the upside, doctors and chemists are busier than ever before, because of patrons getting ill through having to endure the cold weather or becoming depressed about not being able to live a normal life.”

She goes on to apologise for writing such a politically incorrect letter, but says that she now feels particularly desperate about the future.

I have a letter here from Joe, who lives in a country area. He says, which I think is a bit of a worry, that establishments that ignore the law are getting all the customers. He says that some people are even travelling 10 to 15 kilometres in country areas to such places, and that, of course, they all drive back home. He says it is getting to the stage whereby one must ignore the law in order to carry on, or go broke. He makes two really interesting points. He says that he was told there would be an influx of non-smoking customers, buts asks where they are. That is the message that is coming from establishment owners up and down the country. He also writes: “We did not even have a choice or a chance to improve our bars to compensate for smoking, to allow a healthier environment to cater for both smokers and non-smokers. I know there is a sensible solution.”

That is what I am trying to do with this bill—provide a better, sensible solution to the problems that have emerged. If the Labour Government does not support this bill going to a select committee, then that will tell me it is anti-business. It is those little mum and dad businesses up and down the country that are feeling the brunt of that legislation. Since this bill was first drawn from the ballot, I have consulted widely up and down the country. As a result, I have put in an amendment, which members can find on the Table. It appears to me that the best solution is to allow the establishment of smoking rooms within bars, clubs, or pubs, and in those smoking rooms to have ventilation and proper air quality equipment, with proper air quality standards. Most of the establishments that have been able to have put together some sort of outdoor smoking area. Many of the publicans say—and they are quite happy to do it—that if they had the opportunity to provide that inside or under cover, where people can be kept warm, then that is what they would like to do.

So I ask that in this debate people consider that this is an amendment to fix up the problems that have emerged in the law. It is not draconian; it is common sense, and I ask members to support its referral to a select committee.

I listened to the sponsor of the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill with great interest, but some of the facts were quite incorrect. I would just like to correct those mistakes for the record and for Dr Newman. The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill was passed in December 2003. It was not implemented until December 2004, so there has not been 18 months of implementation.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: Since it was passed in the House.

That is right. It has been a reality out in the world for only 9 months. It is a strange thing that this exemption bill is being proposed so soon, when there is a growing tide of public support for the legislation as it was passed in 2003. As one would expect, non-smokers support the legislation as it stands. Support for it is now at 70 percent. That is really high—much higher than we ever expected when we passed the legislation. The other interesting statistic from the survey done by the Asthma Society is that even smokers’ support for the legislation has gone up from 22 percent to 42 percent. That is quite an astronomical increase—those people are actually saying that the legislation works.

I also found it interesting that the sponsor, Dr Newman, said that whether we vote for or against this bill will flush out whether we support business. The Act is not anti-business; it is about having clean air for people to breathe. It is not just for non-smokers; it is also for the workers, the volunteers, the institutions, and the public. The primary reason for passing the initial legislation was to ensure we had clean air.

I am sad that one pub in my electorate is struggling—but the Lake House is an institution that has always struggled, actually. It had its old drinkers, and they are not going back any more. That establishment is struggling, and I feel sad about that, but it is ridiculous to say that a bill that began its journey in 1990—15 years ago—went through incremental increases, and was reintroduced in 1999 by Tukoroirangi Morgan was something new and sudden that business did not adjust to. Business adjusts remarkably well to law. In 1999, when the next amendment about the environment was brought in, business knew. If publicans bought an establishment knowing that the legislation was going to be in the pipeline over the next 5 years, then it was at their own behest. Let the buyer beware.

I am not surprised that ACT is sponsoring an amendment to the very robust Act. That is consistent with its vote against the original bill, and then against the amendment bill in 2003. The exemptions proposed in this bill are simply stupid. They are stupid because we discussed the issue of exemptions at the Health Committee, when we went up and down the country. It was actually the Hospitality Association of New Zealand that told us we could not have exemptions. We had been considering exemptions very seriously. At one stage we thought that pubs could have a room for smokers, but that was unfair, and I will tell members why. If we allowed exemptions—and in this bill I notice that exemptions would apply just to licensed premises and clubs—what would happen to the RSAs that also came to us? What about others that wanted an exemption? Suddenly we had exemptions all over the place, and it was a really messy concept.

We also learnt one other very profound thing during the submission phase of the bill—which was not that long ago—which was that ventilation systems do not work. I notice that the proposer of this bill talked about having a smoking space with a good ventilation system and a clean air standard. There is no ventilation system that reduces or eliminates the carcinogenic products of second-hand smoke or the sidestream smoke from cigarette smoking. One simply cannot remove them from the air. The particulates get into the wall and then breathe back out of the wall space. So that is an idea that would not work, at all. Those contaminants stay in the environment; all a ventilation system does is blow them around.

Just as the sponsor for this bill has been going up and down the country—I have heard that Dr Newman has been in Rotorua, and good on her for finding out about it—I also went out. I had quite a haranguing from the Hospitality Association of New Zealand about the legislation and its impact, but the overwhelming support from the public about saving 350 lives a year is what drove me to sponsor the legislation. It was a public health bill, it was not against business, and there was support from the World Health Assembly, to which New Zealand is a proud signatory.

We are determined that this legislation must remain in place and not be tampered with. The exemptions would not work. During the submission phase, people from the RSA, the Pool Association, pétanque clubs, and the Matai Club all said that the smoke-free law must go across the board without exception, or else it would create an unfair playing field for commerce. We took that on board, and therefore took the all-or-nothing approach.

I think we are at a stage where it is too soon to look at the Act. After the Act was passed in 2003 we said that this issue would not be revisited. We need to get it well embedded. Any public health legislation does not start to bring about social change for over 5 years. We got social change overnight, and it is simply astonishing to me that people complied with the law.

It is also interesting that the Ministry of Health, as the enforcement agency, has had only 195 complaints across the country in the 9 months since the legislation’s operation. Ninety-four of those complaints came from licensed premises, and some of those were from publicans who said that they needed help with recidivist offenders who, when they were asked to go outside, would not go. So they were from responsible publicans. Fifty complaints came from workplaces where the smoke-free legislation was not being adhered to, 29 came from retail outlets, and 22 came from others.

In 2003, when the Act was passed, people said that there would be police out there. I can remember the hysteria in the House about the smoking police and the smoking Nazis. That has not happened. For there to have been 195 complaints from people asking for help with the enforcement of this legislation is simply astonishing, and far fewer than we ever expected. I certainly cannot support this bill. It is a little bit frivolous at this stage, and I am hopeful that my colleagues are with me on this.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that speeches from here on in are 5 minutes.

I appreciate that, Mr Assistant Speaker. Does that mean that I get two lots of 5? Is that what you mean?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I do not mean that—

I get two calls on this? I know you will want me to make such a long contribution—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You can try!

That is very kind, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill, and I do so for a number of reasons. It has been interesting, as I have been going around campaigning across the country in recent times, and going into various clubs—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: He’s gone.

Well, that is not what that member told the editor of the local paper, actually. It has been interesting going around campaigning, and going into different clubs. Of course, as National’s spokesperson on veterans’ affairs, I have been going to RSA clubs and specifically asking their members questions around the legislation. I have found some things that I am sure the House will be interested to know. One of the first things is that I was in a hotel where there was an outside restaurant.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: That’s unusual.

For me to be in a hotel? That is true! There was a restaurant that was out in the open—an outside, open-air restaurant place—where a number of the patrons went to have their lunch. They had been doing so, apparently, for some long time. The problem now is that that practice still continues, but that, of course, the smokers who used to be inside while the restaurant patrons were outside having their lunch are now going outside to have their cigarettes. They are now sitting outside with the people eating their lunch, and the people eating their lunch outside in the nice clean air are suddenly now finding, of course, that they are getting smoked on. It is causing some problems. What may have to happen is that the restaurant may have to move inside so that the smokers can stay outside.

The other thing that caused me some amusement was that I was talking to a mate of mine in a club in a town that will remain nameless. He said that the fascinating thing was that now when he goes down to the club there are normally three or four people inside and about 60 outside on the veranda—predominantly because they are smokers. He said the strange thing was that those on the outside were having a great time having their beers, their cigarettes, their fags—whatever—and that the three guys left inside ended up having a fight. It was probably because they were so bored they had to do something, I imagine.

So all sorts of strange things are happening. But the thing that struck me most of all in terms of the impact of this legislation is that when one goes into an RSA club and sees the old returned servicemen sitting there having their beers, talking and reminiscing as they do, one realises that in lots of ways that club is their home. It is where they are comfortable; it is what they have made it. It is their club—their place. Certainly they have visitors, lunch rooms, and different things, but I ask myself what right we in this Parliament have to interfere in how those men and women want to run their clubs. Those people set up those RSA clubs for themselves; they did not set them up for people to come in and out of. They did not set them up to provide for the general public; they set them up for themselves. They are guys—men and women—who have given of their time, and who have seen their colleagues and friends die, and here we are now, imposing rules on them against their wishes. If ever there was a case that we should be saying: “Hands off, folks! It is time to allow those people to make up their minds.”, it is this case.

I could give other instances, but I want us particularly to remind ourselves about the veterans. I want us to remind ourselves about the members of the RSA. Many of them go to an RSA club because it is the one place where they feel happy and where they feel at home. But we have interfered with that enjoyment. Those people gave of themselves for us; surely we should allow them some of their own time to spend in their clubs in their own ways, and should not interfere in the things they think are important for them.

New Zealand First supports this bill and is quite keen to see it go to a select committee. That is not because we want to promote smoking—far from it. I would say that the vast majority of New Zealand First MPs are non-smokers, and certainly the vast majority of our members are non-smokers. But we recognise the points that the honourable John Carter made, particularly concerning old ex-army folk sitting having a beer and a smoke at the RSA. We know that they are feeling the pinch with the smoke-free legislation, and that many of them are quite upset by it. They fought for this country and, rightfully or wrongfully, when they were in the military they were encouraged to smoke. Now, many of them are in their twilight years but when they go down to the RSA to watch a rugby match on the big screen they are prohibited from having a cigarette with their beer.

The honourable John Carter also touched on the fact that the premium place in restaurants, certainly in the summer months, is outside. I always go outside with my wife. My wife enjoys going out to lunch and sitting on the balcony of a restaurant. But, now, who are we surrounded by? Smokers! It is absolutely ridiculous. The smokers now come outside and take the premium seats in a restaurant. That is daft. It is also true to say, and I take Steve Crawford’s comment—

💬 Darren Hughes: Steve Chadwick.

Steve Chadwick, I beg your pardon.

💬 Darren Hughes: The member has got Joan Crawford on the mind.

Clearly, I have. Steve Chadwick stated that there are no inspectors or what have you, but the Act allows for inspectors to go into an RSA, a club, or a pub and, if the manager is not readily available, to take photographs of people who might be sitting there breaking that law. I ask the members on the Government side of the House whether that is the New Zealand we want. Is that the New Zealand the Labour Party wants? Do its members want inspectors to go into a pub or club and take a photograph of somebody who is smoking, if they cannot readily find the manager. I think that that is an absolute disgrace, and at the very least this bill will address that issue.

We heard the Hon Damien O’Connor a few months ago, in reply to a question in the House, say that 50 percent of bars and pubs are the same or better off, but if that is taken the other way around it means that 50 percent are the same or worse off. Some bars and some pubs, we know, are losing a lot of money. Some have already closed down. Some would willingly adhere to a non-smoking policy if it were not compulsory for all premises to be non-smoking areas.

This is a bill that gives authority to nanny State to rule on average New Zealanders’ lives. Most New Zealanders are intelligent when it comes to smoking or not smoking, and to where they want to smoke when it comes to eating and drinking in establishments. New Zealand First does not believe that we should impose those sorts of restrictions on people. The average person goes to a club or a pub to enjoy a meal and a drink. Some go to enjoy a meal, a drink, and a smoke, and we should be providing for all New Zealanders, not just non-smokers. We now see many bars and establishments in a number of areas around New Zealand where smokers congregate outside, and as we walk past we see dog-ends littering the pavements. I ask members whether that is the New Zealand we want.

We believe that by going to a select committee this bill will allow the New Zealand public to have a voice to say whether the current law is working. New Zealand First is not promoting smoking; we are promoting a fair go for all New Zealanders. We welcome this bill going to a select committee.

I rise to support my colleague Muriel Newman’s bill. I support it because she is trying to get back a little part of the property rights that have been taken away from businesses. I used to smoke. I hate smoking now. My father died of lung cancer, and I watched him die of lung cancer. It is not a pretty sight. It is not a nice thing to die of. But I support people’s right to smoke. Tobacco is still a legal substance. More than that, I support the rights of those who have bars, restaurants, and clubs to have smokers on their premises. These are not public premises. Who pays the rent? Who pays for the leases? Who pays the costs of staff and all the other overheads? Who pays for the insurance? The owners do. The owners have the right to ban people if they smoke, or to ban them if they do not smoke. At least they should have the right to do that. They do not have it any more.

If this bill is really about health and clean air, as Steve Chadwick said, why has the Government exempted places like marae and prison cells? Māori on marae are deemed to be intelligent enough to choose whether they want to be smoke-free. Indeed, a lot of marae are smoke-free now. But other ordinary New Zealanders who run bars, clubs, and restaurants are not deemed to be intelligent enough to choose. Why should a prisoner in his or her cell be able to smoke, if this is really about clean air and protecting lives, when the person whom he or she may well have mugged and stolen from cannot stagger into a bar, sit down with a beer or a gin and tonic and have a cigarette to calm his or her nerves? That is why this bill is so iniquitous.

Steve Chadwick talked about 350 lives being saved because of the second-hand smoke that workers who breathe in the second-hand smoke in bars are alleged to suffer from. Firstly, that is dodgy science. Secondly, if the Government is really concerned about people dying from inhaling second-hand smoke, why does it not save another 350 lives by banning smoking in the home? We all know that if that science is true—if it is true that people are dying from inhaling second-hand smoke—then the real enemy in this is in the home, and especially in the homes of Māori, because Māori have the highest statistics for smoking, especially young Māori women smoking near their babies.

That is where this Government, if it were serious about people’s health and about stopping them from dying, would ban smoking altogether. But, of course, it would never do that—firstly, because it would be totally politically incorrect to do that to Māori, and, secondly, because of the huge amount of taxes any Government gets from selling cigarettes. Might I add that those taxes more than pay for the public health spend that is taken up by people with smoking-related diseases. Anyone who has gone through duty free and seen the difference in cost between what a carton of cigarettes costs in duty free and what it costs in the shops here will know how much of what we spend on cigarettes goes to the Government.

So this is clearly about property rights. It is clearly even more about breaching the property rights of businesses, because it is businesses that have been singled out for this ban. It is not homes, it is not marae, and it is not everywhere else. That is why anyone in this House who is concerned about supporting property rights—like United Future, which has brought in its own member’s bill on property rights—should be supporting this bill.

I rise as a non-smoker who has many friends of a diverse age range who smoke, to oppose this bill. This bill is plainly frivolous and silly in its proposal to make exemptions to section 12 of the Smoke-free Environments Act—which, I remind the House, came into force only in December last year and has been extremely successful legislation. The exemptions proposed would not work. They would simply be messy, unnecessary, and petty. The fact is that smoke-free laws are saving lives around the world, without putting bars out of business, and that is also the case in New Zealand.

The Smoke-free Environments Act provides for the protection of workers, volunteers, and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. No one who reflects on that fact can see the Smoke-free Environments Act as a negative step. The Act does not take away the smoker’s right to smoke, but it protects the right of non-smokers not to have second-hand smoke forced upon them. I remind the House that I am one of the 75 percent of the population who are non-smokers.

We are already seeing the success of this law, with a survey commissioned from UMR Insight Ltd in April this year showing that 70 percent of people support the smoking ban in pubs and bars. Even smokers are appreciating the benefits of smoke-free bars and pubs. The survey also revealed that 42 per cent of smokers now support the ban, compared with 22 percent in the previous survey, conducted in November. Support from non-smokers increased to 75 percent, up from 66 percent. Second-hand smoke is 90 times more dangerous than asbestos. New Zealand’s over 10,000 hospitality workers face dramatically increased health risks from second-hand smoke exposure. New Zealand’s restaurant and bar workers face nearly five times more exposure to second-hand smoke than someone who lives with a smoker, and they run an estimated 50 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer. The Act is a good one. It does not deserve frivolous amendment, and I will continue vocally to oppose such amendment.

The Green Party will be voting against this bill, both for health reasons and to uphold people’s rights, particularly the right to be in a healthy environment if they so choose. I have noticed in the hotels that I have frequented that the employees—the people who deliver the beer—are very thankful for the recent change in the law. They are very thankful, because it is a much nicer and healthier environment for them. We have to think of them. Someone who is serving a long shift in a very smoky bar, as these workers used to do, is in a very difficult situation in terms of both discomfort and health. It is calculated that these employees had several times more risk of cancers and other diseases than people who actually live with smokers, because bar workers were constantly in a smoky environment under the old system, in the smokiest of pubs.

This bill contains a provision that if all employees agree, then smoking may be allowed in a bar. But I cannot see that it is very likely that employees would purposely put themselves in a smoky environment. That is not what we have heard when talking to such employees. It may be that employees who are desperate to have the job and the money coming in would sign some consent form, but they would not really be doing so of their own free will; it would just be to keep the job.

Another point that has been raised is the question of patronage. We are in a transition phase, as Steve Chadwick pointed out. It may be that in the interim, patronage goes down in some hotels. The hotel I went to the other day, Galbraith’s Alehouse at the top of Symonds Street in Auckland, was packed to the gunnels, as it was—and it was fairly full—in the smoking days. A good pub where a good atmosphere is created will be well patronised.

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

Before the dinner break I was saying that we are in a period of transition to the new situation, and there may be a bit of a drop in patronage during that transition, but when we look at the statistics and see that cigarette smoking has declined to 25 percent of the population, it makes sense that there will be more people like me—non-smokers who did not go to a club or a hotel very much, because of the smokiness of it. I mentioned early in my speech, when Muriel Newman asked me, that I go to Galbraith’s Alehouse on Mt Eden Road, at the top of Symonds Street. I do not think I am allowed to advertise in Parliament, but I point out that I used to go there but could not stay very long when it was very smoky. They did not really get much out of me because it got too smoky. Now I go there for a longer period. I am sure there are more like me coming back.

Sure, non-smokers have been desocialised a little bit. That is because we could not stand the smoke in the pubs for a long period and we got out of the habit of going to pubs. We are getting back into the habit now, although not over-imbibing when we go. John Carter and others have told us stories about the old diggers at the RSA, and it is true that a higher percentage of the older generation they represent smoke, so that does create certain problems for them.

But we need to look at the health questions. It is a question of health rights—not just of individual rights, but of the rights of everyone whom smokers are putting health risks on. For example, those old diggers with emphysema, on their last legs almost, are forced to be in a smoky environment at the RSA, and we have to think of them, as well. We know that all the options put up in this bill—ventilation, etc.—do not work. That is how I see it—it is a rights issue. It is about the right of people to have a smoke-free environment. There are options for smokers in terms of smoking, taking breaks to smoke in other environments, but not in the pubs where we all socialise.

This bill, brought forward by the ACT member Muriel Newman, is a step in the right direction. It adds back to the debate a bit of balance about freedom of choice, and particularly about reaffirming property rights. Of the members of this Parliament, I am probably the only one who has run hospitality venues. I have had my own business in that regard, and we were smoke-free. We chose to be smoke-free prior to the enactment of the principal Act, because that was obviously the demand of our customers—not for any other reason. The point was that we did not need the nanny State to tell us what to do. We chose to do that of our own accord, because we were responding to the market.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons why the original legislation—now the principal Act—was supported and pushed through at the end of last year was supposedly the pretext of protecting employees. It was not supposed to be the pretext of protecting the health of customers, who could choose whether to come in. The problem is that at many hospitality venues there are no employees but literally a husband and wife team, both of whom may smoke. There are no employees to take into consideration, yet those people are still penalised by not being able to do what they want to do in the privacy of their own investment. And that brings me to a very important point. Individuals or groups of individuals borrow money, or put money together, to open up a hospitality venue, and then they are told by the nanny State that in the privacy of their own investment, their own property, they may not do certain things, such as smoke. However, if a person goes out and rapes somebody or murders somebody, and then goes to prison, that person can smoke, and the employees of the prison—and there are a number of them—do not get the same special regard paid to their health and safety. In other words, those people, who are Government employees living off the taxpayer, are expected to endure billows of smoke, yet people who choose to go into a private property which is a place of business are discriminated against. I do not think that that is fair, at all. There is no balance.

If this is a health issue, though, why stop at smoking? Why do we not pursue a quality of air standard? The effect on air quality is one of the reasons why we got rid of asbestos, as somebody mentioned earlier. But there are other pollutants in the air, as well. So what are we saying? We are saying that certain types of pollutants are not OK and that other types we simply do not legislate against. Would not the best thing be to legislate for a quality of air standard, and be done with it? That would protect customers, employees, and the employer, as well. I do not understand why prisons are given a separate status from that of private property. Why should the Government be an exception to its own do-gooder legislation? In other words, why does the Government shove its ideology down the throats of individual citizens, but we as a Government—not me personally, of course, because I want to have very little to do with that Government—

💬 Nandor Tanczos: Except for your supply and confidence.

Well, we are living up to our agreement, but I tell members right now that my supply of confidence has run bloody short. It seems to me that the Government is giving itself an exception to a rule that it is trying to apply to individual rights. The Government is saying that it is somehow beyond a respect for property rights, and that it cares for its own employees less than for others, as second-class employees. But it is trying to shove its ideology down the throats of people who want to carry on their business unhindered by Government interference in the privacy of their own investment. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

One of the things we need to do is to open up the wider issue that the bill addresses, which is the right of people to congregate and do what they want to do. In a lot of rural areas pubs are suffering dramatically. Employees are losing their jobs, and communities in the rural environment have to seek alternative social hubs. One of the alternatives that is happening is that people’s garages are being turned into de facto pubs. People go there and put some money into the kitty, and those places are becoming de facto pubs. So all that this Government has really done is to take away legitimate business and drive legitimate users of hospitality underground. That is fundamentally wrong.

I stand to take a brief call on this bill, the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill, and, like my Government colleagues, I stand to oppose it. The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Act, which came into force in December of last year, provides for the protection of workers, volunteers, and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. That being the case, we have to ask ourselves why this bill was introduced to the House. I heard the Green speaker Keith Locke earlier on describe this bill as frivolous, and I think he is quite right.

The speaker from United Future talked about property rights. Well, what about the rights of the workers, volunteers, and the general public to go about their workplace responsibilities and daily lives without being inhibited by somebody who smokes blowing smoke in their space? Those are the most important rights that any Parliament can protect.

The member who sponsored this bill, which I call her swansong, is unaware of the support that the public in general has for the current Smoke-free Environments Act. It is quite widely accepted in those places that she promotes an exemption for that smoking is just not allowed. Workers can go about their work without being inhibited. Some workers may be harassed by employers who seek their support for smoking in clubs, and pressure them into agreeing to allow people who enjoy a cigarette to smoke in their space. Those smokers can go outside to a car-park or to a paddock down the road and enjoy themselves there, uninhibited.

So this bill really has no place in this House, and certainly this habit has no place in today’s society. Statistics are telling us that each year one-third of Māori deaths are attributed to smoking, either directly or indirectly. Amongst Māori communities there is huge support for the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Act in that even on marae, where smoking was quite common and accepted, it now is just not accepted and is not done. In fact, the younger generation are continually reminding those who come on to marae to leave their cigarettes in the car, and are telling them that if they feel like a smoke they should go outside to have one.

I rise to oppose the first reading of Muriel Newman’s bill—the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill—and oppose it with some pride. When I consider all the arguments we had to listen to in Parliament at the time when Steve Chadwick sponsored the first bill through—arguments about the end of the entertainment industry, and the end of bars and clubs—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Doom and gloom!

As the Hon Dover Samuels says, it was all the usual doom and gloom stuff that we have come to expect from the ACT party. I can understand the ACT party members having a slightly fatalistic and final view of the world at the present time. I do not criticise their sort of world view; one would think it would be doom and gloom. One would understand their thinking that things were going up in a puff of smoke, and the smoke we will see them disappearing into, I think, will not be carcinogenic, in terms of other members of the House.

But I want to tell them that this legislation is working really, really well. What has happened is that the three-quarters of the people who do not—

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: Go and talk to people.

That is exactly what I have been doing. The three-quarters of people who do not smoke have now experienced life in the new environment in bars and clubs, and they actually say: “Gee, I can notice a difference. I was prepared to stick up for my friends who smoked, and I thought maybe that legislation was a bit over the top. But now that I can see what a clean-air environment actually means and what it is like to go out and eat, socialise, dance, drink, and party in, I actually quite like it.”

But, more than that, Dr Newman needs to know that people who smoke can actually see the difference, as well. We get far more people telling us, as we move about the place, that the legislation is not as bad as they thought it would be than people telling us that we absolutely have to change it.

Of course, New Zealand was not the world leader in this regard. We always used to be at the cutting edge of smoke-free initiatives, but after 9 long years of a National Government we fell behind on all those important public health measures—as is always the case—because it was too keen on trying to cut taxes, education, health, and pensions, and making New Zealand a mean and miserable place. So we have had to try to bring these issues back to the fore.

In that regard the Americans have actually had a bit of a run on us. California, which is a pretty busy place with a lot of entertainment and people out and about enjoying life, and New York City—again, a big entertainment place with people out enjoying themselves—have seen significant gains already through having smoke-free environments.

We have never said that people should not smoke. Obviously, that is an adult’s right to choose. If people are 18 years of age or over, they can choose to smoke. But because we know categorically that smoking has an effect on other people, we have said: “Wouldn’t it be quite a good public health idea to try to make sure that other people did not suffer from the actions of a few?”, because only a quarter of the population, of course, smoke. The ACT party, which one would think would say that people should be responsible for their own actions and not cause externalities to other people, seems to be totally blind to the fact that other people breathe oxygen that has been polluted with tobacco smoke in confined environments—that is, inside. People can go outside and smoke—that is fine; it is a big planet. But what we are saying is that our bars, cafes, and restaurants should remain smoke-free because it is working very, very well.

The Californian Medical Association reported that lung cancer rates in California have fallen six times faster than those in any other state in America that did not have public measures like this. That statistic alone—those kind of gains—would indicate to me that this is a good idea that we should continue to pursue.

I acknowledge that some clubs have found the legislation difficult. What I do say is that bar owners have said to me that it is nowhere near as bad as they thought it would be and nowhere near as bad as the Opposition made out at the time. The scaremongering that was going on was, of course—as everything is—from National. National told us that the Employment Relations Act would cause the end of the economy and joblessness all round. Of course, what the legislation has created is much fairer workplaces and the lowest unemployment in the OECD. So things are not quite so bad as Opposition parties often say.

The Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act is making a difference. People who work in this environment are finding it is worthwhile, and also patrons are enjoying the smoke-free environments.

💬 Marc Alexander: Rubbish!

Marc Alexander calls out “Rubbish!”. When one goes into those places and asks people whether they prefer the clean air—and I am thinking of the Levin “cossie club” or across at our RSA—do people say: “The worst thing about my Friday night now is that I can’t breathe in other people’s smoke.”? How many people have said that to the member?

💬 Marc Alexander: Dozens.

The member is now, in the final days before Parliament rises, running the real risk of a privileges case because he is claiming that dozens of people have said to him: “My Friday nights are ruined because I can’t breathe in the second-hand smoke of others.” I find that proposition very difficult to follow, indeed. What we see is that those places are improving. All the statistics that come from other areas show that more people are spending money, more people are enjoying the atmosphere. I think this is a good measure that we have taken. It is just like when smoking on aeroplanes was banned and people said it was PC nonsense.

💬 Dail Jones: When was that?

One used to be able to smoke on a plane on long-haul flights. If one had the first row of “non-smoking” behind the last row of “smoking”, presumably the ACT party would say that was all right because there was a decent exemption.

It is hugely disappointing, I have to say, to listen to the members of the Labour Party who clearly have not read the bill. The bill allows for people who smoke to go into a smoking room that has good ventilation and proper air quality standards so that their cigarette smoke does not go around the rest of the establishment. But clearly those members have not read the bill. It is very disappointing that Labour members, along with the Greens, are so ideologically driven that they are not even prepared to say that there are huge problems with their legislation and that it would be a good thing to send it back to a select committee and let the committee have a look at it and take out the problem areas. They seem to be absolutely determined to take away every single right of citizens who want to enjoy having a cigarette.

As I said earlier in this debate, I do not smoke myself, but the point is that it is not legal in New Zealand to smoke in public places. Those parties are also taking away the rights of the small businesses who serve the public. I think that this Labour Government has just gone way too far with its legislation. It is political correctness gone mad. Fancy forcing veterans from the RSA out into the cold to have a smoke! Those people put their lives up for this country—and for them—and they are being forced out into the gutter and being treated like dogs. I think it is appalling in this society that we have a Government that is prepared to do that. I believe that every single New Zealander should be treated with respect. This Government is saying to those New Zealanders who chose to smoke: “You are second-class citizens.” I say that that is not good enough. I stand up for their rights to be treated decently in New Zealand, and I stand up for the rights of the small businesses who serve them to be treated decently, as well.

All I am asking is that smokers be allowed to smoke in a smoking room in an establishment as long as it complies with the air quality standards. I personally do not see anything wrong with that. I would like to thank United Future, New Zealand First, and, I understand, most of the National Party for supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. It is common sense. I say to the Labour Government members that when they get thrown out at the election, because they are a pack of dictators, they will find that this bill will be reviewed by a select committee because New Zealanders know that what is going on is not right. Non-smokers are having to sit outside in the cold as well, because there is nobody left inside the pub for them to talk to. It is a shame that this anti-business Labour Government does not care about establishments up and down the country that have lost half their patronage. All the little suppliers who provide the pubs with goods and services are going broke, as well. People are setting up illegal drinking establishments around the country. Labour does not seem to care about that either.

It is absolutely outrageous that Labour is so arrogant that it will not allow this member’s bill, which says it is time to have another look at the law and correct its unintended consequences, to be referred to a select committee. Labour does not even have the gumption or the goodwill to send the bill to a select committee so that the next Parliament can have a look at the law and make sure it is doing what it was supposed to do. When I started out in this debate I was charitable enough to think that the problems that are occurring up and down New Zealand are actually unintended consequences. But having listened to the Labour Party speakers I have to say that I now believe they do not care at all. One of the members stood up and said: “Isn’t it great that on marae people are choosing not to smoke.” I say that is fantastic, but at least they had the choice. This Government took away the choice from every other sort of establishment in this country. It is like a dictatorship. It has got worse as the 6 years have gone by. Heaven help New Zealand if it has another 3 years of this Government.

There are still a couple of moments left for those members who plan to oppose this bill to change their minds—an act of charity to a party. I have had about seven member’s bills before this Parliament and not one of them has ever been sent to a select committee, even though many of them had merit, and in fact many of the ideas have been passed into law by the Government. I say that this bill should be sent a select committee so that the next Parliament can have a look at it.

I seek leave for the National Party to cast a split vote in this debate.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that Mr Tisch will undertake to place on the Table the way in which National Party members have voted—naming those who have voted for the bill and those who have voted against it. I ask him to confirm that that will be the case.

That is correct.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you just clarify that the motion that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee occurs after the vote, if the vote is successful. Is that right?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is right.

Therefore I ask the House to support it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need to confirm that there is no objection to Lindsay Tisch’s seeking of leave. Is there any objection? There is not. It is agreed to.

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