Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill

This committee needs to consider how seriously we are taking this, because, now, having committed to the fact that we agree that the State should be required to prevent smoking in cars where children are present, then the question is: why are being asked to wait 18 months for this to become effective? The select committee debated this at length, and we got advice from officials—it was the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice—basically saying, “We consider this will undermine the efficacy of an enforcement agency as there will be no imperative to comply with the direction of an individual if an individual were not liable to penalty.” This was in response to my suggestion that the bill actually come into force on the day after it receives Royal assent, except for the infringement regime, because New Zealand Police told us that it would take 18 months for them to be able to implement the systems required to actually write infringements.

So, again, it reinforces that inconsistency about whether this is a bill, an Act, effective in prevention or prosecution. If it’s an Act effective in the prosecution, then our public health officials should have the force of law behind them when they go out in their health promotion campaigns, which can start straight away, to say that smoking in cars is bad. We’ve already got those TV ads, you know, with the woman sitting in the car by the side of the rugby field and the smoke drifting out the car as the kids are coming towards it. It’s a form of subtle stigmatisation of the smoking habit. Why not beef that up and say that not only is it wrong, it’s unlawful?

The fact that they might not be punished for it—and, indeed, that’s not the Government’s stated intention—should not prevent this House from requiring the Act to become effective as soon as the Governor-General gives it the Royal assent. So I am tabling a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), with apologies to the Minister because it did come quite late. This one I do have to take up. I had believed, actually, that National in the select committee report had indicated that we would do this. We certainly were unhappy with the timing of the implementation of the Act, but I didn’t actually do that, and, as a consequence, the SOP has come late.

The tabled SOP in my name, however, amends clause 2 so that the commencement for new sections 20D(3) and (4) and 20F come into force 18 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent, but the rest of the Act comes into effect on the day after it gets Royal assent. Now, those sections are the infringement regime. So the support for this and the appetite for this, I think, says two things. It’s a question, and the answer the Government gives to it will speak to what they really want to be doing here. Is this about prevention or prosecution and how energetically they want to pursue the goal of Smokefree 2025? Because if the answers to those questions are that it is a preventive strategy, not a prosecutorial one, and if the answer is “We are really serious about making sure we get to Smokefree 2025.”, then the committee must support my tabled amendment. It sends a very clear signal that we are serious about this, that we can take action on this.

I simply do not agree that there will be no imperative to comply with a direction if an individual were not liable to a penalty. And their response to that is there’s no imperative to even make the Act effective for 18 months. It was a very inconsistent piece of advice from the officials, who otherwise did a fantastic job. I must say it’s not my place to criticise the role of officials overall. They do a remarkable job for our select committees, but on this piece of advice, I respectfully and strongly disagree. We should be bringing this bill into force as soon as we can.

We should be requiring our health promotion agencies to highlight the reality that smoking in cars is now unlawful, albeit that there won’t be a punishment—they don’t need to say that—and we could spend 18 months on a public education campaign prior to the infringement regime coming in. That to me is common-sense lawmaking.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to follow on from my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, our health spokesperson, who, once again, is an Opposition spokesperson who doesn’t have an army of officials, but actually has tabled a very succinct Supplementary Order Paper that actually speaks volumes, in fact, of a change that this bill needs. Now, we all agree this bill is important and we all agree that this behaviour needs to stop sooner rather than later, so then why, as my colleague has pointed out, wait for 18 months after the Royal assent? Yes, we take the argument that there needs to be some time to put the infringement process in place, but I think what we’re actually doing is sending a very clear message. I mean, what’s the importance of bringing a bill to the House and then saying that, actually, we’ll wait 18 months? If this issue is an important issue that needs to take up the House’s time today, then why would it not be enacted once it gets the Royal assent?

We need to send a very clear message to those who are smoking in cars with young children. In fact, I would argue that getting rid of the 18-month stand-down, as I put it, is actually part of the education campaign that needs to be rolled out. If we are saying that it needs to be enacted urgently, we’re actually reinforcing that education campaign—that it needs to be taken seriously.

I would also like to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa, why maybe an Order in Council isn’t looked at. In fact, a good example is that some bills are going through select committees at the moment where they do have a date but they are also putting in an Order in Council. So if things are lined up earlier, then the enactment date can be brought forward. What we’re rather concerned at is that this might take longer than expected. And we come back to the original point from my colleague: why would we wait 18 months? If this is important enough for the House today, then why do we not send a very clear message?

When you break it up like that, as my colleague has done, it actually is simplified; yes, there are two parts to this: the enactment of the Act and sending a very clear message, and the infringement process. We don’t disagree that, potentially, it may take 18 months for that to be installed. But firstly, why would you not separate it, like the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and, secondly, why not put an Order in Council in? So if things line up earlier—because, of course, let’s be honest, a new Government coming up will probably get things done a bit quicker—we mightn’t need 18 months. Maybe we might be able to do it—and I see a few nodding heads—in a shorter time. So I would like the answer to those two questions from the Minister in the chair.

I do agree with the Hon Michael Woodhouse when he says that we should be looking at a social campaign, because, you see, the focus of this particular bill is about prevention; it is about changing people’s behaviour. This is not a punitive bill where we’re focusing on the infringement notices and on the police ensuring that people are fined. And on that note, we are not actually waiting for the 18-month period before the social campaign begins. In fact, the Ministry of Health has already had several discussions with the Health Promotion Agency so that as soon as the Royal assent is actually put in place, the Health Promotion Agency can begin the social campaign, because it is in our interest to let all of New Zealand know that this is a law that’s coming into line.

In terms of the infringement notices and the fines, the reason why we’re asking for the 18-month period is it will take a while to get that system up and running. Police will have to train their folks—you know, they do have the power of discretion if and when they do stop someone. One of the things that they could do instead of issuing a fine—what we’re actually asking the police, and they have to be trained in this—is refer people to a stop smoking or cessation service. This is one of the reasons why we’re asking for that period.

But the thing that we do agree with the honourable member on is the fact that we must focus on prevention and ensure that the whole of New Zealand, the public, knows that this law is coming into line, and that we should focus on ensuring that they know well in advance before the 18-month period is up.

I do want to reflect back on other jurisdictions, as I said earlier. In Australia, Canada, as well as the UK, they weren’t actually focused on the fines and the infringement notices. The focus there is basically on helping the country to change their behaviour, to ensure that when they go into a car, and if there are children in that car that are 18 years or younger, if they want to smoke, they possibly stop the car, step out, and smoke—that they change their behaviour and that they do not expose their children, their tamariki, to second-hand smoke.

We do know that it is actually the tar and the thousands of toxins that are in the smoke and tobacco—that is what is most harmful to our children, and that is absolutely what we’re wanting to change here, to ensure that we do not continue to expose our children to second-hand smoke, because the reality in Aotearoa New Zealand today is we still have up to 5,000 people who die from smoking-related diseases every year, and this is one of the reasons why we’re having this legislation being introduced, because this will help us get to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. It is about saving people’s lives, and in this instance, it’s all about saving our children’s lives. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take a very quick call to make three points—I won’t delay the consideration in committee. Can I first commend the Minister for her willingness to engage in this process. I think both the process in the committee of the whole House and, you know, even if the amendments aren’t agreed to, the thorough examination of them strengthens that process. So I do commend the Minister for that.

I heard an inconsistency in what she said around the fact that this was not about infringement, but the very reason we’re being delayed 18 months is because we’re going to put in place an infringement regime, and I just want to highlight the inconsistency there. I do agree, and I do hope, that the health promotion agencies are going to embark on an increased campaign, but they’re already doing it. It is not as strong a message to say this will soon be unlawful than it is to say this is unlawful, and I think we have an opportunity to strengthen that argument in that promotion.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 2 be agreed to:

Replace clause 2 with:

2 Commencement

(1) New sections 20D(3) and (4) and 20F come into force 18 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.