Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

I move, That the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill builds incrementally on the foundations of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990, which was a world leader at the time, by extending protections against tobacco smoke to all workers in indoor workplaces where two or more people work in a common airspace. The primary purpose of the bill is to extend the protections for workers, volunteers, and the public in the Smoke-free Environments Act; to reduce the harm caused to individuals by their smoking, particularly harm from exposure to second-hand smoke; and to further restrict minors’ access to smoking products, and the visual influence of smoking in front of minors; and to promote a smoke-free lifestyle as the norm.

The 1999 legislation was instrumental in what we see today in terms of changing public attitudes towards smoking, and the ever-decreasing rate of smoking amongst New Zealanders. Many New Zealanders now take smoke-free offices for granted, and the time has come to extend those same protections to those who work in factories, warehouses, schools, hospitality venues, taxis, shared work vehicles, and the like. This bill will bring the legislation up to date with overwhelming public opinion—90 percent support—that is calling for comprehensive protections from second-hand smoke. We know how far we have come when we travel as New Zealanders to other countries and experience the contrast of cultures that have yet to embrace smoke-free lifestyles.

This bill, I would like to stress, is not an anti-smoker measure. The Health Committee heard smokers tell us that they recognise all too well the risks of smoking for themselves and the people around them. About 80 percent of smokers want to quit. Many smokers also recognise that tobacco is one of the most addictive substances there is, and that it may take several attempts finally to succeed in quitting a habit that almost everyone began as a young person. I feel the utmost compassion for the 700,000 New Zealanders who are addicted to nicotine, most of whom want to quit but find the effort daunting. Perhaps the enactment of this bill and its provisions, which will provide 100 percent smoke-free indoor social venues, and allow for future pictorial health warnings and for better consumer information about what it is in these products, will allow them to live healthier, fuller, smoke-free lives. So the bill is not anti-smoker; it is about improving health and occupational health. It is about protecting all of us from the deadly effects of second-hand smoke, which is a significant health hazard in the workplace and a significant public health hazard that kills an estimated 388 people each year—about the same number of people who die on our roads each year.

As a midwife I know the impact of tobacco smoke on human health only too well. I have seen only too frequently the impact that second-hand smoke can have on our most precious resource for the future—young babies and children. Hopefully, this bill will change attitudes so that there is less smoking in the home, thus providing a healthier environment. In relation to young people, although this matter has received much less public attention, the bill makes important inroads into limiting the visibility “cool” factor, or access by young people to smoking products. Cigarettes will be limited in their visibility in stores and in access to them by young people, whether through illegal store sales, friends, family, or vending machines. We have already reduced the smoking rate among young people to 21.3 percent. Let us keep that number coming down, particularly for young Māori, by sending them positive smoke-free messages.

We all stand to gain from this law. Workers will not be exposed to a significant workplace habit. Employers will benefit from reduced accident compensation premiums, reduced staff turnover and absenteeism, and healthier staff. Smokers will benefit from clear boundaries about where they can and cannot smoke, and may feel more supported if they decide to quit. Taxpayers will benefit from long-term further decreases in smoking rates and in the billions of dollars that tobacco costs our society each year, not to mention the benefits for families and whānau of having fewer loved ones being sick or dying before their time.

The bill was considered at length by the Health Committee, and I would like to thank all the committee members, both in the past term and in the current term, for the way they carefully considered the bill and the enormous number of submissions. We heard 397 submissions and 7,656 formal submissions were received. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the current and past clerks and staff of the committee for their work on this bill. I wish to acknowledge publicly the Ministry of Health officials, who have provided absolutely outstanding service and advice, often within very short time frames, as well as parliamentary counsel, researchers, and all those people who helped us put this bill together. Congratulations on a job well done!

I wish to thank the many hundreds of people and organisations that took the time to make submissions. Even those who do not agree with the final outcome of the provisions of the bill, I thank for their input. The anti-smoking debate is one that has garnered a lot of public interest and debate in recent years, and we on the committee benefited from hearing a wide range of information and views.

In particular, I want to thank the non-Government organisations, members of which are sitting up in the gallery today, that represent public health concerns about smoking. They have taken a lot of flak in recent times, but let us remember and remind ourselves that they are genuine, hard-working people in small and highly committed organisations who have been most helpful in providing expert advice that has been enormously valuable to us, and for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Their input made it possible for the committee members to be confident that they made informed decisions on the issues, with all the relevant information before them. I hope their future is assured.

I am disappointed about the public debate in recent times, which has diverted attention from what the bill is all about—the public health of New Zealanders. The focus has been on a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research study of the Bream Bay Club, which, as I indicated in a press release, was a misdirected effort because it contributed nothing to the debate about the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. Just because a ventilation system can provide fresh air does not mean ventilation is able to remove carcinogens released into the air from cigarette smoke. I find it ironic, if not creative, that the same groups that argued before the committee that ventilation was hopelessly expensive and unfair are now the ones that have tried to sell ventilation as the answer to our prayers.

I wish to thank those in the Opposition parties who have been steadfast in their support for the health benefits of this bill. Their commitment in the face of overwhelming misinformation and rhetoric is to be applauded. The Green Party has demonstrated absolute support and has been unswerving in its commitment. I would like to thank MPs with personal and professional experience of the harm of tobacco smoke. I also want to mention Māori MPs who have seen and experienced the ravaging impact of tobacco-related diseases in their own whānau.

Finally, I want to thank and publicly acknowledge those who started the long, 4-year journey to this point. I refer to Tukoroirangi Morgan, who introduced the bill in 1999, and to the Minister of Health, Annette King, who significantly extended the original bill’s cover. The Minister has been supported unswervingly by Tariana Turia and Damien O’Connor, who have given the bill their utmost support. The Prime Minister has also provided incredible leadership and knowledge of public health to support this bill. The previous sponsor of the bill, who is sitting in the House today, Judy Keall, could never be forgotten, because she said “It’s all or nothing.” I am proud to have followed in my esteemed colleague’s footsteps in sponsoring this bill and considering its provisions as the chair of the Health Committee.

In conclusion, it is time to embrace the cultural change that has already shifted New Zealand to being a predominantly smoke-free society, while continuing to encourage and support those smokers who wish to quit. It is only logical that the current smoke-free provisions are extended to include all workers, particularly those who are most at risk from exposure. I applaud the vision in the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, and encourage and support its measures, which will go a long way to reducing the health and safety hazards of tobacco smoke in the workplace for all workers and all New Zealanders.

I thank the House for allowing me to speak on this very important and historic bill. I will certainly be supporting this bill, for two major reasons. The first reason is that it is all about freedom—giving ordinary New Zealanders the opportunity to be free from second-hand smoke. The second reason is that it is one of the most important and effective public health measures that can be instituted—diminishing smoking and diminishing second-hand smoke.

Firstly, I shall speak on the question of freedom, because I think that is the underlying principle behind libertarian philosophy. I see various members of the Libertarianz party from time to time, and I discuss that philosophy with them. It certainly says that the most important thing is for individuals to have as much freedom as possible, provided that it does no harm. Second-hand smoke undoubtedly does harm. It is measurable in New Zealand in the order of 400 deaths per year, and the morbidity is considerable. Not only does smoking cause ill health, and premature death for older age groups; perhaps even more significant, children and babies in utero may be profoundly adversely affected by the effects of second-hand smoke.

In 1999 the ministry sent a letter to the Minister of Health saying that the greatest gains would come from health promotion, disease prevention, and the integration of primary and secondary health-care. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 1990 legislation, in the form of the Smoke-free Environments Act, had a profound effect on diminishing smoking, and a profound effect on enabling ordinary New Zealanders to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere in public places. The current legislation is particularly aimed at the workplace. If one considers the underlying principle that this legislation is to allow ordinary New Zealanders—individuals, and workers—freedom from having second-hand smoke imposed on them, then one sees that it is legislation worth having.

There is no doubt that the legislation has its problems. I note that the extraordinary bureaucracy and prescriptiveness are somewhat typical of an overzealous socialist Labour Government having a field day. That was aptly described by the Hon Maurice Williamson when he drew attention to the fact that tobacco product displays are required to be in the typeface known as Helvetica, in a Roman font, and in upper and lower case, and are strictly prescribed. So, in one way or another, the Prime Minister is determined to get the first three letters of her name inscribed in this legislation, even if it means resorting to prescribing the typeface format of tobacco product displays!

The other issue is the existing Occupational Safety and Health Service legislation, under the Health and Safety in Employment Act, which directly points out that second-hand smoke is a workplace hazard. That was reinforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Service manual, which also required employers to remove second-hand smoke from the workplace. If that had been enforced, perhaps one could argue that there would be no need for this legislation. But given the current climate and the history of New Zealand, and the subtlety of the tobacco industry, there is an absolute need, in my mind, for this special legislation to be there.

From a personal point of view, having worked as a research pathology registrar in the United States, and having spent a career in obstetrics, I have absolutely no doubt about the profound, adverse effects of cigarette smoking. The images I saw of blackened lungs, when I used to dissect cadavers, have been indelibly imprinted on my mind—and not only from the point of view of the lungs but in respect of the whole organ system of the body. Perhaps far more important than that is the impressions that have been left with me as an obstetrician delivering profoundly underweight babies of women who had smoked heavily throughout their pregnancy. The absolute unfairness that those children should not have a chance ever to achieve their potential, the absolute unfairness that those children were not free of all the adverse effects of smoke from the moment they were conceived, have also led me to believe that it is vital to do everything possible to achieve a smoke-free environment for all New Zealanders to enjoy, and particularly the children of New Zealand, who often do not have a choice about it.

During the deliberations on this bill I was amazed and troubled by the reasoning of some people—people I least expected to hear it from. I speak of the Hon Peter Dunne of United Future calling enforcement officers “health Nazis”. That was uncalled for, it was inappropriate, and it showed that he absolutely did not understand the basic elements of what this is all about—including the science that shows that ventilation systems are just not effective.

It is important to acknowledge some of the people who have worked extremely hard over many years to ensure that this legislation comes into reality. Last Saturday I attended the Action on Smoking and Health 21st celebration, and I want to acknowledge its determined workers, who for a very long time were under unimaginable pressure—people such as Dr Murray Laugeson, Trish Fraser, Jennifer Lamm, and Jan Henderson, and many others over the years. Physicians, other organisations such as the Cancer Society and the National Heart Foundation, and individuals such as Professor Robert Beaglehole have made a huge contribution in the genesis of this bill. Within Parliament, people from all parties have made big contributions. I acknowledge Tukoroirangi Morgan; Steve Chadwick; sitting up there, Judy Keall; my colleague Dr Lynda Scott; and many others who have made important contributions.

Lastly, I want to say that I took the trouble to read through the debates of the 1990s when the Smoke-free Environments Act was in its genesis. The debates suggested that the sky would fall in and all sorts of terrible things would happen. But there are few people who have a sense of freedom who do not celebrate the fact that New Zealand buses, trains, and public places, and even Parliament, are now essentially smoke-free. It is patently obvious that I am a keen proponent of the major thrusts of this bill. The underlying philosophy that it will help to allow ordinary New Zealanders in our kindergartens, schools, and workplaces to be free of the adverse effects of second-hand smoke is worthy of celebrating and worth progressing as one of the most achievable public health measures of our time.

I rise to support my colleague Steve Chadwick, the sponsor of this bill, and I am pleased to follow the speech made by Dr Hutchison. When the bill is passed tonight, with the support of members from right across the House, it will be great news for the vast majority of New Zealanders, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the people who have been involved in bringing it to this stage, including Tukoroirangi Morgan and Judy Keall. I also congratulate all the public health workers, many of whom are here tonight, on their efforts.

I start by saying that I smoked for 10 years—in my younger, sillier days—and then was fortunate enough to be able to give up the habit. I started out, probably not as a person who was absolutely committed to this bill being the way forward, but, having sat on the Health Committee for a year under Judy Keall, listening to submissions from the top to the bottom of this country, and hearing the evidence, I can say that it is undeniable and irrefutable that second-hand smoke kills people in New Zealand.

Each year almost 400 people die from second-hand smoke; over 4,500 New Zealanders die annually from smoking itself. We all know family members who have lost their lives to smoking-related illnesses. We must do everything possible to eliminate that misery and waste. This bill is about protecting all New Zealanders from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in our workplaces, schools, pubs, bars, and, of course, other public social areas.

The arguments put up by the Opposition on this bill are no doubt the same ones that were used back in 1990. As the previous speaker said, the sky did not fall in. Entertainment venues have continued and prospered, but they can do better. There has been much rhetoric, and scare tactics, about the potential economic impacts of this bill, and I am aware of the frustration and anger felt by some bar owners who perceive that the legislation will spell financial disaster for them. Right across New Zealand publicans have expressed to me the worries they have about the viability of their businesses. However, I think the legislation presents more opportunities than problems.

A bar on the West Coast, the Blackball Hilton, has been smoke free for almost 8 years. In the heart of good Labour West Coast families, it has prospered and been smoke free. The passage of this bill will promote an environment in which families can bring their children to restaurants without the nuisance of second-hand smoke. It is a chance for non-smokers up and down this country who shy away from bars to enjoy themselves without being exposed to the dangers of second-hand smoke. It is a chance for restaurant and bar owners to increase their revenue and commercial opportunities. A recent example we have read about is the Loaded Hog cafe in Auckland’s viaduct basin. That cafe has increased its takings by 15 percent since instigating a smoke-free Tuesday night. To prove my point, more family groups are choosing to visit such establishments. The reality is that there is a huge groundswell of support for the provisions that will be passed with this legislation tonight.

It is important to remind bar owners who are concerned that this bill will have a huge impact on them that international evidence says otherwise. In New York, hotel revenues have increased for the first time in 3 years in a smoke-free environment, after some very difficult and challenging times. Polls there show overwhelming support for its new smoke-free workplace law. In California the results are stunning. Not only are bar revenues up but, more important, there has been a significant improvement in the health of hospitality workers. That is the key, the No. 1, objective of this bill.

In Australia, Victoria’s smoke-free laws are proving to be so successful that Australian Capital Territories announced it will be smoke free by 2006. The states of Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia are reviewing their legislation. I visited a Minister of Health in New South Wales, who was enthusiastic about our actions over here and about the passage of this bill, and wanted a copy of it. I am sure we will see progress in New South Wales in the near future. Ireland, the place my ancestors left to come to this country, and a place associated with smoking and the consumption of alcohol, will implement smoke-free pubs as from 1 January, 2004. If Ireland can do it, we can do it here—and make a success of it.

As we travelled up and down the country, one of the concerns expressed by submitters from both sides of the debate was the need to have a level playing field. Whatever came out of the bill, it was important that every hospitality establishment was provided with equal opportunity into the future and without there being any disadvantage imposed on one group or the other. I believe that a great strength of the bill is that we have provided a level playing field. It means we have included sports clubs, Returned Services Associations, recreational clubs—any venue, in fact, where workers are employed. The bill makes no exceptions. Its one-size-fits-all approach will be fair to proprietors and workers, and it will be easier for the public to adopt.

There are many detractors of the bill, who do seem to miss the point. The point is that we want to improve the health of New Zealanders, and this Government is happy to support the efforts of Steve Chadwick, through this member’s bill, to achieve that. It has advantages for young people, for Māori, for Pasifika, and, of course, for families as a whole. As was the previous speaker, I am disappointed in Mr Dunne’s approach to this bill. Mr Dunne is a very good coalition partner, and for the most part he does promote common-sense policies. However, he has missed the mark on this one, and I am disappointed. If California is anything to go by, the bill will have the spin-off effect of encouraging more people to adopt smoke-free practices at home and encourage more people to enjoy hospitality venues that are free of smoke. We need to set a good example for our young people, and we need to provide them with a safe environment in the future.

I thank Steve Chadwick, and I endorse this bill through the House. I congratulate her on all her efforts in recent times. Once again, I thank and acknowledge all those people in the public sector for their efforts. In particular, I thank Judy Keall who has always been passionate about protecting the health of New Zealanders through such legislation. It will be a pleasure to see this bill pass through the House.

A tēnā anō koe, ara tātou katoa, for the opportunity afforded me to speak in the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. It is with some reservation, and a large amount of ambivalence, that I rise to indicate I will vote for the passage of this bill. As spokesperson on health for the New Zealand First Party I fail to see how I can, in all conscience, do otherwise than to vote for it. Yet I have severe misgivings about the direction in which this Government is leading us with this legislation.

My concern stems from the fact that this Government seems to think that it knows best what is good for the people of New Zealand, and to think that legislation is an effective way to get people to behave in the desired manner. While this legislation may be well intentioned, it is also patronising. While any legislation should obviously reflect the values of our society, there are some things that we just cannot legislate out of existence. I wonder how long it will be before members on the Government side of the House will attempt to make New Zealand a smoke-free country. This bill is certainly a step in that direction. What will be the next focus? Will we all be required to be in bed by 10 p.m., to ensure that we are getting enough sleep? Will we be denied employment if we do not have the correct body mass index ratio? That may sound ridiculous now, but Governments have been known to do some pretty outrageous things in order to effect the desired results. Let us remember carless days. Governments lose touch with reality and become so arrogant that they think they know what is best for everyone.

The thing that concerns me is that the alternatives to this legislation have been dismissed completely out of hand, or not seriously considered. For instance, why could we not debate the idea of letting bar owners choose whether their establishments would be smoke-free or not? There would be smoke-free bars and smoking bars—as indeed, there are now in some places. I also feel that the clean air standard, as supported by some members on the Opposition side of the House, could have been given due and proper consideration. It could well have been a workable alternative, but was not given a fair go. Because this Government had already decided the outcome of this bill, it would not hear anything that might have threatened the holier-than-thou attitude that it is mired in.

Bar and restaurant owners are concerned about the effect of this legislation on their livelihoods, and we cannot blame them for that. That is in spite of the reference made by the previous speaker, when he gave an example of a particular bar in Auckland’s Viaduct Basin that seems to be doing well because it went smoke-free at that particular time. However, the essence of the story will be known if that same bar can say that it has received the same support from its clients 12 months out from that time. What guarantees do businesses have that they will not fall over as a direct result of this legislation? They have been bending over backwards to come up with possible compromises, but their pleas have fallen on deaf ears because this Government never had any intention of considering any alternatives to this bill. So where does that leave the bar owner whose whole life is invested in his or her business? On very shaky and stressful ground, I would hazard to guess. Sure, anyone who goes into business takes a risk, but the last thing a business owner needs is for the Government to march in and move the goal post on a whim, without even a thought for those who stand to lose everything. Of course, bar owners will try to accommodate the needs of their customers, as they do now. What kind of ingenious law-bending tactics they will come up with in order to do so remains to be seen. However, there is no doubt in my mind that if there is a loophole, they will find it.

Another potential area of concern is enforcement. How exactly will this law be enforced, and who will be liable if someone lights up in a bar? We know it will be the proprietor. Will the whole onus be on him or her to ensure no one lights up? If so, has any consideration been given to the practicalities of such an arrangement? What will happen if patrons become belligerent and defiant about it, which can easily happen when alcohol has been consumed? Has anyone thought about the potential danger to bar staff, if it is left to them to police this law? And who will be prosecuted? Apparently it will not be the smoker, which leaves only the bar owner or manager. I would certainly think twice about investing in a bar or working in one once this legislation has been enacted.

The fact is that a significant number of people will not lie down and roll over when the Government says they should do so, and they will continue to want to smoke when they are having a drink. I would hazard a guess that most people who currently smoke while drinking will continue to do so. That means they will find ways of having a smoke with their drink. The obvious place to do so will be outside the premises they are drinking in. That may be quite a civilised thing to do on a sunny afternoon in the middle of summer, but it will be much less comfortable on a cold winter’s night to have a few drinks downtown. I foresee trouble ahead here with crowds of inebriated people standing around outside bars, causing mayhem to those who happen to cross their paths, or mayhem to the bar owner when they refuse to extinguish the cigarettes they have decided to smoke.

There are also some grey areas of this legislation that, to my mind, seem to be unworkable. Who, for instance, will complain if everyone in a particular environment agrees that people can smoke there? Smoking then becomes a victimless crime, with all the attendant problems of credibility and enforcement that come with it. What criteria will be used to determine who gets busted for smoking, and when? And what about smoking in taxis, on marae, and on ships? Will those places be subject to random searches by overzealous smoking police? I think not.

My colleagues in New Zealand First are opposing this bill, and I have no difficulty with that. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for allowing me the freedom to exercise my view—unlike a number of Government members who oppose this bill, but who are unable to exercise that view. Despite the foreboding I have in respect of this bill for the reasons I have just outlined, I am voting for it because I want to do all that I can to arrest the rate at which New Zealanders, particularly Māori, are dying from smoking-related diseases. When looked at solely from a health perspective, one sees this bill will go some way towards achieving that. I also want to see some consistency achieved in terms of workplace health and safety. It is not equitable that hospitality industry workers, many of whom are young Māori, are not afforded the same protection from second-hand smoke as other employees. The clean air standard would have been a workable solution to that problem, had it been able to be proved effective. Since that door was closed before it was even opened, the only alternative is to vote for the bill as it is.

The sad fact is that Māori women have the highest level of lung cancer in the world. There is not much we can do to make that statistic look better, so we have to do something about changing that disturbing reality. As I said earlier, I do not believe we can legislate people into behaving in the way that we want them to. If we attempt to do so, the price will be public apathy and disobedience, and there will be even less respect for the Government from the public than there is already. We all know where we, as politicians, sit in the ranking of respected professions. It is really no wonder we have that rank when we are seen to be telling everyone what to do, while taxing people to the nth degree. I would be happier to be voting for a bill, or supporting a policy, that had education as its central focus. Sure, the smoke-free message is out there, but is it really reaching the people who need to hear it? Could it be that they do not care enough about their future because they do not see themselves as having one, so smoking is one way to get instant gratification? Maybe I am reading too much into the phenomenon of smoking, but I do not think it would hurt to try to find out what motivates people to smoke, rather than to try to ban them outright from doing so—and, of course, that does not include paying groups to lobby MPs. A policy that aims to get to the causes of a problem will obviously be more effective than any band-aid approach.

I will cast my vote today in favour of this bill, not because I think it is robust legislation but because as New Zealand First spokesperson on health, and as someone who is concerned about the high rate of smoking-related illnesses and the fiscal effect it has on our health services, I feel it would be hypocritical of me not to do so. Kia ora.

We have had some great moments in our history this week, and in my view the passage of this bill today is a great moment in this Parliament. Indeed, it is a great moment in our history, because I believe that the bill will do more to improve the quality of life of ordinary New Zealanders than probably any other piece of legislation before Parliament in this term of office. I am quite certain we will look back in a few years’ time with incredulity, and wonder why it was that we allowed people to smoke inside public places and pollute the very air we breathe with a toxic waste that contains at least 50 known carcinogens. I am certain also that we will look back with incredulity, and wonder why it was that the majority of us—the 75 percent of us—who do not smoke allowed the minority who do smoke to put the health of all of us at risk by their habit, because the terrible truth is that every time someone lights up a cigarette indoors, he or she puts at risk the health of any other person who happens to be nearby. I am certain too that we will look back and ask what all the fuss was about—all the predictions of gloom and doom, all the filibustering, and all the predictions of businesses collapsing because they are required to be smoke-free.

I am not normally a betting woman, but I confidently predict there will be a renaissance in, not a collapse of, the hospitality industry, as customers revel in the new clean, pleasant indoor environment of the pub and the cafe. Contrary to all the naysayers, I confidently predict that bars and restaurants in New Zealand will enjoy a new life once we have cleared the air. In making that prediction, I would like to quote from an article by a sceptic who visited New York recently, determined that he was going to hate the newly imposed smoke-free regulations. I quote: “Neither the ban’s proponents nor the principles underlying it have anything to commend them”, he wrote, “except for one thing: it works. Its impact has been magnificent. I’m just back from a week in New York City, much of that time in bars and restaurants, and I have had a unique experience. Not only do my clothes not reek of tobacco smoke, I’ve managed to enjoy all of my food and drink without being nearly asphyxiated by neighbouring smokers.” He went on: “In New York the impact of this legislation has been truly wonderful, reclaiming the city from smokers who almost never act considerately. I’ll bet a jumbo packet of Marlboro Lights that it would work elsewhere, too. So rise up and unite, clean-air freedom lovers of the world.”, he concluded, “Let’s push to make our cities places in which we can all breathe freely.”

The Green Party is absolutely delighted that New Zealand is taking up this challenge. We will be only the third country in the world after Norway and Ireland to have a smoke-free hospitality industry. We are delighted that we are once again leading the world in protecting our workers—all of our workers, including our hospitality workers—from the hazards of second-hand smoke, and ensuring that all of us can breathe clean, unpolluted air when we go out socially.

An issue that has been largely ignored in the debate—and Paul Hutchison touched upon this—is the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Service has already identified second-hand smoke as a workplace hazard. So with the new health and safety legislation in force, employers will have an obligation—a legal obligation, in fact—to remove workplace hazards from the workplace. All employers in New Zealand, including bar and cafe owners, therefore already have an obligation to remove the hazard of second-hand smoke from their workplaces. So even if this legislation did not go through, I am certain that we would see a raft of prosecutions from the Occupational Safety and Health Service as a result of complaints by employees in the hospitality industry that their health had been put at risk—as it surely is; as we know it is—by being continually exposed to a workplace hazard. We expect employers to protect their employees from other workplace hazards such as asbestos and toxic chemicals, to name but two, so why would we not expect them to protect their workers from the hazards of second-hand smoke? We expect to be protected from the hazards of drunk drivers, so why would we not expect to be protected from the hazards of second-hand smoke?

Contrary to what the naysayers claim, this bill is widely supported in the community. Thousands of New Zealanders are quietly cheering from the sidelines—and some in the gallery here today. They are, like me, literally counting the days until they can go to work or out for a drink and breathe clean, unpolluted air, and not have to come home smelling like an ashtray. We have witnessed a campaign of resistance against this legislation, with endless filibusters, and a concerted attempt to undermine and ridicule this legislation. Let us remember that there has been similar resistance—similar dire warnings—wherever legislation like this has been introduced. In California and New York the critics were absolutely adamant that it would not work, and that it would be a disaster. Well, it simply has not been a disaster. The overwhelming majority of Californians and New Yorkers are absolutely delighted with their new smoke-free environments.

A core argument of the opponents of this bill is that people’s property rights should take precedence over the rights of people to breathe clean air and to have their health protected when they are out in public places. The fact is that there is a fundamental flaw in that argument. If smokers were only harming themselves by their habit, then those arguments might have credibility. But they do not, because there is a simple, irrefutable fact—and it is probably at the heart of this legislation—that up to two-thirds of the smoke from a cigarette is exhaled into the air as second-hand smoke, and all of us, every single person who is around that smoker, breathes it into his or her lungs, even if he or she does not smoke. That is the heart of the problem that we are addressing in this bill. The National Heart Foundation has warned us that bars and places where smokers congregate pose the greatest risk to passive smokers, because of the concentration of smoke in those places. It is incredible that many parties are suggesting that we should continue to continually expose workers to those concentrated doses of cigarette smoke. I am confident that we will see reduced staff sickness and absenteeism in the hospitality industry, as well as reduced chances of litigation.

The Green Party is pleased that two of our amendments have been accepted in the legislation: one prohibiting the sale of toy tobacco products to under-18-year-olds, and the second removing penalties from individual smokers. We are pleased that we will rely on social pressures, not heavy-handed penalties, to get smokers to comply with the legislation. We are confident that the legislation will work, despite the predictions to the contrary. It has worked overseas, so why would it not work here? We know that the vast majority of smokers are aware that they are putting the health of other people at risk when they smoke indoors, and that they readily accept the necessity of going outside when they smoke. We are pleased that the legislation will extend to herbal products and cannabis—were it ever to be decriminalised. We find it odd and extraordinarily hypocritical that some of those who are most in favour of keeping penalties for cannabis smokers, and who rail against and demonise cannabis, are the very ones who are opposed to any penalties or restrictions on smokers. They appear to be happy to allow families, children and the rest of us—and our bodies and lungs—to be poisoned by second-hand tobacco smoke.

As I wind up, I thank in particular the chair of the Health Committee, Steve Chadwick, the previous chair, Judy Keall, Action on Smoking and Health, and all the people who have worked to make possible the great moment that we will witness tonight, with the passing of this legislation that will vastly improve the quality of life of all New Zealanders.

I rise to speak to the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill with sadness—sadness at the loss of yet more personal freedoms under this authoritarian Labour Government. This bill has had a long, protracted path through the parliamentary process, and there have been casualties along the way. The casualties I refer to are those of truth and integrity. This debate, especially of late, has seen truth and integrity seriously compromised. Let me explain. The Ministry of Health claims that second-hand smoke inhalation kills 388 New Zealanders per year. It turns out that there are not 388 people dying each year, with second-hand smoke listed as the cause of death on their death certificates. The figure is a Ministry of Health estimate only. Let us not forget that this is the ministry that contracted lobbyists to lobby its own Minister and other MPs to support this bill. The Ministry of Health researchers calculated their death estimate by reading up other studies and doing some basic arithmetic. The literature search turned up these things: firstly, estimates of New Zealanders’ exposure to second-hand smoke from Ministry of Health surveys; secondly, the number of New Zealanders who had died in 1997 from various diseases, such as lung cancer, and heart attacks; and thirdly, the relative risk of contracting those diseases from second-hand smoke, based on overseas studies. So with this bit of arithmetic, and some heroic assumptions, the Ministry of Health researchers came up with the number 388—388 deaths due, apparently, to second-hand smoke in 1997.

There is no doubt that smoking is bad for people, but the effects of second-hand smoke—what this bill is all about—are inconclusive. In 1998 The Economist, a well-respected newspaper, published an article about a controversial World Health Organization study linking lung cancer and passive smoking. The World Health Organization was convinced that this link was strong. It found, however, that non-smokers married to, working with, or raised with smokers were no more at risk of lung cancer than anyone else. The World Health Organization has long admitted that links between lung cancer and passive smoking are weak, and these findings were not what it expected or what it wanted. The study was summarised in three paragraphs, and buried in a hefty World Health Organization document. Second-hand smoke’s perceived dangers have been used worldwide to rally public support against the tobacco industry, especially in pressing for a ban on smoking in public places. Groups like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) love to quote overseas examples—most common are the successes of Los Angeles and New York. The California example is a very unfair comparison. The climate there is conducive to outdoor drinking and dining. If we had this advantage in New Zealand, indoor smoking would not be an issue, at all. The New York example is much more enlightening. ASH claims that an authoritative new study on smoke bans in New York hotels and restaurants shows that they have not harmed business. This bold statement is not backed by recent reports from New York bar owners. They report that since the ban took effect in March, business has dropped nearly 30 percent. The law has already been softened to allow separate ventilated smoking rooms. Ms Kedgley’s claim that people no longer go home smelling of smoke is not quite what it actually seems.

Here in New Zealand, many bar owners have said they will flout the law. They believe the Ministry of Health lacks the smoke police to enforce the legislation, so they are confident of getting away with it. But good law should be enforceable and routinely enforced. The ministry has 17 part-time enhancement officers, or smoke police—call them what you will, they still do the same job—and no intention of policing the new situation. This highlights the absurdity of politicians trying to legislate to stop any behaviour of which they disapprove. I have contacted every Returned Services Association and club in the country, as well as many restaurants and pubs. Clubs have members who pay a membership fee. Returned Services Association people have to pay a fee to go to their local clubs. Yet the Government now thinks it will be able to tell these people how to run their premises. The Government thinks it is going to tell business owners how they should run their businesses—but is the Government there holding the hand of business owners, who take the risks, when they go under? No, not a bit of it. Minimum air standards would have been a happy compromise between the rights of smokers and non-smokers, but ventilation systems were ruled completely out by the select committee. Minimum air standards were not even considered. They are simple: if a minimum air standard can be met, smoking should be allowed on the premises. If it cannot, there should be no smoking.

Opposition Member: That’s common sense.

HEATHER ROY: Exactly right—it is common sense, which is being completely ignored. The penalties in the bill are an interesting story. The Labour members did not want to have any penalties at all, and to be fair to Steve Chadwick, she says this bill is about social change, not policing. However, the Government’s supporters at the select committee did not agree with it about penalties. They wanted penalties, so they came up with the $400 fine for individuals who light up in public places, and the $4,000 fine for licensees and managers who allow smoking on the site. However, during the Committee stage an amendment was put forward to take away the $400 penalty for individuals who light up. It seems now that individuals are no longer responsible for their own actions. Those who will carry the can, even if they have asked people to stub out their cigarettes, are the bar owners, the licensees, and the clubs who run their own businesses—the governing bodies. That is wrong. The Greens and United Future have to take some responsibility for this situation. They were adamant that there must be fines, and it is them that the business owners and clubs have to thank for the $4,000 penalty they might have to pay as a result of this legislation.

I mentioned lobbying. Lobbying has been a point of discussion for several weeks now, ever since my colleague Rodney Hide unearthed the fact, which he raised in the House, that the Government had contracted its favoured lobby groups specifically to lobby MPs and Ministers. The Government has admitted its guilt, and it has announced that the five groups involved have had their lobbying money withdrawn—but doing it in the first place was clearly wrong. The exemptions in the bill are also very enlightening. Marae are exempted unless they have an early childhood centre or offer work on their premises, yet Māori women have the highest incidence of lung cancer, and young Māori women continue to smoke in increasing numbers. We talk about lung cancer and its correlation with smoking. What sort of example is this exemption sending to the most vulnerable people? The other group who are exempt are prisoners. One can smoke in prison, but not when one is a law-abiding citizen who wants to go out for an evening on the town.

I would like to quote from Abraham Lincoln: “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason, in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.” What has Parliament achieved today? It has made a legal activity illegal in public places. This authoritarian Government is again telling people what is good for them. The nanny State is telling people how to live their lives. Yet another freedom has been taken away from us today. I am a non-smoker; all ACT MPs are non-smokers. ACT does not advocate smoking, but we believe that people have the right to choose to smoke, despite the risks, and to take responsibility for the consequences. Legislation banning smoking in public places takes away that right and assumes that New Zealanders are incapable of making decisions for themselves. This is very poor legislation, and it will not see the number of people dying from smoking-related diseases reduced by even one.

Just before I call the next speaker, can I say to people in the gallery that under Speaker’s Ruling 8/1 no contributions can be made from the galleries without prior permission being given by the Speaker. A contribution made without authority is an interruption of the House and will be treated as contempt. I am now asking the Serjeant-at-Arms to go to the gallery and act accordingly—to inform people that they cannot interrupt during the course of a debate, which is between members in this House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member of the Government made an unparliamentary comment during the last part of the previous speaker’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, I did not hear it. If the member made an unparliamentary comment, I would ask him to desist.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: Would you like me to say who it was?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All I can say is that I never heard it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ignore the unparliamentary comment, but one was made and I did take offence at it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Then can I ask the person who made it to stand and withdraw, under Standing Order 117, Personal reflections.

David Benson-Pope: I think I am the person being accused. If the comment was unparliamentary, I would like to know what it was.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am taking the honourable member’s word. Everyone here is an honourable member, and I accept what he said.

The vote on the third reading of this bill will be a conscience vote for the members of United Future. Attitudes within our caucus vary. Some of our caucus will vote for the bill because they want to see lives saved—a goal I think all of us agree with. However, I want to take these few moments to express my own views on this legislation, as one of those—and there are still some within the House—who have not yet spoken on the bill.

What weighs with me is that the proponents of the bill turned down a win-win situation, and I shall explain that. All of us share the goal of wanting to reduce deaths from passive smoking. I share that goal. My argument is with the method and strategy adopted in this bill. Let us take the example of RSA clubs. I for one, with or without a mandate from the people, could never walk into an RSA club on a dark, wet night and say, “Sorry, gentlemen, but if you want to smoke, you’ll have to go outside.” I wonder whether any member of this House could or would do that.

If I am right about that, how can we hide behind this bill? That is exactly what it does. Our returned servicemen are not children. We owe them our freedom, and then we use that freedom to come here to Parliament to deny them the freedom and the right to have a cigarette. I think that is wrong. When they made their sacrifice for this country, we gave them cigarettes to help them ensure our freedom and our liberty. I apologise for my disobedient tear ducts, but I do not take the sacrifice of those returned servicemen lightly.

All of that is bad enough, but the real tragedy, in my view, is that we do not need to travel down this particular road, at all. My colleague Peter Dunne brought to this House a perfectly sane, common-sense, middle-of-the-road solution—a clean air standard for our clubs, pubs, and restaurants, coupled with designated smoking and non-smoking areas. That is something that with a little give and take—with a little MMP; with a little freedom to allow people to exercise their own conscience—could have achieved the goals that this bill’s proponents seek, whilst at the same time recognising the legitimate interest of our war heroes and others in living their lives free from undue totalitarian restrictions. It is a tragedy that that solution, made in good faith and backed up with scientific evidence, was rejected by this House.

I would like to refer, too, to the comments made by Green Party member Sue Kedgley. It seems that on many of these issues Green Party members are not interested in the science of the matter. They are not interested in looking at real, objective evidence. They are not interested in whether one is able to achieve—as I have said, with a bit of common sense and give and take—a perfectly reasonable outcome for all concerned.

Of course, on other issues they likewise ignore science, research, and good evidence. I refer in particular to their attitude towards the smoking of cannabis, which, according to the Green Party, is something that is healthy to do and minimises harm to people’s brains, especially—

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is misrepresenting our views, and I object to it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the honourable member to look at Speaker’s ruling 30/1, and then she can make her point about misrepresentation when the member speaking has finished his speech.

GORDON COPELAND: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your ruling on that because I was merely responding to a number of extremely inaccurate and hostile comments from that member in respect of the United Future party. It would be quite unfair if I were to be stifled in wanting to respond to them.

The reality is that the Green Party favours the smoking of cannabis, especially when it has been genetically modified to increase its potency. That is simply a complete double standard. I have absolutely no respect for Green members coming along to this House tonight and trying to take some sort of moral high ground in relation to cigarettes, which have been freely smoked in this country for generations. As I have already said, cigarettes were officially promoted by the Government of New Zealand when it suited our purposes, which were to calm our soldiers’ nerves down when they went into battle on our behalf. I reject the double standard and hypocrisy involved in that, and the criticism that has been wrongly levied at United Future without any evidence or scientific back-up. The hard reality is that ends do not justify the means.

I will be voting against this bill, but I do so with some reluctance and disappointment, because, as I said before, I think that with a bit of give and take and a bit of goodwill, we could have reached a much superior outcome.

In a debate like this I am certainly pleased to be part of the National Party caucus, which on issues regarding tobacco, alcohol, prostitution, and the like allows members to make a conscience decision. I am here today appreciating the ability to make a decision based on my conscience, and I will certainly be voting against this bill. It is yet another piece of legislation that will be labelled anti-business legislation. We have the smoke-free legislation today, and tomorrow we move to the matter of 4 weeks’ holiday—yet another hurdle that will make it harder for businesses in New Zealand to do business.

I want to comment on the views of my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison, which he holds very firmly, and which obviously differ completely from mine. He says this is a matter of freedom, and I say “Rubbish!”. [Interruption] It is not a matter of freedom.

Hon Damien O'Connor: He’s a doctor.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The member keeps interrupting and saying that he is a doctor. Yes, he is a doctor, a very good doctor, and that is why he holds such convincing views—because he has dealt with the damage that tobacco does. If the Minister would mind not interrupting, and would allow me to speak, he could hear my point of view.

Jill Pettis: “And I’ll hang myself on my own.”

Hon DAVID CARTER: Am I going to get a fair go, or not, Mr Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Of course you are.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Paul Hutchison said that it was a matter of freedom. The freedom I have is to choose whether to go into a pub. That is the free choice that should be available to people. I happen to live in a small, rural environment, and the only facility we have, about 2½ kilometres from home, is a pub. I drive past it every night when I happen to go home, and I see that friends and colleagues have gone to that pub to have a beer and a smoke at the end of the day. They choose to do that. I do not like the smoky environment—I am an asthmatic. My choice is not to go into that place.

Paul Hutchison and other speakers have spoken about the fact that when this legislation is passed people will be able to take their families to restaurants. Most of the restaurants in Christchurch are already smoke-free. They have become smoke-free because the market has demanded it. And that was the solution to this issue tonight—to allow pubs like the Blackball Hilton, which Mr O’Connor spoke about, to operate smoke-free because they see the business advantage in doing so. How can Mr O’Connor stand here and say the current legislation is working well on the West Coast, and refer to the Blackball Hilton, then stupidly support legislation that takes away freedom of choice? The bill takes away the freedom of that hotel operator to decide whether he wants to run a hotel bar in a smoke-free environment or a smoky environment. It takes away the choice of West Coasters to go into that pub and have a smoke. I say to Mr O’Connor that they have not got that choice. He should get real. When this legislation is passed and enacted, that mate of his who used to go into the pub and have a beer will not have that choice any more.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Plenty of choice.

Hon DAVID CARTER: So the Minister should not keep interrupting and saying he does have that choice. This legislation takes that choice away.

The other thing Paul Hutchison spoke about—again, it has been repeated by people like Sue Kedgley—is that this legislation will save our young people from suffering the effect of second-hand smoke. This legislation bans smoking in pubs. Our young children should not be in pubs, but they will be in their homes where their parents smoke, so I ask Mr O’Connor how this legislation helps those young people. It does not, and that is another one of those mistruths that have been promoted by people, like that Minister, who have accepted the edict from Helen Clark that every member of the Labour caucus is to vote for this bill, regardless of their conscience. [Interruption] Mr O’Connor interrupts again. I could name many members of his caucus who have come to me and said that they do not support this legislation. They think it is stupid, they think it is unreasonable, yet they have been whipped by Helen Clark and told they are not allowed to follow their conscience.

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

Hon DAVID CARTER: My further criticism of this legislation is the shambolic way in which it has passed through this House. It has been called a member’s bill under the name of, now, Steve Chadwick, yet we had the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor saying before the dinner break that he was pleased to be sponsoring this bill. The real fact is—

Hon Damien O'Connor: I was supporting it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: He said “sponsoring”, and he should check his Hansard. The real point is that at all times this bill has really been Government legislation; Labour members are being whipped by the Prime Minister, so none of them are allowed to vote according to their conscience, and that has been confirmed to me by a number of those members who are prepared to be honest about it.

The Associate Minister Damien O’Connor also spoke about how even-handed this legislation is. I would have some acceptance of the credibility of that statement if there were any penalties at all for people who disregard the law and light up cigarettes in bars. But, because of the logic of the Greens, that particular segment has been taken out of the legislation, and all liability now rests with the publican. Somebody can come into a bar, defy the law, light up a cigarette, and not face any penalties at all. That is totally unfair and illogical.

During the long Committee stage I asked a number of questions that remain unanswered. I asked about what thought had been given to the effect of this legislation on passers-by going along the footpath outside the pubs and cafes down Courtenay Place when a number of patrons affected by liquor are standing there smoking their cigarettes. The interjection from the junior Government whip, Jill Pettis, was that I should not be ridiculous and that it would not happen. I asked who will clean up the cigarette butts, and who will provide ashtrays for people standing on the pavement and smoking. Again, I got the same interjection from Jill Pettis—that I should not be ridiculous and that it would not happen. I say to that member that those examples will happen, and no thought was given to them during the select committee process.

The other point that became evident was the large amount of money—$13 million – odd a year—that has been spent by non-Government organisations to try to educate people about the dangers of smoking. It is valued work. The more money we spend trying to stop people from taking up this repulsive habit, the better. But some of that money was spent on lobbying members of Parliament, and that was unacceptable and outrageous.

I want to conclude on something I mentioned earlier. This legislation would be unnecessary if the public of New Zealand expressed strongly enough their dislike of smoking environments. That would mean that a lot of hotels on the West Coast—not only the Blackball Hilton referred to by the Associate Minister—would see the advantage in operating a smoke-free environment. If more hotels did that, then I might go back into hotels to enjoy a beer. That is the way this issue should be decided. Let the operators see the advantage in providing a nice, clean environment. That would be the appropriate way to do it.

I conclude by acknowledging the importance of the hospitality industry to New Zealanders. Most New Zealanders partake of the hospitality industry on many, many occasions—by the day and by the week—but it may be something that members on the other side are unfamiliar with. What those members should have done was to go out and see the good work the hospitality industry creates, and how it assists the very community of New Zealand. This bill will make it harder for people to operate within that industry now. The talk about there not having been an economic effect in other parts of the world, particularly America, is just rubbish. There will be an effect on the profitability of these businesses. There will be an immediate decline in revenue as people adjust to this new legislation.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Look at the facts.

Hon DAVID CARTER: For Damien O’Connor to say that will not happen means one of two things: either he is economically illiterate, or he knows that people will just ignore the law. Either situation is not acceptable, and this is not satisfactory legislation.

Let me start by saying that all New Zealand First MPs are opposed to smoking, in terms of what it does to people. I know we have one smoker in our midst. [Interruption] He is very famous and a very effective politician, but I can tell members that he does not recommend smoking to anybody. Smoking is a habit, an addiction arising from habit. I can say that there is not one New Zealand First MP who will recommend it to anybody. We are totally opposed to encouraging young people or anybody to take it up, if they do not already have the habit.

But this bill is not the way to address the issue. I say to those members over there, and I think many of them are sincere, that if they are really concerned about smoking to the degree they say are, they should ban it. They should make it illegal, but they should not stand in this House and talk about the virtues of tossing people on to the street. Those members should not talk about the virtues of saying: “I am going to walk into a pub and you are going on the street to smoke.”, because that is not the way to go. If they are really passionately against smoking they should ban it, but right now it is a legal activity.

I have five children, and none of them smoke. I smoke the odd cigar. With a glass of whisky, it goes down very well. But it is only the odd cigar—one every 5 or 6 months. I am looking forward to Christmas, because my wife says I can have another cigar at Christmas.

Earlier on, somebody spoke about freedom. I think the emphasis was put on freedom to work in a smoke-free workplace, and on freedom of choice to walk into a pub that allowed smoking—if one wanted to have a smoke—or to walk into a pub that was a non-smoking pub. I want to talk about the freedom we all enjoy as a result of the guys who put on khaki, and the guys who put on the light blue and the navy blue. They put themselves on ships and in aircrafts—Spitfires—in the Battle of Britain. There were Kiwis there, and they were very fine soldiers. They fought not only for the freedom of this country but for the freedom of the Western World. They put it all on the line. Many of them came back—thank God—but many did not. Those who came back had been encouraged to smoke by previous Governments. They had been given free cigarettes and were encouraged to smoke and relax. They were encouraged to go into the mess room and have a beer and a fag.

I say to members that there are still some of these folk alive now, although they are getting pretty ancient. They go down to their Returned Services Association club and watch the All Blacks on a big television screen, and they order their pints of beer and they have a cigarette. Imagine if one of the people who support this bill walked into a Returned Services Association club. It is a cold, winter’s day and the All Blacks are about to play. There is old Joe, who fought for this country in the war. He might have Ron Mark with him, because Ron Mark has a definite connection with military people and ex-military people. He might, indeed, have the Rt Hon Winston Peters with him, because there is definitely an affinity between old soldiers and Winston Peters—they love him. He might even have me there. There is an affinity and an empathy between merchant navy officers or ex - merchant navy officers, and people who fought for their country. [Interruption] That member has plenty to say. What if he were to walk in there and see Joe smoking? Would he ring for the enforcement officer? If he is not prepared to ring the enforcement officer and say: “Come here, Joe is smoking.”, then he should not vote for this bill. If members do not have the gumption to ring the enforcement officer, they should not vote for this bill. It is meant to be a conscience vote. If they cannot turn old Joe in, then they do not have the gumption to do the job that they are advocating that somebody else should do.

Imagine if the enforcement officer came in. If the bar manager, or the barman behind the bar, or the man in charge is not actually there when the enforcement officer comes in—and he can come in with a camera, a video, and an air-sampling machine—that officer does not even have to tell anybody that he is an enforcement officer. If the person in charge is not there when he walks in, he does not have to say that he is an enforcement officer. What would old Joe do? He could be quite nervous now. He could think that this guy who has walked in is an enforcement officer, so he might run to the toilet. It is raining outside, it is cold outside, so Joe runs to the toilet. Under this legislation the enforcement officer can follow him to the toilet and photograph him smoking.

If the members over there want to vote for that, they are not voting for New Zealanders. There is not one New Zealander, that I am aware of, who would support that. [Interruption] Lynne Pillay has got plenty to say. Does she agree with secret cameras? That is what can happen under this bill. I was speaking to the Hon Damien O’Connor only a little while ago, and I asked him whether I could divulge to the House the information he had told me, and he said that, yes, I could. There has been only one prosecution of restaurants in the umpteen years—

Steve Chadwick: So why are you worrying?

PETER BROWN: Because the Government is putting the fear of God into New Zealanders who fought for this country; that is why I am worried. That member knows that this law is not going to be policed. Government members know that if they would not turn Joe in, they certainly would not turn in Black Power gang members if they were smoking in their local pub. Those members should have the courage of their convictions and say that this is not right. This bill is not fair on New Zealanders. It is not fair on the young ones, and it is not fair on the old ones. I guarantee that there would not be many young New Zealanders who would turn in their grandfather or their great-grandfather—not one of them. As much as they do not like smoking, they would not turn them in.

This bill is ridiculous, and to prove just how ridiculous it is let us take the clause on ships. Who the dickens is going to police the ships? Steve Chadwick, in response to a question earlier on this afternoon about a tanker carrying inflammable goods—the crew of which would never ever smoke outside the shell of the ship—said that an officer cannot smoke his pipe or cigarette in the wheelhouse. He is the only one there, for goodness’ sake.

Hon Taito Phillip Field: Give it away.

PETER BROWN: I have 2 minutes. I think the member wants me to have an extension of time. I think he is learning something. I think I have touched his conscience. I think Lynne Pillay is now worried. She is going to vote for the spy brigade. What chance of success does this legislation have when 17 enforcement officers are going to carry it out?

Lynne Pillay: I would be 6 inches taller if my parents hadn’t smoked.

PETER BROWN: I think the member wants to tell me something. There are people who currently go to a bar and a club so that they do not smoke at home. They go to a bar and a club so that they do not smoke in front of their children or their pregnant wives. What do members think this bill is going to do? Those people are going to go home and smoke in front of their children.

Lynne Pillay: Ha, ha!

PETER BROWN: The member laughs. I can tell her that my own father, quite a while ago—he was an ex-soldier—did not smoke in front of me and my sister because he did not want to encourage us. He would go down to the pub, have his cigarette and his beer there, and come home. This bill is going to force those people home. There will be some who give up smoking as a result of this; there will be others who do not. There will be young women who go on to the street to have a cigarette because they cannot smoke inside a hospitality house. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Jill Pettis: Where have you been all these years?

PETER BROWN: Jill Pettis should ask her husband. He is an ex-sailor. I think he has done a little bit for the country. She should ask him.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As much as I like a smoke-free environment—and I say that sincerely—I do not like seeing ladies dressed in T-shirts. I think it is unbecoming to Parliament and I seek your ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Brown.