Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7977] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I must say that Supplementary Order Paper 106 which was described as being of outstanding merit may not really fall into the category of “outstanding” but certainly that argument was expounded with outstanding merit. There is no doubt about that. 
 When I hear the somewhat shrill tones of Deborah Coddington talking about who owns one’s life I just wonder what she would have said 13 years ago when the Smoke-free Environments Bill first came into the House and how she would have felt retrospectively had she come into this Chamber then when it was hung heavily with cigarette cigarillo and cigar smoke as were aircraft trains and all manner of public places. People just take for granted the huge leap forward that came with that somewhat controversial—at the time—legislation back in 1990. So when she asks who owns one’s life and claims the bill is all about control I would say that the very opposite of that is the case. 
This bill in my view is all about freedom—the freedom to be able to go about one’s business free from tobacco smoke. I think that that particularly applies to children and as I mentioned before to babies in utero who have no choice. One of the things that I think is absolutely vital is indeed to give children the opportunity to achieve their potential. Here we have a bill that certainly gives a much greater possibility of them having that opportunity. 
I want just to make a few comments on the question of private property and marae because that issue has been talked about to quite a great extent. If a private facility does not have a drinking licence and has no employees then there is no reason in my mind for there to be a ban on smoking there. I think that private facilities should indeed be respected where adults are present and that may or may not apply to a marae to a Returned Services Association or to any other private club. 
Hence the perhaps outstanding merit of the Supplementary Order Paper about to be numbered that I have signalled in relation to smoking in private facilities. As I was saying if a club a Returned Services Association or any other organisation is privately owned and does not have paid employees then that club Returned Services Association or other organisation which could include a marae should be exempt from the legislation. I think that would be— 
Dail Jones 
: For volunteers. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Yes that is absolutely right. I think that has outstanding merit just to make it absolutely clear what constitutes the difference between an establishment where there are paid employees which should certainly fall under the occupational safety and health laws anyway and one without paid employees. 
Just to finish I mention Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. [ 
Interruption 
] I am getting signals from the sponsor of the bill. I want to say only that enforcing the measure in that Supplementary Order Paper would be awfully difficult. I understand that right now councils throughout the country have problems with regard to enforcing the swimming pool regulations and are boggling at the thought of additional dog regulations. The clean-air regulations would indeed be extremely costly to administer.