Mahuta Nanaia: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7462] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 For anyone who is listening to this debate I point out that the bill provides specifically for the protection of workers volunteers and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. I thank all the officials and advisers who helped the Health Committee deliberate over some difficult and challenging issues. 
The intent of the bill should really be understood against the context of a whole lot of smoke-free legislation that has occurred. The Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 and the subsequent amendments and the Smoke-free Environments Regulations 1999 provided that there would be a restriction on smoking in workplaces; required all workplaces to have a policy on smoking and to review that policy annually; required that we restrict or ban smoking in restaurants bars casinos public transport and certain other public places and also regulate the marketing advertising and promotion of tobacco products and the sponsorship by tobacco companies of products services and events; required that we ban the sale of tobacco products to people under the age of 18 years; and required that we provide for the control and disclosure of the contents of tobacco products. In a sense though we all know what is reality in our communities: smoking kills. That is really what it comes down to. So in that context this particular bill to protect the rights of workers I think goes in the right direction. 
I do not want to spend too long in this debate speaking on issues faced by the select committee but I do want to highlight one point in particular. A lot of discussion came up in our select committee about whether to legislate for marae to be included within the ambit of this bill. Clearly all submissioners said and their advice to us was that that would not be a positive step if we wanted to strike a balance between individual and collective responsibility. Also the harder challenge for us all is to create an environment within our public health policy context where people voluntarily move to reduce smoking and produce a voluntary ban. That is the best way to do it amongst our marae. Indeed we heard advice from people involved in the Auahi Kore campaign and the Aukati Kai Paipa campaign key workers on the ground who go amongst Maori communities and Maori people and they said that people were doing it anyway. In fact they were getting calls from people from marae asking how to become smoke-free. 
Let us be realistic: how do we take some practical steps? That is the way to ensure that people take some individual and collective responsibility to reduce and minimise the effects of smoking amongst our whanau groups. The benefit is that we will have an environment that promotes health and well-being in its entirety and that is really what we want to see. No one knows more than Maori women that the effects of smoking have hurt them tremendously. In fact the rate of deaths as a result of smoking is an absolute travesty with regard to the figures relating to Maori women. I comment on that aspect because I know that there were a lot of views around our select committee table to consider legislating to include marae. 
One of the difficulties around that is that marae are places where there is no paid workforce. A lot of the people there are volunteers and a lot of the work that happens there is on a voluntary basis. So in terms of the strict provisions and context of this particular bill it would be a farce to try to apply them to a marae context. But that does not mean that Maori communities and marae are not addressing these issues in a serious way. In fact they are. When one visits a marae one will see signs saying: “He wahi auahi kore” me “Kaua e momi paipa” or things like that and that demonstrates that we are dealing with these issues anyway. 
I am concerned about those people—and these views were expressed amongst our select committee—who scratch the edge of racist sentiments in saying that we are providing one law for some and one law for others. In fact this legislation provides a level playing field. All workspaces will be covered by this legislation as they should be. I support that. 
I also want to comment on some of the concerns of owners of bars and casinos who said that if those businesses were included in this legislation they would lose clientele. If one just walks down one’s main street—I have done it in Hamilton—goes in bars and asks the people there about the smoking provisions they themselves say that they are moving in this direction because their clientele want a more smoke-free environment. So I do not think that the intention of the bill is at odds with business. I think that the intention of the bill provides a safer workplace for workers and that is important. 
It also sends out a clear signal in terms of public health policy that we are really serious about encouraging smoke-free environments. As for all those places that are not covered such as marae I suggest that they are already dealing with this issue. This legislation brings a sense of urgency in terms of how we better deal with encouraging minimisation of the harm smoking causes amongst our families and our communities. I am also happy that schools and early childhood centres are included in this legislation. It is an important step forward. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: According to the leave already granted by the House there will be a party vote but parties can split their votes.