Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7972] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call to make a couple of points. Firstly one of the revelations that has become clear during this stage of the debate is that a number of the provisions are linked to the holding of a liquor licence. So if a cigar bar ceased to hold a liquor licence—if I heard Ms Chadwick correctly—it would be able to continue to operate. Is that not what she said? So the cigar bar is dead under all circumstances? 
Steve Chadwick 
: They have a paid worker. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
:If they have a paid worker? This is where we get into a whole lot of nonsense because the argument that has been promoted throughout this debate is that smoking tobacco is bad for people and is a practice not to be encouraged. I accept all of that but the argument here does not turn on that. The argument now turns on whether one has a paid worker so it has nothing to do with the health issue but everything to do with something else altogether—which brings the whole set of provisions in this bill into absolute disrepute. 
I want to go on and talk about the comments that a number of members have made about the amendment I have proposed which will be discussed more in the debate on Part 2 regarding air-quality systems. I will deal with some of the comments that have been made in the following way. Firstly the responsibility for the maintenance purchase and operation of those systems would be with the premises concerned. If they chose not to go down that path then by 2007 they would be mandatorily smoke-free. So the option rests with them and if they choose to go down the path of installing the relevant equipment maintaining that equipment and abiding by the standards etc. then the responsibility rests with them. 
The Associate Minister talked inadequately about overseas experience and I want to draw to his attention a couple of things. The University of Glamorgan has recently conducted studies on the Irish situation and has demonstrated that it is possible to remove all of the particulate from smoke on the premises up to a rate of 82-plus percent. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research study released at the weekend on the work done at the Bream Bay Club at Ruakaka demonstrated a similarly high rate of extraction—not just recycling of the air but extraction of the particulate which is the cause of a huge amount of the problem. 
I have material from New Zealand manufacturers saying that they are capable of achieving standards of up to 95 percent. The place I was at last week—the Beaujolais Bar where we launched the Supplementary Order Paper—has a machine with a 99.9 percent extraction rate. I have material from the United States—and people have spoken about the United States today—which demonstrates that the Comair Eagles 5000 product is capable of significant elimination and so on and so forth. 
It is clear from the debate today that the select committee had certain evidence in mind at the point it made its determination. If we believe in the integrity of the people promoting the argument and accept that they acted on a best-faith basis surely they should now be prepared to analyse the fresh information that has come to light and to determine whether in the light of that information the procedures they are advancing right now need to be carried forward. That was why right at the beginning I moved the amendment that the bill be referred back to the select committee to enable a greater examination of these issues. 
I have heard all sorts of extraordinary claims by the promoter of the bill and a wad of information has been sent to me by a variety of people in New Zealand Australia and elsewhere all debunking those claims. Yet what we now get is a plaintive cry from the Minister and the sponsor of the bill saying that at the time they considered this matter none of that information was available. Basically they are now saying: “Tough! That’s what we are going with.” 
That is a totally inadequate response and it will produce unworkable law. Unworkable law brings this Parliament into disrepute and will be ignored. People will flout it and they will challenge firstly the “health police” and secondly the New Zealand Police because that is the ultimate objective—to hand this law over to the police to conduct smoking raids on bars and restaurants. That will not happen—life will carry on pretty much as usual and the patrons who smoke in bars will do so with impunity because this law is incapable of being enforced and it will certainly not achieve the objectives designed for it. Parliament once again will be a public laughing stock for having rejected the opportunity to do something worthwhile and chosen instead to indulge in pure fantasy politics.