Jones Dail: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Jones Dail: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7932] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to make it clear at the outset to anyone interested in this debate that four New Zealand First members will support the bill and nine will oppose it. There may be an amendment or two on which that position will change but that is the general approach being adopted by New Zealand First. 
I was going to move an amendment to change the name of the bill so that it was called the “Anti - Returned Services Association Men and Women Bill” or the “Demise of the Returned Services Association Bill” because of my discussions with for example the Te Atatu Returned Services Association and Ian M Gibson with whom I have been in correspondence. I wonder whether any west Auckland or Waitakere members of Parliament have bothered to approach any of their local associations. It is clear that Te Atatu Returned Services Association members take the view on this legislation that “It is intolerable that politicians should dictate what privileges we may enjoy in clubs which returned servicemen and women built with their own labour and meagre demobilisation payouts.” They go on to say: “Such oppressive legislation is contrary to every precept of democracy and individual freedom of choice.” 
They recommend to Parliament a nice little cartoon that was in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 
22 March 2003 which looks rather like a scene from  
Dad’s Army 
. It is very fitting and I am only too pleased to present it on behalf of the Returned Services Association. There is one Captain Mainwaring - type saying: “Eyes peeled for dictators lads.” Someone who could be Lance Corporal Jones says: “What? Saddam’s in NZ?” and someone else on the side is saying “No you berk it’s those anti-smoking fascists from the health department.” That is the view of the Te Atatu Returned Services Association. 
Its members fought for their country were asked to smoke and were given fags while they were out in the desert and now as they are getting older are being told “No”—they cannot smoke in the clubs that they set up with their demobilisation payments way back in 1945-46 and the like. What a disgrace; what a sad day for New Zealand; what a total disregard for those people who were prepared to make the final sacrifice! 
I want to comment on another area for which this legislation could be called the “Smoke-free Environments (Lack of Evidence) Bill”. It is quite clear when reading the World Health Organization’s report of 2002 that the report states there is no supporting evidence on this issue. I had to go to the trouble of finding it out myself from page 66 box 4.1 and the statement referred to at the foot of page 2. I wonder whether any Labour member has read that World Health Organization report which is quoted in the select committee’s report and which I asked the Minister previously to table but she has not. 
The report does highlight however that: “In addition maternal smoking during pregnancy results in passive-smoke exposure for the foetus sometimes referred to as tertiary smoke resulting in an increased risk of low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome.” That issue should be the subject of a separate bill altogether. Has the Labour Party done anything about that real issue of an unprotected person? No—the Labour Party has done absolutely nothing which shows the double standard of the party by its lack of evidence. 
There was also a 1998 World Health Organization report which stated that the organisation found no evidence at all to support what is in this legislation today. Despite requests the Labour Party has never supplied that report. All it has come out with is this World Health Organization report 2002 and a general statement with nothing formal to back it up. The other report mentioned in the select committee’s report had references to A Woodward and M Laugeson. Those reports have been discredited by other people despite Action on Smoking and Health representatives in papers released to members of Parliament recently saying that those reports had never been discredited. Those reports have been discredited by Dr Proctor. 
As I mentioned before no one has repudiated what I have said since the speech I made about 4 weeks ago because the fact of the matter is that they cannot establish what they are trying to establish in this debate today. This is purely feel-good Labour Party legislation which has no basis whatsoever and which has total disregard for groups like the Returned Services Association. I am an asthmatic I do not smoke and I stay away from places where there is smoke. Why should a nanny State in the shape of this Labour Party tell me where I should go and where I should not go?