Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7455] 
Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave that not withstanding Standing Order 145(1)(b) the votes cast for each party on the second reading of this bill may include votes cast for the Ayes and Noes and abstentions. 
Dail Jones 
: I did not quite catch what the member said. I was engaged on something else and it is obviously a very important issue. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The leave is a consequence of the agreement at the Business Committee that allows a split vote by the National Party or any other party should it wish to do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 25 June. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe. As I mentioned earlier in this debate the New Zealand First caucus has allowed its members to have a free vote on this bill. I have chosen to exercise my own vote in support of this bill the reasons for which I have already declared to this House. 
It would be useful at this point to look at the opinions of those who encounter the effects of tobacco use on a daily basis. I am not talking about those who work in the hospitality industry but those who encounter the effects of tobacco use every day. I am talking about those who work in the medical profession who have come out strongly in favour of this bill. In fact 99.9 percent of those approached in a recent survey amounting to over 1000 doctors supported the concept of smoke-free workplaces including bars and clubs. I suggest that the reason they are in favour of smoke-free legislation is that they know through their experience the realities of the eventual effects of smoking on health. Every day in clinics and hospitals they see and treat people who have respiratory problems cancers heart disease strokes and so on all of which are linked to smoking. 
 Passive smoking is now recognised as a causal factor in the onset of smoke-related illness. It is one thing to be told all these statistics; it is another thing to witness them in reality. Health professionals do so on a daily basis and that is why one would be hard-pressed to find a health worker who is not in favour of limiting the opportunities for smoking and exposure to smoke and of sending out a clear message that smoking is not conducive to good health. 
The medical profession is not the only professional group that has come out in favour of this bill. Scientists are well aware of the harmful quantities of toxins in cigarette smoke. The hard evidence of the presence of such substances which to most of us evoke lethal poisoning in detective stories is a scientific fact. A scientific report on tests carried out on non-smoking bar staff after a normal shift revealed that their bodies had taken in cigarette smoke. So why when most other workers are protected is this group overlooked? Well they will not be for much longer and that is only fair and just. 
Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act employers are obliged to protect their staff and the public from hazards. It has been clearly established that cigarette smoke is a hazard capable of killing people. Therefore we need to act in a manner that is consistent with other legislation whether or not we might agree with such legislation. Evidence from other countries where smoke-free legislation has been introduced shows that smoke bans have not adversely affected the hospitality industry. Having said that I still have a number of concerns about the bill not least of all being the freedom of choice for people to smoke when and where they choose. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Kia ora. I am very pleased to speak today in the second reading debate on the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. I would like to focus on a key element of this bill that seems to have become almost lost in the race by some to protect the so-called rights of smokers in this country. What about the rights of workers? This bill is not about only public health; it is about workers’ rights. The title of the bill highlights that. The bill seeks to enhance protections for workers in a wide variety of environments in which they work. The Smoke-free Environments Act of 1990 provided valuable groundwork and many New Zealanders now take smoke-free offices for granted. 
The 1990 legislation was successful in reducing workers’ exposure to second-hand smoke from 31 percent down to 21 percent in just 1 year and since then we have seen a further drop to 17 percent. But that legislation progressive though it was at the time addressed only half of the workplaces in which second-hand smoke is a health and safety issue for workers. That half tended to be the white-collar office workers. What was missing and what this bill incrementally expands on is a universal protection for all workers regardless of what type of indoor environment they work in. Those who work in factories warehouses schools hospitality venues taxis shared work vehicles and the like also have a right to work in a place that will not kill them by exposing them to the risks of second-hand smoke. If the Californian experience is anything to go by the bill will hopefully have the spin-off of encouraging more people to adopt smoke-free environments at home for their children as well. 
The bill will provide 100 percent smoke-free protection in all indoor workplaces where two or more people work in a common airspace. It will include volunteers who work in these workplaces. It will include taxis work vehicles passenger lounges internal areas of ships trains and planes marae and other community spaces to the extent that they are workplaces and workplace cafeterias. The Health Committee has considered that some exceptions are appropriate such as workplaces that are a private citizen’s home or a temporary residence. But separate indoor smoking areas for workers will go and with them the need for employers to have a written policy on smoking in the workplace. Employers will still have to comply with health and safety legislation. The bill makes this explicit. Employers will have a duty to take all reasonable practical steps to ensure a smoke-free indoor work environment for workers and volunteers and smokers themselves will have a duty to abide by the same rules. 
Smoking is not just a harmless habit. It is a very serious health issue. Under the hazard identification code in the Health and Safety in Employment Act tobacco smoke is a significant workplace hazard. Second-hand smoke contains about 4000 chemicals 200 poisons and over 40 cancer-causing compounds. The sidestream smoke that others breathe in is actually more dangerous than the mainstream smoke that smokers inhale directly from a cigarette. Exposure to that second-hand smoke is a known health hazard that kills nearly the equivalent of our total road toll each year—an estimated 388 people. There would be an outrage if we did nothing to reduce our road toll because of the rights of a few dangerous drivers. Similarly tobacco smoke as something that fits the health and safety legislation’s top category of workplace hazard cannot be tolerated or minimised. It must be eliminated entirely from the workplace. 
We tend to think of bars restaurants and clubs primarily as places in which we can have a drink and a meal and socialise. However for more than 10000 New Zealanders those hospitality venues are their workplaces. The 100 percent smoke-free workplaces policy proposed in this bill is about consistency. It will include those previously neglected workplaces and the workers themselves. The provision will also include sports clubs Returned Services Associations and recreational clubs if they employ workers or if they have a liquor licence. As the Health Committee found there is overwhelming support for a level playing field for all hospitality venues. Hospitality workers should not have to choose between their job and their health yet this is the situation for many because there is no level playing field for the health and safety rights of workers. 
Hospitality workers are particularly vulnerable because they are exposed to high levels of second-hand smoke on a daily basis. I tell Mr Jones that non-smoking workers in hospitality venues breathe in smoke for up to 8 hours a day whether or not they like it. A 2001 study found that New Zealand restaurant and bar workers faced up to four times the exposure to second-hand smoke as compared with someone who actually lived with a smoker. 
Employers also pay the cost of smoking through lower staff productivity higher accident compensation premiums and the risk of occupational safety and health prosecution for failing to provide a safe workplace. We as taxpayers pay too. Our health system is burdened with unnecessarily sick workers and the estimated $200 million per year cost of all tobacco related illnesses. We also pay emotionally with the unnecessary pain and distress of loved ones falling ill or dying from the effects of second-hand smoke. So what is the answer? Well last year the Irish Government facing the same smoking and worker-health issues as New Zealand commissioned an independent report from a working group of experts on the effects of second-hand smoke exposure. Their advice was very blunt. Current ventilation technologies are simply inadequate for protecting workers. They reported that despite attempts by the tobacco industry to play down the possible danger from environmental smoke the only viable way to ensure protection from the deadly effects of exposure to second-hand smoke was to have a total smoking ban on every indoor workplace. 
 If Ireland California New York Sweden and Norway can live with smoke-free pubs then why cannot we? The answer is increasingly clear to the rest of the world too. An increasing number of Australian states and Canadian provinces are phasing out equal amenity provisions—or ventilation options as they are called—in favour of 100 percent smoke-free environments. They are realising that having smoking and non-smoking areas in the same premises just does not work. It is about as useful as dividing a swimming pool into the peeing and non-peeing areas! Smoking in workplaces may have been tolerated in the past but we now know a lot more. In the 21st century we know too much about the risks of smoking and second-hand smoke to let the practice continue. 
Unions are behind the legislation. They know the value in protecting the workers. I have every sympathy for those smokers who continue to be addicted to nicotine. Most got sucked in when they were still teenagers—I was one of them. I take my hat off to those who have the courage and strength to succeed in quitting. Three-quarters of New Zealanders do not smoke and we demand the right to have a smoke-free environment. Yet strangely time after time during the second reading of this bill I heard members of Parliament stand and apologetically defer to the so-called “rights” of smokers to ruin the ability of the rest of us—the vast majority of New Zealanders—to enjoy a quiet beer and conversation with our mates down at our local because of the smoke they endanger us with. I do not accept the claims made by the hospitality industry and the tobacco industry that business will decline if we can all enjoy smoke-free workplaces and hospitality venues. The experience from California shows that business increased after the introduction of smoke-free environments. I compliment the Health Committee on the work it has done and I look forward to the passage of the bill through the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 This bill will probably do more to improve the health of New Zealanders than any other bill before the House this term and as such it should be supported by every member of this House. It is nonsensical for some parties to claim that this bill is somehow a conscience issue that should be voted on according to an individual MP’s conscience when in fact it is a specific public health measure and when there are no moral issues in the bill—none at all. Certainly the bill is widely supported in the community—in particular by the 75 percent of us who do not smoke and who are fed up with coming home from a night on the town smelling like an ashtray with our eyes and throats hurting and our hair and clothes wreaking of smoke. Most people including myself are counting the days until we can breathe clean unpolluted air in cafes and bars and do not have to risk our health every time we decide to go out on the town. 
It is nonsensical to claim as some parties are that it is not the Government’s role to intervene to protect people from harmful exposure to tobacco smoke. We have laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets people in cars to wear seatbelts to reduce their risk of harm and we expect the Government to protect us from exposure to cancer-causing substances like asbestos and dioxin so why on earth would we not expect it to take similar steps to protect us from the well-documented harm of second-hand smoke? The truth is that some MPs and parties in this House are sounding like King Canute trying to stem the turning tide. They are reciting discredited arguments from the tobacco industry and using discredited tobacco-industry tactics to try to water down or defeat all or parts of this bill. 
The tobacco industry has used every trick in the book over the past 4 decades to oppose every form of tobacco control and to try to influence our political process. It has flown in so-called independent expert witnesses to cast doubt on the harm of second-hand smoke tried to conceal the evidence of harm from cigarette smoke lobbied against legislation objected to health warnings and misled the public about the very real health issues involved in second-hand smoke. We know all of this thanks to an excellent report by two researchers—Nick Wilson and George Thomson—which has exposed the tactics the tobacco industry used in New Zealand. The report shows that the industry knew it was pushing a product that was addictive and a killer but still it spent billions of dollars trying to cover up the evidence of the harm of cigarette smoke so it could keep on selling its harmful addictive product. 
It is disgraceful that the industry was able to delay effective protection from exposure to second-hand smoke for so long and in so doing contribute to hundreds—or more likely millions—of preventable deaths. But it is disgraceful too that some of those tactics are still being used today by opponents of this bill who are doing the bidding of the tobacco industry by trying to water down or throw out this important piece of public health legislation. We can see the hand of the tobacco industry at work in frantic last-minute lobbying postcards we have been bombarded with and MPs singing the tobacco industry tune—that property rights are more important than non-smokers’ rights and that ventilations will somehow solve the problem of second-hand smoke whereas compelling evidence has been presented to the Health Committee that they will not. It is galling too that a party that brands itself as being family friendly and supported this bill all the way through the select committee is now trying to throw out the central provision of this bill. 
If smokers were harming only themselves with their habit then the arguments of opponents would sound credible. But the truth is that every time a patron in a bar or a club or a Returned Services Association lights up he or she puts at risk the health of any other person who happens to be around because two-thirds of the smoke from a cigarette is inhaled then exhaled into the air so that everyone in the room breathes in that smoke. Of course we have been told that second-hand smoke contains 50 chemicals that are known to cause cancer. There is overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that second-hand smoke is a leading cause of death and disease and causes about one person to die a premature death every day in New Zealand. The Heart Foundation estimates that people who are exposed to second-hand smoke increase their risk of heart attacks by about a third as well as increasing their risk of the other fatal diseases that plague smokers. The foundation says that bars and places where smokers concentrate pose the greatest risk to passive smokers because of the concentration of smoke in those places. 
Armed with this knowledge we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to cigarette smoke’s harmful effects and allow thousands of workers to be exposed on a daily and continuous basis to those harmful effects. We must be honest and acknowledge that smoke-free zones in cafes and bars are simply not working because smoke travels throughout an entire room and to continue the Minister’s analogy I say it is like trying to have a non-chlorinated zone in a swimming pool by allowing chlorine only at one end. We must acknowledge too that hospitality venues are not just places to socialise but are workplaces for staff who have to work around the clock with smoking patrons continually. Nobody should have to risk their health to go to work nor should workers be forced to choose between their health and their jobs. Yet we heard numerous heartrending submissions from workers who had had to do just that and whose health had been severely compromised as a result. 
This bill will benefit everyone in society including the hospitality industry. There are no high compliance costs—no building alterations are required and employers particularly those in the hospitality industry can look forward to reduced staff sickness and absenteeism and reduced chances of litigation. I predict as others have that the vastly improved environments in bars will actually mean more not fewer patrons. But there must be a level playing field in the implementation of the bill and it must apply to all bars and clubs equally and that is why the Green Party is vehemently opposed to last-ditch efforts to exempt Returned Services Association clubs from the provisions of this bill. That is absurd and we must resist last-minute pork-barrel attempts to garner votes from Returned Services Associations and other clubs and we must have an across-the-board approach. 
 I would like to signal that the Green Party will seek to amend the bill so as to ban the sale of toys that imitate the act of smoking to anyone under the age of 18. Cigarette toys are being sold to children as young as 3 and those toys basically teach children how to become the smokers of tomorrow. I have here seven different toy products that have been sent to me from all around the country. There are squirting cigarettes cigars—all sort of cigarettes and all these products are designed to make children think that smoking is somehow cool and fun. Cigarette companies have long targeted young people in their marketing campaigns knowing as Philip Morris puts it that today’s young person is tomorrow’s potential regular customer and that the vast majority of smokers begin to smoke while in their teens. So if we are serious about trying to discourage our children from becoming the addicts of tomorrow we must prohibit the sale of products like these which are specifically targeted at young children to encourage them to think smoking is cool and to get hooked at a young age. 
I will also be seeking to amend the legislation in order to remove the penalties infringement notices and prosecution procedures that apply to individuals. We would prefer that we rely on social pressure not penalties for getting smokers to comply with the new law. Enforcement has not been an issue in other places like California for example where there are no specific penalties yet there has been 92 percent compliance after 1 year. I think we can expect the same high compliance rate here in New Zealand. Finally we strongly support requirements that the bill require full disclosure of the contents of tobacco products and that all of the more than 600 additives used in tobacco products—used to enhance the taste of tobacco smoke numb the throat and so forth to make cigarettes more palatable for first-time users—ought to be disclosed on tobacco products. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand that there is to be a split speech between Mr Hughes and Dr Hutchison—3 minutes and 7 minutes. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. This is a very important piece of legislation that has come before the House and it is worthy of the support of all members. I want to pay tribute briefly to my predecessor Judy Keall who shepherded the bill through the select committee stage. I think the Health Committee’s report is a very good one. It has picked up on a number of the points that submitters raised about making sure there was a level playing field. 
I am particularly interested in the provisions that I believe provide safeguards for young people both as patrons of pubs clubs and cafes and as workers in those venues. Often young people work for very low wages and for very long hours in conditions that are very smoky. There is no doubt that that has an impact on their health. I think this bill is an important way of safeguarding young workers in the economy. That is one of the reasons that I will be supporting the bill. The other of course is that pubs clubs bars and cafes are often frequented by lots of young people and young people generally get addicted to cigarette smoking during their teenage years or when they are under 18 and putting people into venues where it is very smoky of course has an impact on their health. When I go to such venues see that they are very smoky and look around and count the number of people who are smoking I see that it is actually very few and the point is that a very few people at those venues have a huge impact on the rest of the people there. I believe that this bill is about making sure that those venues are enjoyable for all New Zealanders and about making sure there is clean air for all people who want to have fun recreation time in New Zealand. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank my parliamentary colleague the member for Otaki Darren Hughes for giving me part of his speaking time. I think that very much goes in the spirit of this bill which recognises the huge public health gains that can be achieved by its passing. 
It is important to understand that National regards this bill as a conscience issue and I am speaking as an individual rather than as the National Party. For me the basic issue regarding this bill is one of freedom—freedom of choice about whether one has to partake of other people’s smoke. It is somewhat ironic to hear some of the spokespeople from the ACT party talking about loss of freedom. As I understand it basic libertarian philosophy advocates as much individual freedom as possible provided there is no harm to others—and second-hand smoke unequivocally does harm others. I would go so far as to say that the 25 percent of New Zealanders who do smoke impose on those around them particularly their children and diminish their freedoms. It is just not possible to move away or go to another restaurant if a child has been taken there by its parents. 
As someone who has been a practising clinician for over 25 years I have good reason to be deeply concerned about the issue of all New Zealanders having the freedom to breathe clean air. I spent 2 years in the United States as a pathology resident and one of the most indelibly awful sights was the dissection of the lungs of heavy smokers and I would recommend that activity if one wants to be put off. When I became a specialist obstetrician I could not have had more clearly re-enforced on me the profound implication for a baby both before and after birth of having smoking parents. There is absolutely no doubt that babies and young children who are consistently exposed to second-hand smoke are deprived of achieving their full potential. 
Stopping smoking and eliminating second-hand smoke in public places and at work is one of the most clearly identifiable public-health prevention programmes known. There is a whole raft of epidemiological evidence to support that statement. It is for this reason that the design of this bill is so important. Undoubtedly the workplace-smoking issue is of high importance. The recent case in Australia—an employee of a Returned Services Association successfully sued because her unsafe smoking workplace was considered to be the cause of her cancer—will inevitably have ramifications in New Zealand. 
Many people working in the hospitality industry here are up in arms about the possibility of banning smoking in restaurants bars and casinos and originally thought had indeed been given to having separate smoking rooms. But one of the quite outstanding examples of where this has been quite unnecessary—because banning smoking has worked in an opposite positive direction—has been the South Island smoke-free dining and accommodation guide. Last year I had the opportunity of visiting the Gresham Hotel in Dunedin which has recently become smoke-free and has actually increased its patronage from something like 200 people a week to 2000 a week. Bands play there free of charge because they like the environment. 
One startling anomaly in New Zealand is that the Health and Safety in Employment Act is not being enforced. In fact in 2001 the Occupational Safety and Health Service defined in its handbook that second-hand smoke is a significant hazard capable of causing serious harm and death. Theoretically employers are required to identify and control hazards—including all hospitality venues. I think that there is a huge case for the occupational safety and health laws to be better enforced in New Zealand. The tobacco legislation is undoubtedly in essence about freedom of choice. If adults decide that smoking is what they want to do and if they smoke in situations that do not impact on others including minors then that is up to them. 
Finally I want to acknowledge the work of Action on Smoking and Health. I realise that that group might not be popular in all sectors of New Zealand society but it has relentlessly stuck to its guns on this issue. It has worked really hard to present the New Zealand public with quality information so that individuals can make an informed choice. I also acknowledge the big contribution made by the New Zealand Heart Foundation and related organisations that have also worked very hard to see this bill progressed. Legislation like this is controversial. It does not suit everyone. However I believe that in 20 years’ time the next generation of New Zealanders will be very glad that a huge effort was put in by this generation to help the majority of our children have the freedom of choice of a smoke-free environment. 
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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 76 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 4; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a second time. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could the National whip confirm that he did cast 27 votes on this occasion? 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 We are casting 27 votes. We are casting a vote for Maurice Williamson. We hold his proxy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is fine.