Kedgley Sue: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7934] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Many thousands—in fact I am quite sure the majority—of New Zealanders are thrilled about the passage of this bill which is widely supported in the community particularly by all of those of us who are fed up with coming home at night with our clothes reeking and our eyes and our throats hurting and so forth. Most of us are counting the days until we can breathe our clean unpolluted air and enjoy a smoke-free environment when we go out for a night on the town. 
Some of the views of the opponents would be credible if smokers were harming only themselves with their habit. But the truth is that every single time people light up they basically put at risk the health of everyone else around them. This is the central fact that we have to acknowledge. Two-thirds of the smoke is exhaled into the air so that everyone else around them is breathing in that smoke and the 50 carcinogens in that smoke. 
That is the issue we have to address. If smokers were taking all of the smoke down into their lungs and just harming themselves with their habit I am sure this bill would not be before us today. But the truth is that there is despite all the efforts to discredit it overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that second-hand smoke is the leading cause of death and disease causing about one person to die a premature death every single day in New Zealand. 
Of course we hear some of our opponents reciting the discredited arguments of the tobacco industry and using those discredited tobacco industry tactics to try to water down or defeat all or parts of this bill. This is sad but it is not unexpected. An excellent report by George Thomson and Dr Nick Wilson documents the fact that the tobacco industry has used every single trick in the book for the last four decades to oppose every form of tobacco control. They try to question the evidence and have thrown doubt on it. They have thrown in so-called independent experts and they have lobbied. 
Unfortunately we see MPs in this House singing the tobacco industry tune that somehow the research is inconclusive that somehow non-smokers’ rights are less important than property rights that somehow ventilation will solve the problem of second-hand smoke when we have had compelling evidence in the select committee that it will not. It is very disappointing that we see members in this House singing the song of the tobacco industry. But it is to be expected. It is yet another last-ditch effort to try to dilute or defeat this bill. 
Those members have been reciting all of these arguments that oh this will not work and so on and so forth. That is what they said in California—it is not going to work. In California the evidence that we had was that the people of California are absolutely delighted for the most part with this legislation. They are delighted with the fact that they are not having their health impaired every time they go to a café and so on. The fact is that nobody should have to risk his or her health to go to work. All this business about “Oh what about the rights of smokers?”! What about the rights of non-smokers? What about the rights of workers who have to work in these smoky environments every single day of their lives? What about the fact that they are vastly increasing their risk of ill health because of all the people who are smoking in their workplaces? 
The truth is that the majority of New Zealanders are just waiting for the day for this bill to be passed. Quite frankly I think we will look back and say with incredulity that we allowed ourselves to be in smoky environments where we know that 50 cancer-causing substances are swimming around in the room. We have to be honest and acknowledge that smoke-free zones in cafés and bars are simply not working; the smoke just travels all through the room. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Richard Worth. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My colleague Heather Roy has been calling consistently. I believe she should have been called in favour to the Greens on a numerical basis. You failed to do that. You have now chosen to call a second National speaker and have still not heard from the ACT party spokesperson on health. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already called the member now under Speaker’s ruling 23/8. I recognise the point that the member has made. I am also trying to do it in proportionality and National is entitled to three as against the ACT party’s one. ACT will get the next call. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: They should have had the last one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I appreciate the point that the member has made but I have already made the call.