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:7956] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak about the amendments to clause 1A and clause 2 that I have put and that are on Supplementary Order Paper 117. I am proposing an amendment that deletes the reference to new section 6B that appears in clause 1A(3) which states that several provisions “come into force on the day 12 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” and inserts a new subclause 5A stating: “Section 6B comes into force on the date of commencementof the first regulations made under section 39(1).” What that is about is that the proposal I will be advancing in further amendments as we proceed—to establish an air quality standard—hinges on the proposal taking effect after that quality standard has been established. So this amendment to the commencement provision is needed if we are to achieve the goal of saying that an air quality standard is to be promulgated by—I forget the date—2006 and to take effect in 2007. So that is what those two amendments to clause 1A deal with. 
I am also proposing an amendment to clause 2 that inserts after the definition of “managers” simply for alphabetical reasons a definition of “minimum air quality standard” as being a standard set by regulations to be made under section 39A which I will be proposing a little later on be inserted into the bill. I will be proposing that we take some time to allow the Ministry of Health officials who claim to be expert in these areas—they are medically qualified people who have suddenly developed an expertise in ventilation filtration and all forms of engineering and life in general which I find devastating fascinating and utterly unbelievable—to have the opportunity to consult widely with those who actually know something about this and are not just simply guided by the prejudice of the Dr Laugesens of this world. That man has made a career out of ripping off public funding simply to gallivant around the world going to conferences at the public’s expense. The fact is that the ministry ought to be given some chance to redeem itself by taking time to consult widely and develop a proper air standard which can then be implemented. That is what the definition inserted by my amendment to clause 2 implies. 
I notice a couple of other interesting things with regard to the definition clause of the bill relating to the definitions of “herbal smoking product” and also “additive”. I have checked with both the Associate Minister of Health and the sponsor who assure me that these particular definitions encompass cannabis. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: So it should. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: “So it should.” says the member opposite who spends his life going up and down this country campaigning for everyone to smoke cannabis literally from the day people are born. There is a word for that. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh it has always been that party’s policy. He says he is not sure what his party’s policy is! It is the pro-cannabis party. It is happy to be identified as such. Here those members are standing up in the Chamber tonight and trumpeting the need for cannabis to be legalised because it is so good for people while at the same time trying to deny the guys in the Returned Services Association clubs the right to light up a cigarette. That is the complete abnormality of the Greens’ position. 
I notice that when we look at the definitions that are contained in here we see that they actually limit the Greens ability to campaign for cannabis quite considerably. I wonder why the Greens given their advocacy for cannabis are supporting this bill because they will not actually be able to have their great smoke-ups that they like to do—they will also be caught by this bill. But I think I know why they are supporting it. They actually know that this law is essentially stupid unenforceable and unworkable and will simply be ignored. They will carry on in the way they are doing smug in their self-satisfaction that they have contributed to a situation where other people’s rights have been trampled upon where people’s freedoms of association have been threatened where we have removed any ability for a reasoned debate and where we have removed any ability for designated areas. 
 One of the lunacies that the previous member highlighted is that we can have designated smoking areas within hospitals of all places but we cannot let the cigar bars in Christchurch or Auckland for instance carry on. I would have thought that hospitals as a symbol of health protection and health promotion were the last place within which members would want a designated smoking area. 
Richard Worth 
: Hurray for Mr Dunne! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Absolutely; I will take that from the member opposite; maybe if we have a Monacan raise but I will take it as well. The point is that the definition clause does highlight a number of the contradictions and absurdities within this legislation.