Connell Brian: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Connell Brian: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7941] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for letting me make a contribution to this debate. I intend it to be fairly short. I need to say at the outset that I cannot support this legislation because I also believe it to be very knee-jerk. My idea for a title of this bill is the “Smoke-free Impossibility Environments Amendment Bill” because it just is not possible to have a smoke-free environment. 
I want to develop just a couple of themes. One of those has been touched on by a couple of speakers previously and that is the issue of choice. Why do we insist on this nanny State mentality? Why can we not simply let the market choose? Let us take the example of a restaurant. Why not let the market dictate what will take place? Entrepreneurial restaurateurs who think they can make a buck out of a smoke-free restaurant should open one and let us see what happens. The market will dictate; if people go to their restaurant word will get around and people will support them. But we cannot legislate for that. What members are doing is trying to tell people what is right and what is wrong for them. We just cannot do that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Jill Pettis 
: The member just said he made money in his restaurant. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is exactly my point. Let people choose. We should not legislate for it; let them choose. If people want to go to a smoke-free place they will. That is what I am saying. 
The second issue is the Returned Services Association clubs. Like a previous speaker I have made contact with some of them. I have a petition from one club that asks why this legislation is taking place. I tell the Committee that 137 people signed that petition. They are mostly old soldiers who they said have given their all for this country and now they are being told when they can have a fag and when they cannot and more important where. This goes right to the heart of their quality of life. They go down to the Returned Services Association club to see their mates to have a yarn and a fag. They have already risked life and limb most of these folks and they are not concerned about whether having a smoke might harm them. I am looking across the Chamber at Peter Dunne and am just reflecting— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Another returned soldier! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No no but if he had been a soldier I am sure he would have been a very fine one. I am looking at Peter Dunne and thinking that he has this issue pretty well sorted out because if people can produce a clean air environment why would we not support that? Is not that just an issue of common sense? 
If we are going to be brutally honest about all of this why do we not ban smoking full stop? I will say why that will not happen. The Government does not have the stomach for it. Damien O’Connor would not support that on the West Coast. Absolutely not! He would be out of business quick smart. Imagine going to the West Coast Damien and saying— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot refer to Mr O’Connor by his first name. Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement) says that the member must use his full name his portfolio or his title. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the Chair for his guidance. I think my point nevertheless is made. What about the hypocrisy of this— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot use the word “hypocrisy”. It has been ruled out of order many times in this Chamber. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I apologise. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt the member but I suggest to you that he was not referring to the hypocrisy of members which is out of order; the member was referring to the hypocrisy of the argument. An argument can be hypocritical and to say that it is does not imply a judgment on members who are making it. I suggest that you might want to reflect on your ruling which I think was unduly harsh in respect of that member’s comments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you I shall reflect on it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the member for his support. In fact I was referring to the arguments and I was not casting any aspersions on members of this Committee. But I will not use the term because obviously it upsets the Chair. 
What I will say is that I find it ironic that people who have committed heinous crimes in this country can sit in their prison cells and have a smoke but ex-soldiers of this country people who have given their all for it cannot light up a fag at the local Returned Services Association club. This is PC gone mad. I am looking at a couple of members across the other side of the Committee whom I have come to respect: they do not believe in this. A couple of them are now looking away. They do not support this legislation at all. They know that this does not make sense. They know that they will have a hard job selling this because it just is not saleable. The “Smoke-free Impossibility Environments Amendment Bill” I believe is a better title.