Adams Paul: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Adams Paul: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9988] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 It never ceases to amaze me what foresight some of our forefathers had. New Zealand was called Aotearoa the Land of the Long White Cloud. Once this law passes that is what it will be—the land of the long white cloud. All the smokers will be outside and one will be able to see the smoke. Maybe as a tourism promotion a cloud of smoke will be hanging over New Zealand so that people clearly recognise our fine land when they come here in their planes. 
Let us look at the purposes of the bill in clause 3. One is “to prevent the detrimental effect of other people’s smoking on the health of people in workplaces”. I would question the motive behind the bill. If smoking is really so bad for people why do we not just ban cigarettes? But no we could not do that because look at the tax take on cigarettes. How could we possibly ban cigarettes? No this legislation is more anti-business. This legislation loads up small-business people the very heart of New Zealand business with extra rules. [ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking on clause 3 on the purpose of this bill in relation to the workplace. 
Let us take a situation where a small business has only one room where traditionally the employees have gone to have their break. It used to be called the smoko room. Now what will it be? Will it be a smoko room or a non-smoko room? What I have found with bureaucratic legislation that affects small-business owners is that if I decide my workplace is a smoking workplace all of a sudden my non-smoking employees will have me up for discrimination because they are non-smokers. If I make the workplace non-smoking then of course the other employees will have me up for discrimination because they are smokers. Really a business cannot win on these sorts of things and that is a real problem. 
Other purposes are “(b) to prevent young people who are being taught or cared for in registered schools or early childhood centres from being influenced by seeing other people smoke there; and (c) to prevent the detrimental effect of other people’s smoking on the health of young people who are being taught or cared for in registered schools or early childhood centres.” What about other places? Do we not care about young people there? Do we not care about young people in the home? Is not that what we are really concerned about? The trouble is we want to legislate for what we think is right but of course that never works. If we try to protect a little child who is learning to walk if we put a little cradle around that child so that he or she never falls over that child will never walk properly. A person has to make decisions for himself or herself. 
Business in New Zealand well knows that any business runs on supply and demand. If a restaurant is a smoking restaurant— [ 
Interruption 
] I am talking about the places referred to in clause 3.