Newman Muriel: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Newman Muriel: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22073] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. 
I would like to say at the beginning of this debate that I do not smoke. It is now some 18 months since the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill passed into law. It appears to me that enough time has passed for Parliament now to revisit that legislation and that we can have a look at what unintended consequences have been created by the passing of that law. The primary effect of the smoke-free law has been that many people are no longer calling into their local pubs or clubs; they are just staying at home. Much of the camaraderie that used to exist in those establishments has now gone and the reason is that it is all too hard. If people want to have a smoke they are forced out into the cold. They cannot take their drinks outside; there is a huge issue about what happens to drinks that have not been drunk. Around the country various measures are being tried to make sure that people are not able to spike drinks. 
When people do go outside they often get hassled by kids who ask them for cigarettes by pedestrians who are trying to walk by or by neighbours who are not used to having noise outside the pub or club. In fact sending people outside has created a whole new set of problems. There have been complaints about noise obstruction and litter as well. Pub and club owners have a sense of responsibility for what is going on outside yet they are usually unable to do too much about it. 
The effect of the law on non-smokers has also been unexpected. Non-smokers have suddenly found that they too have to go outside into the cold because if they do not go outside with the smokers there is nobody left in the bar to talk to. That was something nobody predicted when that bill was being passed into law. 
In some parts of the country illegal drinking houses have now been set up in garages and sheds. They do not have liquor licences and there are no safeguards. There is none of the good host responsibility that needs to take place. I ask Labour members whether that is what they intended; I suspect it is not. 
A major effect of the law change has been that small businesses up and down the country have really had a problem. For many patronage has gone down by about half; others have been forced to close. I received a very desperate letter when the smoke-free law first went through from an owner of one of the cigar bars around New Zealand. He said that nobody goes into his cigar bar unless he or she wants to smoke a cigar. He said that no staff member works at his cigar bar unless he or she likes to smoke cigars as well. He asked why Labour was trying to destroy his business. I can only presume that that was not the intention of the Government. If that is the case—if it was not the intention of the Government—then the Government should support this bill going to a select committee so the select committee can have a look at the law that was passed and at what the unintended consequences have been and can allow for a better balance in the law. That is all I am asking for with this member’s bill. 
For some bars clubs and pubs the law change has been an absolute disaster. Patronage has plummeted. The worst thing is that so many promises were given when the bill was going through the House and the Health Committee that heaps and heaps of non-smokers would come in to replace the smokers who might decide to stay at home. That simply did not eventuate in most establishments up and down the country so many have closed. One of the big consequences is that many staff have been laid off. People who used to work in those places now no longer have jobs. It is not just bar staff either. All the other suppliers of services and goods to bars and pubs have suffered as well. 
I will read some excerpts from a letter from Jane. She has a small pub in a city area and her clientele are a lot of older people who enjoy coming in for a beer after they finish work. A lot of people who have retired want to come to enjoy music play pool be in good company and really have a good time. In Jane’s case she used to employ six bar staff herself and a security person. Now she is working on two staff—two bar people that is all—herself and a part-time security guard. She has gone from employing eight staff in that establishment if we count her to essentially having three and a half. She then states that people who stand in the street and try to have a smoke get hassled by young kids who want to smoke. When the kids are told they cannot have one they get very abusive vulgar and sometimes extremely violent. 
Then I have a letter from Annie who lives in a provincial town. She writes: “I have owned my hotel for 19 years and have suffered through the many changes in the liquor industry and I have survived until now. I feel so strongly about this breach of human rights that I have started smoking after being a non-smoker for 30 years. This law has not only adversely affected the hotel industry but also the service providers such as food beverage cleaning juke box and pool table businesses and maintenance contractors electricians plumbers and so on. Many people have shed staff to cope with the downturn in income. On the upside doctors and chemists are busier than ever before because of patrons getting ill through having to endure the cold weather or becoming depressed about not being able to live a normal life.” 
She goes on to apologise for writing such a politically incorrect letter but says that she now feels particularly desperate about the future. 
I have a letter here from Joe who lives in a country area. He says which I think is a bit of a worry that establishments that ignore the law are getting all the customers. He says that some people are even travelling 10 to 15 kilometres in country areas to such places and that of course they all drive back home. He says it is getting to the stage whereby one must ignore the law in order to carry on or go broke. He makes two really interesting points. He says that he was told there would be an influx of non-smoking customers buts asks where they are. That is the message that is coming from establishment owners up and down the country. He also writes: “We did not even have a choice or a chance to improve our bars to compensate for smoking to allow a healthier environment to cater for both smokers and non-smokers. I know there is a sensible solution.” 
That is what I am trying to do with this bill—provide a better sensible solution to the problems that have emerged. If the Labour Government does not support this bill going to a select committee then that will tell me it is anti-business. It is those little mum and dad businesses up and down the country that are feeling the brunt of that legislation. Since this bill was first drawn from the ballot I have consulted widely up and down the country. As a result I have put in an amendment which members can find on the Table. It appears to me that the best solution is to allow the establishment of smoking rooms within bars clubs or pubs and in those smoking rooms to have ventilation and proper air quality equipment with proper air quality standards. Most of the establishments that have been able to have put together some sort of outdoor smoking area. Many of the publicans say—and they are quite happy to do it—that if they had the opportunity to provide that inside or under cover where people can be kept warm then that is what they would like to do. 
So I ask that in this debate people consider that this is an amendment to fix up the problems that have emerged in the law. It is not draconian; it is common sense and I ask members to support its referral to a select committee.