Chadwick Steve: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7946] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I have a few corrections to make again. I just want to emphasise that this is not an anti-smoking bill. I say that very clearly because we do understand that smoking is an addiction. If that addiction happens at a very early age then people who are addicted to nicotine need help and that is something this Government is prepared to do. We have Quitline and smoking cessation programmes and it is very important to get that message across. Seventy-five percent of New Zealanders do not smoke and that is the aspect of choice that we were talking about. This amendment bill is protecting the air for those 75 percent who choose not to smoke. All we are asking is that smokers go outside and then come back and carry on with their drinking. 
The Returned Services Association issue is a difficult one but the select committee made the decision to take it across the board in the interests of consistency of argument and a level playing field wherever there is a liquor licence. I know that the Hospitality Association is looking at us today and imploring us not to make exemptions because we would be creating an unfair commercial environment. This bill went even further than it was originally intended because we did originally consider separate rooms but then we decided that that would not work. It would be like peeing in a swimming pool—it just mixes around. We have to take it right across the board and have an all-or-nothing approach. 
In relation to Returned Services Associations I also point out that only 12 percent of people over 65 smoke. That would mean that nearly 90 percent of the Returned Services Association patrons who are truly old soldiers—whom we respect value and thank for their contribution to our lives today—do not smoke. So we are very aware of that here. 
I also want to point out that we are talking about the rolling effect of Returned Services Associations and about how far we can take a bill. I have had a wonderful letter today from Ray Wolf the president of the Marlborough Returned Services Association saying: “We congratulate you. The Marlborough Returned Services Association welcomes the move to ban smoking in the club.” Only 5 percent of its patrons are smokers so I think we will slowly see an incremental change. We certainly do not want to be known as the nanny State. 
Larry Baldock brought up the issue of the environment. He is absolutely right about cars and homes but it is about bringing people with us and about how far one can go. I just want to remind the Committee that this bill first came in in 1990. It is now 13 years later and this is about as far as we are prepared to go here today. I think the issue of air pollution which somebody else brought up is a different aspect and one for an environmental air standard to deal with. 
The vexed issue of prison cells was one that came before the select committee and we decided to treat only the cell as if it were the prisoner’s own home—not the yard dining room or anywhere else in a prison. The Department of Corrections implored us to keep the cells provision in the bill simply because it has to manage prisoners in prisons. On that advice we treated the cell as the prisoner’s own room—unless a prisoner has a room mate in which case the smoke-free provision applies if the room mate does not want the other prisoner to smoke. 
I just wanted to make it quite clear to members of the Committee who are interested and have come today that this is not an anti-smokers bill.