Chadwick Steve: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22075] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I listened to the sponsor of the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill with great interest but some of the facts were quite incorrect. I would just like to correct those mistakes for the record and for Dr Newman. The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill was passed in December 2003. It was not implemented until December 2004 so there has not been 18 months of implementation. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Since it was passed in the House. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right. It has been a reality out in the world for only 9 months. It is a strange thing that this exemption bill is being proposed so soon when there is a growing tide of public support for the legislation as it was passed in 2003. As one would expect non-smokers support the legislation as it stands. Support for it is now at 70 percent. That is really high—much higher than we ever expected when we passed the legislation. The other interesting statistic from the survey done by the Asthma Society is that even smokers’ support for the legislation has gone up from 22 percent to 42 percent. That is quite an astronomical increase—those people are actually saying that the legislation works. 
I also found it interesting that the sponsor Dr Newman said that whether we vote for or against this bill will flush out whether we support business. The Act is not anti-business; it is about having clean air for people to breathe. It is not just for non-smokers; it is also for the workers the volunteers the institutions and the public. The primary reason for passing the initial legislation was to ensure we had clean air. 
I am sad that one pub in my electorate is struggling—but the Lake House is an institution that has always struggled actually. It had its old drinkers and they are not going back any more. That establishment is struggling and I feel sad about that but it is ridiculous to say that a bill that began its journey in 1990—15 years ago—went through incremental increases and was reintroduced in 1999 by Tukoroirangi Morgan was something new and sudden that business did not adjust to. Business adjusts remarkably well to law. In 1999 when the next amendment about the environment was brought in business knew. If publicans bought an establishment knowing that the legislation was going to be in the pipeline over the next 5 years then it was at their own behest. Let the buyer beware. 
I am not surprised that ACT is sponsoring an amendment to the very robust Act. That is consistent with its vote against the original bill and then against the amendment bill in 2003. The exemptions proposed in this bill are simply stupid. They are stupid because we discussed the issue of exemptions at the Health Committee when we went up and down the country. It was actually the Hospitality Association of New Zealand that told us we could not have exemptions. We had been considering exemptions very seriously. At one stage we thought that pubs could have a room for smokers but that was unfair and I will tell members why. If we allowed exemptions—and in this bill I notice that exemptions would apply just to licensed premises and clubs—what would happen to the RSAs that also came to us? What about others that wanted an exemption? Suddenly we had exemptions all over the place and it was a really messy concept. 
We also learnt one other very profound thing during the submission phase of the bill—which was not that long ago—which was that ventilation systems do not work. I notice that the proposer of this bill talked about having a smoking space with a good ventilation system and a clean air standard. There is no ventilation system that reduces or eliminates the carcinogenic products of second-hand smoke or the sidestream smoke from cigarette smoking. One simply cannot remove them from the air. The particulates get into the wall and then breathe back out of the wall space. So that is an idea that would not work at all. Those contaminants stay in the environment; all a ventilation system does is blow them around. 
Just as the sponsor for this bill has been going up and down the country—I have heard that Dr Newman has been in Rotorua and good on her for finding out about it—I also went out. I had quite a haranguing from the Hospitality Association of New Zealand about the legislation and its impact but the overwhelming support from the public about saving 350 lives a year is what drove me to sponsor the legislation. It was a public health bill it was not against business and there was support from the World Health Assembly to which New Zealand is a proud signatory. 
We are determined that this legislation must remain in place and not be tampered with. The exemptions would not work. During the submission phase people from the RSA the Pool Association pétanque clubs and the Matai Club all said that the smoke-free law must go across the board without exception or else it would create an unfair playing field for commerce. We took that on board and therefore took the all-or-nothing approach. 
I think we are at a stage where it is too soon to look at the Act. After the Act was passed in 2003 we said that this issue would not be revisited. We need to get it well embedded. Any public health legislation does not start to bring about social change for over 5 years. We got social change overnight and it is simply astonishing to me that people complied with the law. 
It is also interesting that the Ministry of Health as the enforcement agency has had only 195 complaints across the country in the 9 months since the legislation’s operation. Ninety-four of those complaints came from licensed premises and some of those were from publicans who said that they needed help with recidivist offenders who when they were asked to go outside would not go. So they were from responsible publicans. Fifty complaints came from workplaces where the smoke-free legislation was not being adhered to 29 came from retail outlets and 22 came from others. 
In 2003 when the Act was passed people said that there would be police out there. I can remember the hysteria in the House about the smoking police and the smoking Nazis. That has not happened. For there to have been 195 complaints from people asking for help with the enforcement of this legislation is simply astonishing and far fewer than we ever expected. I certainly cannot support this bill. It is a little bit frivolous at this stage and I am hopeful that my colleagues are with me on this. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that speeches from here on in are 5 minutes.