Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7461] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank my parliamentary colleague the member for Otaki Darren Hughes for giving me part of his speaking time. I think that very much goes in the spirit of this bill which recognises the huge public health gains that can be achieved by its passing. 
It is important to understand that National regards this bill as a conscience issue and I am speaking as an individual rather than as the National Party. For me the basic issue regarding this bill is one of freedom—freedom of choice about whether one has to partake of other people’s smoke. It is somewhat ironic to hear some of the spokespeople from the ACT party talking about loss of freedom. As I understand it basic libertarian philosophy advocates as much individual freedom as possible provided there is no harm to others—and second-hand smoke unequivocally does harm others. I would go so far as to say that the 25 percent of New Zealanders who do smoke impose on those around them particularly their children and diminish their freedoms. It is just not possible to move away or go to another restaurant if a child has been taken there by its parents. 
As someone who has been a practising clinician for over 25 years I have good reason to be deeply concerned about the issue of all New Zealanders having the freedom to breathe clean air. I spent 2 years in the United States as a pathology resident and one of the most indelibly awful sights was the dissection of the lungs of heavy smokers and I would recommend that activity if one wants to be put off. When I became a specialist obstetrician I could not have had more clearly re-enforced on me the profound implication for a baby both before and after birth of having smoking parents. There is absolutely no doubt that babies and young children who are consistently exposed to second-hand smoke are deprived of achieving their full potential. 
Stopping smoking and eliminating second-hand smoke in public places and at work is one of the most clearly identifiable public-health prevention programmes known. There is a whole raft of epidemiological evidence to support that statement. It is for this reason that the design of this bill is so important. Undoubtedly the workplace-smoking issue is of high importance. The recent case in Australia—an employee of a Returned Services Association successfully sued because her unsafe smoking workplace was considered to be the cause of her cancer—will inevitably have ramifications in New Zealand. 
Many people working in the hospitality industry here are up in arms about the possibility of banning smoking in restaurants bars and casinos and originally thought had indeed been given to having separate smoking rooms. But one of the quite outstanding examples of where this has been quite unnecessary—because banning smoking has worked in an opposite positive direction—has been the South Island smoke-free dining and accommodation guide. Last year I had the opportunity of visiting the Gresham Hotel in Dunedin which has recently become smoke-free and has actually increased its patronage from something like 200 people a week to 2000 a week. Bands play there free of charge because they like the environment. 
One startling anomaly in New Zealand is that the Health and Safety in Employment Act is not being enforced. In fact in 2001 the Occupational Safety and Health Service defined in its handbook that second-hand smoke is a significant hazard capable of causing serious harm and death. Theoretically employers are required to identify and control hazards—including all hospitality venues. I think that there is a huge case for the occupational safety and health laws to be better enforced in New Zealand. The tobacco legislation is undoubtedly in essence about freedom of choice. If adults decide that smoking is what they want to do and if they smoke in situations that do not impact on others including minors then that is up to them. 
Finally I want to acknowledge the work of Action on Smoking and Health. I realise that that group might not be popular in all sectors of New Zealand society but it has relentlessly stuck to its guns on this issue. It has worked really hard to present the New Zealand public with quality information so that individuals can make an informed choice. I also acknowledge the big contribution made by the New Zealand Heart Foundation and related organisations that have also worked very hard to see this bill progressed. Legislation like this is controversial. It does not suit everyone. However I believe that in 20 years’ time the next generation of New Zealanders will be very glad that a huge effort was put in by this generation to help the majority of our children have the freedom of choice of a smoke-free environment.