Hughes Darren: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22082] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the first reading of Muriel Newman’s bill—the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill—and oppose it with some pride. When I consider all the arguments we had to listen to in Parliament at the time when Steve Chadwick sponsored the first bill through—arguments about the end of the entertainment industry and the end of bars and clubs— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Doom and gloom! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: As the Hon Dover Samuels says it was all the usual doom and gloom stuff that we have come to expect from the ACT party. I can understand the ACT party members having a slightly fatalistic and final view of the world at the present time. I do not criticise their sort of world view; one would think it would be doom and gloom. One would understand their thinking that things were going up in a puff of smoke and the smoke we will see them disappearing into I think will not be carcinogenic in terms of other members of the House. 
But I want to tell them that this legislation is working really really well. What has happened is that the three-quarters of the people who do not— 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Go and talk to people. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: That is exactly what I have been doing. The three-quarters of people who do not smoke have now experienced life in the new environment in bars and clubs and they actually say: “Gee I can notice a difference. I was prepared to stick up for my friends who smoked and I thought maybe that legislation was a bit over the top. But now that I can see what a clean-air environment actually means and what it is like to go out and eat socialise dance drink and party in I actually quite like it.” 
But more than that Dr Newman needs to know that people who smoke can actually see the difference as well. We get far more people telling us as we move about the place that the legislation is not as bad as they thought it would be than people telling us that we absolutely have to change it. 
Of course New Zealand was not the world leader in this regard. We always used to be at the cutting edge of smoke-free initiatives but after 9 long years of a National Government we fell behind on all those important public health measures—as is always the case—because it was too keen on trying to cut taxes education health and pensions and making New Zealand a mean and miserable place. So we have had to try to bring these issues back to the fore. 
In that regard the Americans have actually had a bit of a run on us. California which is a pretty busy place with a lot of entertainment and people out and about enjoying life and New York City—again a big entertainment place with people out enjoying themselves—have seen significant gains already through having smoke-free environments. 
We have never said that people should not smoke. Obviously that is an adult’s right to choose. If people are 18 years of age or over they can choose to smoke. But because we know categorically that smoking has an effect on other people we have said: “Wouldn’t it be quite a good public health idea to try to make sure that other people did not suffer from the actions of a few?” because only a quarter of the population of course smoke. The ACT party which one would think would say that people should be responsible for their own actions and not cause externalities to other people seems to be totally blind to the fact that other people breathe oxygen that has been polluted with tobacco smoke in confined environments—that is inside. People can go outside and smoke—that is fine; it is a big planet. But what we are saying is that our bars cafes and restaurants should remain smoke-free because it is working very very well. 
The Californian Medical Association reported that lung cancer rates in California have fallen six times faster than those in any other state in America that did not have public measures like this. That statistic alone—those kind of gains—would indicate to me that this is a good idea that we should continue to pursue. 
I acknowledge that some clubs have found the legislation difficult. What I do say is that bar owners have said to me that it is nowhere near as bad as they thought it would be and nowhere near as bad as the Opposition made out at the time. The scaremongering that was going on was of course—as everything is—from National. National told us that the Employment Relations Act would cause the end of the economy and joblessness all round. Of course what the legislation has created is much fairer workplaces and the lowest unemployment in the OECD. So things are not quite so bad as Opposition parties often say. 
The Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act is making a difference. People who work in this environment are finding it is worthwhile and also patrons are enjoying the smoke-free environments. 
Marc Alexander 
: Rubbish! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Marc Alexander calls out “Rubbish!”. When one goes into those places and asks people whether they prefer the clean air—and I am thinking of the Levin “cossie club” or across at our RSA—do people say: “The worst thing about my Friday night now is that I can’t breathe in other people’s smoke.”? How many people have said that to the member? 
Marc Alexander 
: Dozens. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The member is now in the final days before Parliament rises running the real risk of a privileges case because he is claiming that dozens of people have said to him: “My Friday nights are ruined because I can’t breathe in the second-hand smoke of others.” I find that proposition very difficult to follow indeed. What we see is that those places are improving. All the statistics that come from other areas show that more people are spending money more people are enjoying the atmosphere. I think this is a good measure that we have taken. It is just like when smoking on aeroplanes was banned and people said it was PC nonsense. 
Dail Jones 
: When was that? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: One used to be able to smoke on a plane on long-haul flights. If one had the first row of “non-smoking” behind the last row of “smoking” presumably the ACT party would say that was all right because there was a decent exemption.