Copeland Gordon: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10403] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The vote on the third reading of this bill will be a conscience vote for the members of United Future. Attitudes within our caucus vary. Some of our caucus will vote for the bill because they want to see lives saved—a goal I think all of us agree with. However I want to take these few moments to express my own views on this legislation as one of those—and there are still some within the House—who have not yet spoken on the bill. 
What weighs with me is that the proponents of the bill turned down a win-win situation and I shall explain that. All of us share the goal of wanting to reduce deaths from passive smoking. I share that goal. My argument is with the method and strategy adopted in this bill. Let us take the example of RSA clubs. I for one with or without a mandate from the people could never walk into an RSA club on a dark wet night and say “Sorry gentlemen but if you want to smoke you’ll have to go outside.” I wonder whether any member of this House could or would do that. 
If I am right about that how can we hide behind this bill? That is exactly what it does. Our returned servicemen are not children. We owe them our freedom and then we use that freedom to come here to Parliament to deny them the freedom and the right to have a cigarette. I think that is wrong. When they made their sacrifice for this country we gave them cigarettes to help them ensure our freedom and our liberty. I apologise for my disobedient tear ducts but I do not take the sacrifice of those returned servicemen lightly. 
All of that is bad enough but the real tragedy in my view is that we do not need to travel down this particular road at all. My colleague Peter Dunne brought to this House a perfectly sane common-sense middle-of-the-road solution—a clean air standard for our clubs pubs and restaurants coupled with designated smoking and non-smoking areas. That is something that with a little give and take—with a little MMP; with a little freedom to allow people to exercise their own conscience—could have achieved the goals that this bill’s proponents seek whilst at the same time recognising the legitimate interest of our war heroes and others in living their lives free from undue totalitarian restrictions. It is a tragedy that that solution made in good faith and backed up with scientific evidence was rejected by this House. 
I would like to refer too to the comments made by Green Party member Sue Kedgley. It seems that on many of these issues Green Party members are not interested in the science of the matter. They are not interested in looking at real objective evidence. They are not interested in whether one is able to achieve—as I have said with a bit of common sense and give and take—a perfectly reasonable outcome for all concerned. 
Of course on other issues they likewise ignore science research and good evidence. I refer in particular to their attitude towards the smoking of cannabis which according to the Green Party is something that is healthy to do and minimises harm to people’s brains especially— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is misrepresenting our views and I object to it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the honourable member to look at Speaker’s ruling 30/1 and then she can make her point about misrepresentation when the member speaking has finished his speech. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate your ruling on that because I was merely responding to a number of extremely inaccurate and hostile comments from that member in respect of the United Future party. It would be quite unfair if I were to be stifled in wanting to respond to them. 
The reality is that the Green Party favours the smoking of cannabis especially when it has been genetically modified to increase its potency. That is simply a complete double standard. I have absolutely no respect for Green members coming along to this House tonight and trying to take some sort of moral high ground in relation to cigarettes which have been freely smoked in this country for generations. As I have already said cigarettes were officially promoted by the Government of New Zealand when it suited our purposes which were to calm our soldiers’ nerves down when they went into battle on our behalf. I reject the double standard and hypocrisy involved in that and the criticism that has been wrongly levied at United Future without any evidence or scientific back-up. The hard reality is that ends do not justify the means. 
I will be voting against this bill but I do so with some reluctance and disappointment because as I said before I think that with a bit of give and take and a bit of goodwill we could have reached a much superior outcome.