Roy Heather: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Roy Heather: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10401] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill with sadness—sadness at the loss of yet more personal freedoms under this authoritarian Labour Government. This bill has had a long protracted path through the parliamentary process and there have been casualties along the way. The casualties I refer to are those of truth and integrity. This debate especially of late has seen truth and integrity seriously compromised. Let me explain. The Ministry of Health claims that second-hand smoke inhalation kills 388 New Zealanders per year. It turns out that there are not 388 people dying each year with second-hand smoke listed as the cause of death on their death certificates. The figure is a Ministry of Health estimate only. Let us not forget that this is the ministry that contracted lobbyists to lobby its own Minister and other MPs to support this bill. The Ministry of Health researchers calculated their death estimate by reading up other studies and doing some basic arithmetic. The literature search turned up these things: firstly estimates of New Zealanders’ exposure to second-hand smoke from Ministry of Health surveys; secondly the number of New Zealanders who had died in 1997 from various diseases such as lung cancer and heart attacks; and thirdly the relative risk of contracting those diseases from second-hand smoke based on overseas studies. So with this bit of arithmetic and some heroic assumptions the Ministry of Health researchers came up with the number 388—388 deaths due apparently to second-hand smoke in 1997. 
There is no doubt that smoking is bad for people but the effects of second-hand smoke—what this bill is all about—are inconclusive. In 1998  
The Economist 
 a well-respected newspaper published an article about a controversial World Health Organization study linking lung cancer and passive smoking. The World Health Organization was convinced that this link was strong. It found however that non-smokers married to working with or raised with smokers were no more at risk of lung cancer than anyone else. The World Health Organization has long admitted that links between lung cancer and passive smoking are weak and these findings were not what it expected or what it wanted. The study was summarised in three paragraphs and buried in a hefty World Health Organization document. Second-hand smoke’s perceived dangers have been used worldwide to rally public support against the tobacco industry especially in pressing for a ban on smoking in public places. Groups like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) love to quote overseas examples—most common are the successes of Los Angeles and New York. The California example is a very unfair comparison. The climate there is conducive to outdoor drinking and dining. If we had this advantage in New Zealand indoor smoking would not be an issue at all. The New York example is much more enlightening. ASH claims that an authoritative new study on smoke bans in New York hotels and restaurants shows that they have not harmed business. This bold statement is not backed by recent reports from New York bar owners. They report that since the ban took effect in March business has dropped nearly 30 percent. The law has already been softened to allow separate ventilated smoking rooms. Ms Kedgley’s claim that people no longer go home smelling of smoke is not quite what it actually seems. 
 Here in New Zealand many bar owners have said they will flout the law. They believe the Ministry of Health lacks the smoke police to enforce the legislation so they are confident of getting away with it. But good law should be enforceable and routinely enforced. The ministry has 17 part-time enhancement officers or smoke police—call them what you will they still do the same job—and no intention of policing the new situation. This highlights the absurdity of politicians trying to legislate to stop any behaviour of which they disapprove. I have contacted every Returned Services Association and club in the country as well as many restaurants and pubs. Clubs have members who pay a membership fee. Returned Services Association people have to pay a fee to go to their local clubs. Yet the Government now thinks it will be able to tell these people how to run their premises. The Government thinks it is going to tell business owners how they should run their businesses—but is the Government there holding the hand of business owners who take the risks when they go under? No not a bit of it. Minimum air standards would have been a happy compromise between the rights of smokers and non-smokers but ventilation systems were ruled completely out by the select committee. Minimum air standards were not even considered. They are simple: if a minimum air standard can be met smoking should be allowed on the premises. If it cannot there should be no smoking. 
Opposition Member 
: That’s common sense. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Exactly right—it is common sense which is being completely ignored. The penalties in the bill are an interesting story. The Labour members did not want to have any penalties at all and to be fair to Steve Chadwick she says this bill is about social change not policing. However the Government’s supporters at the select committee did not agree with it about penalties. They wanted penalties so they came up with the $400 fine for individuals who light up in public places and the $4000 fine for licensees and managers who allow smoking on the site. However during the Committee stage an amendment was put forward to take away the $400 penalty for individuals who light up. It seems now that individuals are no longer responsible for their own actions. Those who will carry the can even if they have asked people to stub out their cigarettes are the bar owners the licensees and the clubs who run their own businesses—the governing bodies. That is wrong. The Greens and United Future have to take some responsibility for this situation. They were adamant that there must be fines and it is them that the business owners and clubs have to thank for the $4000 penalty they might have to pay as a result of this legislation. 
I mentioned lobbying. Lobbying has been a point of discussion for several weeks now ever since my colleague Rodney Hide unearthed the fact which he raised in the House that the Government had contracted its favoured lobby groups specifically to lobby MPs and Ministers. The Government has admitted its guilt and it has announced that the five groups involved have had their lobbying money withdrawn—but doing it in the first place was clearly wrong. The exemptions in the bill are also very enlightening. Marae are exempted unless they have an early childhood centre or offer work on their premises yet Maori women have the highest incidence of lung cancer and young Maori women continue to smoke in increasing numbers. We talk about lung cancer and its correlation with smoking. What sort of example is this exemption sending to the most vulnerable people? The other group who are exempt are prisoners. One can smoke in prison but not when one is a law-abiding citizen who wants to go out for an evening on the town. 
I would like to quote from Abraham Lincoln: “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.” What has Parliament achieved today? It has made a legal activity illegal in public places. This authoritarian Government is again telling people what is good for them. The nanny State is telling people how to live their lives. Yet another freedom has been taken away from us today. I am a non-smoker; all ACT MPs are non-smokers. ACT does not advocate smoking but we believe that people have the right to choose to smoke despite the risks and to take responsibility for the consequences. Legislation banning smoking in public places takes away that right and assumes that New Zealanders are incapable of making decisions for themselves. This is very poor legislation and it will not see the number of people dying from smoking-related diseases reduced by even one.