Volume 610 Week 33 - Wednesday 13 August 2003 
Volume 610 Week 33 - Wednesday 13 August 2003 
[Volume:610;Page:7895] 
Wednesday 13 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Delegation from Malaysia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from Malaysia led by the Hon Datuk Muhammad Abdullah Deputy Speaker to the House of Representatives is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Points of Order 
Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday there was a debate held on the report of the Privileges Committee which was held according to a process set down by you some weeks ago. That process included a statutory obligation on your part to declare whether a vacancy had been caused as a result of the circumstances relating to the MP for New Plymouth Mr Harry Duynhoven. Earlier on you had said you wanted to listen to that debate before you made any declaration. The debate has occurred and is completed. As I understand it the record of the House shows that you have not commented in any way on the situation. I think it would be useful to the House if you could explain whether you intend to make any such declaration and if you do not intend to make a declaration what the reasons are for that. That is the first issue. 
The second issue relates to a number of legitimate questions that were raised in the debate regarding a matter that is at the core of the privilege of sitting in this Parliament. They included questions about advice given to you and judgments made by you and I would appreciate it if you could give some indication to the House as to whether you intend to answer any of the questions that were raised as part of yesterday’s debate bearing in mind the fact that it was a debate you had sought and one which you said you wanted to listen to before making any decisions. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 You might conclude that the matter is now hypothetical because of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill but I suggest to you that it is not because there is still a question of the right parliamentary reaction. If you were to give a ruling having heard the debate that but for that bill you would have declared the seat to be vacant that might result in other members of Parliament—of whom you must be aware—who may be caught in the situation deciding that the honourable thing for them to do is to now resign. They need your ruling in order to know that so I think that is desirable. 
There has been some suggestion that this part of the Electoral Act is confusing. You will have heard the majority of the Privileges Committee say that it is not confusing and that it is actually very clear. That is now a moot question and I think we need a ruling from the Speaker. The House would like to know whether the Speaker thinks the issue is confusing or clear. Of course if you do think it is clear it is my view that a number of MPs will then realise what their duty is too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is only an obligation if the Speaker believes that a vacancy has occurred. The Speaker does not rule on no vacancy. It is not legitimate to raise questions to the Speaker by way of debate and no answer was called for. I do not give hypothetical rulings now that the law has changed. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We just have the small embarrassment of the facts. I know that that might be regarded as a problem for the Parliament but for most people according to common sense the facts of the matter have not been altered by the action that Parliament took in passing the legislation. The facts are that the qualification to sit in Parliament was breached and all the official advice was that a vacancy had occurred. That was then retrospectively changed by the passage of legislation but there is absolutely no doubt that the question of a vacancy arose. That cannot be denied. Given that the question of a vacancy arose in a technical sense what the Government did with the legislation is irrelevant to your obligation under statute to deal with that question. 
The facts raise the question of whether a vacancy occurred. If it is now your intention to ignore the facts as if the passage of legislation obliterates all the actions that were taken by a member of Parliament we need to know that because I do not think even the Government would claim that the legislation states that Harry Duynhoven did not do what he did. The fact is that he did and you have an obligation to let this Parliament know whether a vacancy has occurred. If your explanation is that there is none because the legislation has been passed then we should hear that from the Speaker of the House. Up to this point we have heard nothing from the Speaker who is the final arbiter of whether someone is qualified to sit in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question of a vacancy— 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance. The question of vacancy arose and has been dealt with. There is no longer anything for the Speaker to rule on. It is up to members themselves if they wish to promote amendments to the Electoral Act but not for the Speaker. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with that answer is that members of this Parliament and any future members of Parliament will not know what the precedent is with regard to such a matter or any similar matter that goes to the Speaker’s office. In my view there was always going to be a window in time where the Speaker had to give his decision and I said so at the time and during the debate. Your ruling on 23 July stated that you would wait upon the Privileges Committee and the House with regard to this issue. It cannot be that because the Government has a device available to it that enables it to alter the outcome of this matter no question ever arose before you as Speaker. To assert that is really to make an argument so narrow as to be ridiculous. There was always a time during this issue where the Speaker would have had to say that he had found that there was a breach but events had overtaken it and therefore it was of no future moment; or that there was no breach. But there cannot be no decision at all so that anyone studying this issue is no wiser today as to what the proper course for the Speaker would be what ruling to follow or what precedent should be taken into account than that person was before the event happened. I am putting the position in the most reasonable fashion. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I wish you to consider my concern about the reputation of Parliament and indeed the Speakership. When you look at  
Hansard 
 you will see that you have publicly told this House not once but repeatedly that you have sent the Duynhoven issue to the Privileges Committee because you wanted to hear from that committee. You then publicly told the House not once but repeatedly that once that debate was over you would rule. You did not say that you would not rule if the Government legislated. In fact you gave the House your word that you were not colluding with the Government that you were not taking any notice of the legislation and that after the Privileges Committee had completed its debate and made a decision and you had heard from the House you would give a ruling. I say to you that you are honour-bound from the point of view of your reputation to give that ruling. It may be a ruling that the Government and Mr Duynhoven might not like but that is not a reason not to give it. The fact that it is now hypothetical is not a reason for the Speaker to withdraw a commitment he has given to the House. I am calling on you to honour the word you gave to me and every other MP that you would now rule. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing substantially with the previous three speakers. As a representative from the only party that supported the legislation I would ask you Mr Speaker to take some time to think about giving a considered ruling because as Mr Peters said in the future it would by very helpful for subsequent Parliaments to understand the process by which you reached the conclusion you have. I am not disputing your conclusion but I think it would be helpful for you to set out—not just as a reply to a point of order but in a formal statement—the process you went through in relation to the comments you made prior to the Act being changed. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 On the issue of the so-called precedent effect members need to remind themselves that for this Parliament section 55(1)(b) and (c) has been suspended and the duty now on members is that they should not withdraw from their New Zealand citizenship—which they might have been able to do under the old section 55(1)(b) and (c). That is absolutely clear. It is equally clear that the Government and the Justice and Electoral Committee are expected to look at this issue in order to produce longer-term solutions around what is broadly acceptable and they will provide the law that will operate after this Parliament ceases. Therefore there is no present effect arising out of the interpretation of section 55(1)(b) and (c) as the provisions were in force up until Friday of last week. 
Further Mr Speaker you are being invited to do something that makes completely no sense at all. The undertaking you gave was an undertaking simply to listen to the advice of the Privileges Committee and the House. As you made it very clear that advice was not determinative—whatever it was. At the end of the day you would have had to determine whether a vacancy had occurred. You cannot now rule that a vacancy occurred because clearly one has not occurred. The law was changed retrospectively and no amount of continued— 
Opposition Members 
: Ha! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is no point in Opposition members being bad losers on this matter. The law was changed retrospectively. We have now debated that matter I think once twice three times four times five times six times in the House and no amount of further debate will change the outcome. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. He will please read the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. I have heard sufficient argument to rule. A question did arise and it is being dealt with. There is presently no vacancy and therefore there is nothing for the Speaker to rule on. Members have very good guidance—the Privileges Committee recommendations. The Speaker has a role only if there is a vacancy. There are currently 120 members of the House and my judgment is that there is no vacancy at present. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The guidance I seek is as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee faced with looking at legislation that says that the Speaker—as a trusted neutral officer of this House—will without delay take some action upon realising a state of affairs in the House. If we are to look at that as the select committee was asked to do we need to know whether one of the first recommendations we should make would be to strip the Speaker of that role—if the Speaker cannot be trusted to do it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Mr Speaker by raising a point of order we have now required you to make a judgment and you have so made it. You have now said that there is no vacancy. The question of whether there was will under this Government takes us into the realm of quantum physics. But important guidance needs to be given to Parliament as to future actions. You will recall from the privileges debate that the whole issue of timing and delay arose because the law requires you without delay to declare a vacancy. If a member of Parliament should now be disqualified by reason for instance of a court action on contempt charges—which is possible for my colleague—[ 
Interruption 
]—Nick Smith— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. I said there were to be no interjections on points of order. The member knows it. 
The Hon Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker you will be aware that the MP for Nelson Nick Smith is subject to prosecution for contempt in our courts—a course of action approved by the Attorney-General. As a result of a successful prosecution there is the possibility that a sufficiently strong sentence could disqualify him from sitting in this Parliament. We then have a circumstance where with 2 months’ delay after that—as happened in this case—the Government could pass legislation retrospectively absolving him from the consequences of those actions. 
In the case of the Duynhoven legislation the time you took to make your decision is a very significant issue. Because it took 2 months after the event before you even heard the privileges debate—2 months during which you did not declare a vacancy—it seems to me vital that the rest of Parliament understands just what the rules will be. Nick Smith MP might need to avail himself of that opportunity before Christmas. He might come to Parliament and say: “Well I want 2 months from the event of disqualification to give the Government time to pass the legislation that will keep me in the House as if no vacancy ever occurred.” 
If the point were just hypothetical I could understand you brushing it to one side but it is not hypothetical. It is a real situation for an MP sitting in this House in that there is legislation in front of this House that if passed would mean that his actions were not subject to prosecution for contempt. That is how close we are to that MP being free of those consequences. So I believe that you need to explain to the House what the rules are now that in the Duynhoven case you have established that “without delay” does not appear to mean what the law says it means that there will be reference to the Privileges Committee even if there are no grounds for that reference and that despite the advice of the Clerk and the Solicitor-General that there was a vacancy you decided not to declare one. That is why Parliament is very keen to hear from you Mr Speaker. 
As Leader of the Opposition my advice to you is not to use the protection of silence. These matters did occur—even if the Government has legislated as if they did not—and Parliament knows that. You had a critical role and in my view you are honour-bound as my colleague Mr Prebble has said to explain to Parliament what will happen now. If you are not willing to explain your past actions—and I take it from your ruling that you are not willing to explain to this Parliament why you let a disqualified MP sit here for 2 months—then please explain what the rules are going to be now. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are three factual errors in that speech all of which are quite important factual errors. There is no suggestion that you sat on this issue for 2 months Mr Speaker. You received a letter from Mr Duynhoven bringing to your attention the fact that he believed he might be at risk of having triggered section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. Quite properly you referred the matter to the Privileges Committee because this House does have a role to play in terms of determining whether vacancies have occurred. It is a long historical tradition. Indeed if the member would care to think for a moment he would remember that until very recently a motion in the House was required in order to trigger that process. But this House has long asserted its privileges with regard to its membership in that respect. 
Mr Speaker you indicated that you would not act until you had had a chance to consider the advice from the Privileges Committee and the House and those rules are well understood. Indeed Mr Prebble asked for an assurance from me that I would not introduce legislation until the Privileges Committee had had a chance to consider the issue. Had that not been the case had you not indicated to the House that you were going to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee the Government would have sought to legislate earlier. I have no doubt about that fact at all. There is no question of collusion in this matter. We have the Government responding to your ruling in terms of the timing of its actions. So the 2 months is wrong. 
 Secondly the member is wrong and seriously wrong in talking about the Attorney-General approving the prosecution. He is confused with the Solicitor-General and the significance of that is extremely strong indeed. The Attorney-General is a Minister of the Crown; the Solicitor-General is an independent legal officer. That was an error that needs to be corrected. Thirdly you did not decide that a vacancy had not occurred. You have now indicated subsequent to the legislation that a vacancy has not occurred because that legislation was retrospective. You have not made any decision announced to the House about what the position would have been had that legislation not been passed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Following strictly on advice I have received on all these matters I want to say that I did not wait 2 months; the matter was raised with me only on 23 July by way of letter from Mr Duynhoven. My ruling is that there is reference to the Privileges Committee in a case of reasonable doubt only. There was doubt in the Duynhoven case. There was not for example in the Kelly case. I gave a detailed ruling last week about the processes I will follow in privilege issues and that ruling I instructed to be given to all members of Parliament. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is an unresolved point of order and that is the point of order raised by Mr Franks. I too am a member of that committee and I simply note that the issue is unresolved by ruling from you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. I apologise. That is a matter for the committee and I know the committee will take the issues that are raised into full account. That is its business and it can do what it wishes. I do not give any direction to it. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise the issue that during the points of order and the seeking of information you asked my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith to leave the Chamber. He has an important question question No. 7 down for today and I seek your indulgence that he be allowed to come back to the Chamber and ask that question. I think that would be appropriate given that the question is about issues he has been involved with personally. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to be generous in this particular issue. I will ask the senior Opposition whip to go and get Mr Smith when question 6 is called. 
Member for New Plymouth—By-election 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported statement that Hon Harry Duynhoven’s comments were the symptom of a man under stress made when she responded to his reported comments that he was happy to have a by-election but that issues around “the foreshore and seabed” may have meant Labour would “have taken a hammering”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 My comment was a general one and said: “Harry Duynhoven has been distressed by this issue since July 4.” I stand by that comment. Whether he made the remarks attributed to him in this morning’s media is a matter of contention. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it correct that the Government passed legislation to avoid this vacancy because it was in the words of Harry Duynhoven worried that on the issue of the foreshore and the seabed it would have taken a hammering and is it correct that in Harry Duynhoven’s words his by-election could have triggered a chain of by-elections? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is unlikely given the present state of the polls that the Government would have taken a hammering on any issue and certainly not in New Plymouth. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister think that some of the anxiety on the part of Mr Duynhoven was because there were other Labour members in his situation who were not prepared to have their names disclosed in this House as evidenced by the fact that every other party leader gave an assurance that none of his or her members was affected by section 55 of the Electoral Act but she was not prepared to do that; why has she treated this House with such contempt? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I believe that the reason Mr Duynhoven was distressed is—my having known him for many many years—there is no more honest member of Parliament in this House than the member for New Plymouth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the Prime Minister like to comment further on Mr Peters’ question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If I could comment on the second part my understanding is that at the Privileges Committee the Leader of the House sought a proper survey by the committee of all MPs which was denied by National and ACT representatives. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a bit of a dilemma here. The Prime Minister is not a member of the Privileges Committee and she is not responsible for it which I guess is the reason that she has just given the House a false answer. I mean that actually is not even correct and she should answer for her own actions and not for the Privileges Committee. The chairman of the Privileges Committee has told this House and he is a member of the Government that he ruled that the Privileges Committee could not do such a survey. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say I heard the Prime Minister and she said it was her understanding. Then it is up to any member to challenge that in questions. 
Rod Donald 
: Could the Prime Minister confirm that the purpose of suspending section 55(1)(b) and (c) was to ensure that the legitimacy of dual citizenship is not undermined for any member of Parliament rather than to avoid a by-election notwithstanding that Harry Duynhoven would have won one hands down given that over 2000 National Party voters supported him at the last election? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is exactly my understanding. I might say that all current issues come up in by-elections and certainly in this one the feeble state of the National Party would have been an issue. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister not now realise that the Government is taking a hammering for having changed the law retrospectively; if it really is her view that the Government would easily win a by-election despite the foreshore issue and that Mr Duynhoven is an honest man why does she not tell him to resign and put it to the test? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I see no evidence whatsoever that the Government would take a hammering at a by-election. I suggest that if the National Party is keen to have one it create one by triggering the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act over Pakuranga. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that apart from Harry Duynhoven none of her Ministers or members had breached section 55 of the Electoral Act prior to its amendment last week? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I know of no other member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Prime Minister rise in this House a short while ago and tell this House that at the Privileges Committee such a survey had been ruled out by members of the Opposition when that is demonstrably and palpably not true? Why did she say that and why could she not give this House the assurance that no Labour member was caught by section 55 of the Electoral Act before her saying that she does not know of anybody? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In respect of the latter point I do not know of anybody. In my earlier answer I was quoting from Dr Michael Cullen’s  
Hansard 
 for Thursday. He said: “At the Privileges Committee I said”—that is Dr Cullen—“we should have a proper survey by the committee of all MPs if necessary on oath to find out the facts. But Mr Prebble immediately said no and the National Party said no.” 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It does not make the answer valid to quote from a previous Minister and that answer was not correct as was confirmed by the chairman of the Privileges Committee. The chairman of the Privileges Committee ruled that the Privileges Committee had no such power a fact that you were no doubt aware of as well Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister read out the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister as a reason for her understanding of a particular issue. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Prime Minister think that Mr Duynhoven made the statements that he made and if she believes that he is so badly affected by stress that he said things that she believes are untrue why is he fit to hold a ministerial warrant? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I said that whether Mr Duynhoven had made the comments was a matter of some contention. Indeed I am very doubtful that he could have made such a comment given the great unlikelihood that the current Opposition could give anyone a hammering. The current Leader of the Opposition was just judged by only 27 percent of the population to be capable. 
New Zealand Food Safety Authority—Reports 
2.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What reports has she received on the first year of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 The New Zealand Food Safety Authority completed its first year of operation on 1 July. It has been a very busy year for the authority. It has built on existing relationships with industry and various authorities; developed new ones domestically through activities such as the consumers forum and focus groups with territorial local government and public health units; and made its presence felt internationally. 
Dave Hereora 
: What are some of the international activities with which the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has been involved? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New Zealand has reached agreement with the US and the European Union on organic equivalents. We have signed off on the European Union vet agreement putting New Zealand’s exports to Europe on a much firmer footing and we recently achieved the US bovine-equivalents agreement which will save our meat industry around $4 million. These achievements show that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority is an internationally credible and trusted food authority. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why has the Minister allowed the continued use of nitrofuran veterinary drugs in the pig and poultry industries when these veterinary drugs are banned in many of the countries to which we export because they are cancer-causing and thought to pose a public health risk; and what steps has she taken to protect New Zealanders from those known health risks? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Any known health risks to New Zealanders are handled by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and by the setting of food standards between New Zealand and Australia. Any perceived risk would be handled by the authority. It has not identified risks that we should worry about in New Zealand. 
New Zealand On Air—Dr Brian Edwards 
3.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Was Dr Brian Edwards correct in his letter that the reason why NZ On Air originally refused to fund his show was “audience reach” and what is the criterion for audience reach for NZ On Air funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 New Zealand On Air makes funding decisions at arm’s length from the Government. I am advised that in February 2000 it turned down an application for funding for a show on Prime Television in line with its policy to fund only networks with at least 90 percent potential audience coverage. At the time of the application Prime Television had an audience reach of 60 percent. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that the programme  
Edwards at Large 
 in the critical 18 to 39 age demographic had a 1 percent rating share last Saturday night registering an asterisk or a zero on the rating scale; that Dr Edwards’ show lost viewers for Television One following the  
Antiques Roadshow 
 and dare I say it  
Waking the Dead; 
 and that TVNZ staff have suggested that  
Edwards at Large 
 be renamed  
Six Feet Under 
? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As entertaining as that might be programming decisions are based on the potential size of the audience and are a matter for New Zealand On Air. 
Mark Peck 
: What matters is New Zealand On Air required to take into account in deciding what programmes to fund? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The matters New Zealand On Air takes into account in making funding decisions include whether other funding or sought resources have been secured by the programme; the potential size of the audience; whether the programme would promote New Zealand and New Zealand interests Maori language and culture or provide for the interests of women youth children persons with disabilities or minorities in the community; and lastly the likelihood that the programme will be broadcast. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Has the Minister ever received media training from Brian Edwards Judy Callingham or their associates; if so who paid the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have no ministerial responsibility for who might or might not pay bills to Edwards and Callingham. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two issues involved. Firstly Ministers certainly do have responsibility with regard to who pays the bills through either their own departments or their own offices. If the Minister has had media training and it has been paid for through Ministerial Services or his own office he has responsibility for it from his own office and in that way controls that portion of his Ministerial Services budget. The other issue is that the first part of the question asked whether the Minister has received any training from Mr Edwards or Ms Callingham. He did not answer that part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the first part of the question is concerned if the Minister has received training in his role as Minister he is obliged to answer that part of the question and I ask the Minister to do so. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have never received any training in my role as Minister. 
Heather Roy 
: Was he or his office in touch with Dr Brian Edwards before question time yesterday; if so who initiated the contact and why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes my office was in touch through my broadcasting adviser to clarify that the scurrilous allegations were indeed scurrilous. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address the final part of my question which was if he or his office were in contact who initiated the contact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did in his first answer. He said his office initiated the contact. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked who initiated the contact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said his broadcasting adviser had. I heard him say it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better be careful because I heard it very clearly. 
Rodney Hide 
: Are you ruling that it was the Minister’s officer who initiated the contact? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not for me to rule. That is what I thought I heard the Minister say. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the ministry is claiming no knowledge of or not to have received the letter and somewhat conveniently Dr Edwards is claiming not to know whether he sent it is this not a case of all the players agreeing to lie in unison? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is to be no suggestion that any member of Parliament is telling a lie and I want the member to give an assurance of that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will rephrase the last part of the question: a case of all the players with the exception of the man whose life has been beyond reproach agreeing to lie in unison? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What we have here I think classifies strictly as a beat-up. This is a letter that Mrs Hobbs’ office has no record of. No action was taken around this letter. The only letter that Mr Garner has is an unsigned letter. The status of that letter clearly has had no influence on any decision. Decisions made by NZ On Air were made absolutely appropriately and the House knows that. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that answer the Minister of Education yelled out that Mr Garner had typed the letter himself. I am just wondering whether it is appropriate that a Minister makes those sorts of allegations against a media outlet in this Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can make allegations about anybody outside this Chamber—we have free speech. If members make allegations about people inside this Chamber they must be within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the member has made a fair point. I know Duncan well. I apologise to him. I know that he could not compose a letter that well! 
Rodney Hide 
: Given that Dr Brian Edwards is over 55 years old lives on Waiheke Island and has to travel to TVNZ in Auckland for his work is  
Edwards at Large  
really this Government’s Jobs Jolt scheme in action and is Dr Brian Edwards the first recipient? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would enter into the humour of this but I want to tell the House that this is a programme funding for which was properly applied for by Television New Zealand not Dr Edwards and was properly allocated through the proper process by New Zealand On Air and therefore these allegations are completely misplaced. 
Cabinet—Confidence 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence as Prime Minister in all the members of her Cabinet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can she have confidence in someone who said: “I think that to blame new New Zealanders for a crime wave is absolutely ridiculous. What the figures out this week show is that there is not a crime wave.” when those from the highest level of the Chinese Government were saying that crime was a serious problem amongst its international students living in New Zealand and this was all happening right under her nose? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I certainly endorse what the Minister said but I also note that it has come to the attention of the Chinese Government in Beijing that some Chinese students here are getting into trouble which reflects badly on their people. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does she have confidence in the Minister for Land Information who has decided to continue with his erroneous assertion that one-third of all beaches are privately owned—a contention that she herself has said is wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is very important to be clear about definitions of what is a beach and what is not. The member seems to be somewhat confused because he wants only the wet beaches to be for the public not the dry beaches that belong to his mates. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why would she trust her own judgment when she selected a Minister of Statistics who either cannot tell the difference between one-hundredth and one-third or does not care about the difference between the truth and falsehood and how does the rest of Cabinet feel having to rely on a Minister of Statistics so plainly disqualified? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not sure the member could have done any better with long division on the spot in answering a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Bill English— 
Rodney Hide 
: Not in that Cabinet anyway! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a member about to leave early— 
Rodney Hide 
: Well I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will be seated. He will not excuse himself for interjecting when I had already called another member to ask a question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better have a good point of order or he goes. 
Rodney Hide 
: I have a very good one. In the last question Trevor Mallard interjected and you did not rule him out of order. In this question the Prime Minister interjected and you said nothing—and you heard them because they are right beside you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well that is inaccurate. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Immigration who has approved of her own chief executive investigating whether she is part of the scandal of lying in unison over the Zaoui immigration case? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The present Secretary of Labour took office on the very Monday of the week when these allegations were made. Nobody comes to it with a cleaner pair of hands than he does. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of Cabinet membership how can the Prime Minister have confidence in someone who does not believe judges front-line senior police sergeants and senior overseas Government officials—particularly from the largest-populated country on earth—and does not seem to know that visitor and immigration crime is serious and namely that person is herself? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I take seriously the concern that the Chinese Government has about some of the pranks and crimes its young people get up to and we have undertaken to work with the Chinese Government on the issues of pastoral care that are arising out of a very large number of overseas students coming to this country from the People’s Republic of China—coming I might say to the immense benefit of towns cities and districts throughout New Zealand. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the success of Dr Brian Edwards in increasing her confidence in the performance of the Minister of Maori Affairs does the Government intend to continue to pay Dr Brian Edwards and Judy Callingham to provide media training for Ministers including the Minister of Broadcasting? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This is not a matter that falls under the Ministerial Services budget. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table numerous answers in this House from the Rt Hon Helen Clark and her Minister of Police Mr Hawkins all denying the aspect of immigrant and visitor crime and one in particular that points out that kidnapping is not a student crime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those. Is there any objection? There is. 
Cannabis—Compulsory Health Assessments 
5.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree that “diverting minor cannabis offenders into compulsory health assessment for first possession and use offences rather than a criminal conviction” as recommended by the Health Committee would help achieve the objective of the Youth Offending Strategy to “prevent and reduce offending and reoffending by children and young people”; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Currently the police exercise a discretion regarding the possession or use of small amounts of cannabis whether to charge an offender to issue a warning or to use diversion as a response. With regard to youth offending Government policy contemplates a wide range of options including drug education and counselling treatment and the use of sanctions where appropriate. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that from a youth justice perspective legislation such as that controlling cannabis ought to be “focused on preventing young people from using cannabis and protecting them from the harms associated with this controlled drug” as stated in the Health Committee’s report on cannabis? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: One of the roles of legislation is to discourage and deter negative behaviour and generally that is done by way of sanctions. As the Health Committee has acknowledged it is often better to prevent a form of behaviour than to react afterwards. Therefore education about the negative effects of cannabis use especially on young people would need to be a key part of the answer. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will the Government be changing the legal status of cannabis as a result of the Health Committee’s report? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No in line with the confidence and supply agreement between Labour the Progressives and United Future the Government will not be contemplating any change in the legal status of cannabis. 
Craig McNair 
: Does he agree that the use of the word “minor” in the context of cannabis offending has effect at law; if so where is the word defined? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The police make a judgment as to whether an offence is sufficiently minor. Instead of charging a person with an offence they may recommend diversion or simply issue a warning. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is he concerned about the implications for the youth offending strategy of the practice highlighted by the Health Committee of schools being quicker to suspend students for cannabis use than for violence and does he think that suspending young people from school to languish around home or at a mate’s place will have the effect of reducing cannabis use or increasing it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It may well increase it. Crime statistics show that most crime committed by young people who ought to be at school is in fact committed by those who are not in school. If a kid is thrown out of school and that young person is then not under any supervision to me that produces a greater likelihood of that young person offending in that way. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that it is quite possible to set up successful diversionary programmes without changing the legal status of cannabis? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes that is quite possible. Obviously the recommendations of the Health Committee will be taken seriously by the Government and its agencies. The police will seriously consider the recommendations made in regard to the use of diversion and whether drug education programmes ought to be part of that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister received reports directly from the police or via his colleague the Minister of Police expressing police gratitude for the fact that there is to be no change in the legal status of cannabis given the significant problems that young people are already facing with drugs in the wider community? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not received any such reports and I have not talked to my colleague the Minister of Police to see whether he has received such reports. The member would need to talk to him directly. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the implications for the youth offending strategy will be as a result of the comments made by the Health Committee that cannabis prohibition is not effective in limiting use that it makes targeting education and treatment more difficult and that it exposes cannabis users to hard drugs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Prohibition can cause some problems such as those the member has indicated. That was set out in the submissions rather than in a decision by the committee. However the suggestion that removing the prohibition of cannabis would diminish its use is a long way from being proved; I would think that to the contrary the removal of prohibition and the lowering of the price would almost certainly lead to greater use of cannabis. 
National Library—Support for Public Libraries 
6.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the National Library 
: What role is the National Library playing to support public libraries throughout New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for the National Library 
: The National Library has sponsored a project for a New Zealand - wide multi-sector consortium purchasing online resources to reduce the cost to individual libraries and to broaden access to those products. The consortium represents an opportunity to provide access to electronic resources that sectors such as schools and smaller public libraries would not otherwise have. 
Darren Hughes 
: What else does the National Library do to promote New Zealand books? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It does a very great deal but unfortunately not always successfully. Recently an author turned up for a book-signing in Levin but was the only one to do so. Our hearts go out to the Hon Richard Prebble in those distressing circumstances. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Private Ownership 
7.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the amount of foreshore in private ownership is a “very small amount”; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that in the Parliament yesterday the Minister said that the Department of Conservation the Prime Minister and the former Registrar-General of Land Mr Brian Hayes were all wrong and that public access was wrong will he now apologise to this Parliament for his incorrect statement made last week and yesterday to the public for his incorrect statement made on Television New Zealand to the Department of Conservation office solicitor for wrongly besmirching her reputation and also to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is three questions. Two questions are allowed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister also apologise to the people of Nelson— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Two of those questions can be answered. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: As I have noted a number of times this is a highly complex issue. Yesterday in the House I pointed out that nobody in the history of this country has ever sized the issue. At this particular point in time Land Information New Zealand is working assiduously to size it. Once it is sized the information will be made available. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: On what basis did the Minister make his initial assessment regarding the coastline? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I made it clear at the time that my statements were based on Land Information New Zealand’s advice which was drawn from its preliminary work in the area. I have made information available as it comes to hand in a bid to inform the public of New Zealand at the earliest possible time. In 1993 the Hon Dr Nick Smith told this House that access to our beautiful coastline was a very complex issue. He said: “We should not mislead the public about exactly what those legal provisions are in terms of this complex issue of access. I invite Opposition members to be a little bit more responsible about the way in which they present this issue.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister remember writing a letter to me and offering his services on the question of statistics and figures and receiving a reply stating that we do not waste our time with fools; and was it the case that he himself got his advice from Lianne Dalziel and that they should both be resigning now? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No no. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why did the Minister when his error was exposed not admit that he had made it up and had got it wrong and fess up and say sorry? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I do not know where that member gets his information from—it is probably from Rodney Hide. I tell him that there have been no errors in anything that I have indicated. As I have said time and time again 36 percent of 18700 kilometres of coastline as at 1 August is in private hands potentially subject to review by Land Information New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Having told the  
New Zealand Herald  
last Tuesday that there were significant chunks of foreshore in private ownership and that we were talking about more than hundreds of kilometres to repeat the error on Television New Zealand on Wednesday on  
Holmes 
 to say again on Thursday that that was true and there were hundreds of kilometres and to then put out a press statement on Friday saying that I was incorrect— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is too long. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is not my fault he gets it wrong so often. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Carry on with the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Would you like me to start again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No ask the question. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. From time to time people do have long questions just as there are long answers. Mr Anderton for example regularly gives a long answer—or as regularly as he is asked questions by Progressive. The issue here is your interrupting of a member when he is asking a question. I ask you to be a bit reasonable about it. There is a view that you are being a bit selective in the way that you are interrupting on Mr Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not. Mr Smith yesterday had a very very long question indeed. I had a look at it and decided that on the grounds of fairness I would allow him to have the full question. [ 
Interruption 
] No it was an oral question. It was one of the longest by far that I have had asked in the House this year. Today I allowed the member to ask three questions on question No. 5 and was going on with a fourth. The member must come to the question concisely. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 126/2. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister having said on Tuesday Wednesday Thursday and Friday that the amount in private ownership was a third does he now not owe an apology to all the parties including the thousand people who protested in Nelson— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: And to Parliament. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: —and to Parliament as my colleague Winston Peters says—who he said were wrong when they campaigned for foreshores for all because the whole lot was in private ownership? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I feel the sense of frustration as that member grapples with complex issues. I will break it down quite simply. It is an issue of sizing. To some people the Hon Roger Sowry might be small. To a dwarf he might be big. The reality is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am trying to give a sizing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that I do not like reference to people or personal comments and I want the Minister to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please answer the question itself. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: As I have said repeatedly as and when the information becomes specific and we can start talking about some facts that will be made available. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mine was a very specific question which was whether he would apologise. He told Parliament something twice. He has now come to the House today having accepted that the Prime Minister is correct and is it not proper that he owes Parliament an apology? For God’s sake he is the Minister for Land Information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is not raising a point of order but a political point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two letters and I want to itemise them. One is a letter from John Tamihere offering his services on the question of facts and figures and the other is my reply saying one long “There’s a good boy!”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those. Is there any objection? There is. 
Courts—Access to Justice 
8.  
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does he stand by the statement he made during questions for oral answer on 6 August 2003 that “This Government upholds the right of all New Zealanders to have access to justice and have their disputes resolved before the appropriate court.”; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Yes because this Government believes that access to justice is important. 
Gordon Copeland 
: If that is the case how is it that much-needed hydroelectricity schemes on rivers and lakes controlled by the Department of Conservation can effectively be vetoed by Government so that no opportunity is given for them to make their case to a court or an arbitrator? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Parliament itself will have determined that the Department of Conservation has powers over certain parts of New Zealand in relation to those areas that have natural or historic significance to New Zealand. It is because of that uniqueness and its significance that those areas are deemed to be different from other parts of New Zealand and it is therefore appropriate that we have a different system. I should also note that decisions made by the Minister of Conservation in that area are reviewable in a court. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of the Minister’s assurance that the rights of all New Zealanders to access and justice are paramount do they extend to the rights of New Zealanders to plead their cases before the courts with regard to access to foreshore and seabed? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The matter of foreshore and seabed claims has been put before the court and will be subject to due process. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister advocate a review of the Conservation Act to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that all New Zealanders including those wanting to build those much-needed hydro schemes have access to transparent and open hearings by courts or arbitrators without having to appeal a decision by a Minister? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member has two courses of action in that regard. Firstly he can take the matter up directly with the Minister of Conservation to see whether the Minister will sponsor a change in legislation; or secondly the member can submit to this Parliament a member’s bill seeking to change Parliament’s view on how it should govern areas of New Zealand that are deemed to have natural and historic significance for New Zealand. 
Speed Cameras—Police Investigation 
9.  
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has he received from the Commissioner of Police regarding investigations into hidden speed cameras? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The commissioner and I regularly discuss a whole range of issues and ideas to reduce crime and bring down the road toll. Specifically on 18 February 2002 the commissioner provided me with a briefing on a report from the speed camera programme by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Government considering a return to hidden speed cameras when the previous Minister of Transport scrapped hidden cameras in the Waikato - Bay of Plenty region because the pilot programme had not cut speeding or reduced the number of road deaths; or is this just another way of meeting the Government’s target of a 30 percent increase in the number of speeding tickets to be issued by police officers this year? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The reason the Minister of Transport is having his officials from the National Road Safety Committee look at the issue is to try to reduce the numbers of those crashes and victims of road accidents. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Why would police investigate the use of hidden speed cameras? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: As members of the National Road Safety Committee the police alongside other agencies are looking at a whole range of options towards reducing the road toll. Ideas include strategies to target drink-drivers and excess speed and increased compliance in the use of restraints. This is about saving lives not generating revenue—and we know it works. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was speeding a factor in the recent case when a mental health patient was detained in an Auckland police cell and subsequently died there despite the fact that a bed was available at the Mason Clinic and the Director of Mental Health at Waitakere in Auckland did not send that young person there? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that information with me; the original question was about hidden speed cameras. There are none at the moment. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister accept that the people who pay the fines are hard-working responsible citizens while the ratbags who are the real danger on the roads and who owe almost $500 million in outstanding fines—a half of all fines collected—get away scot-free without having to pay? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the best way to not pay fines is not to break the law. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister bothered to inform his Cabinet colleagues or the Minister of Transport of the comments of Mr Gosche the previous Minister of Transport who advised that he ordered an end to hidden speed cameras because the pilot programme did not cut speeds or the number of road deaths; or is the Minister intent on increasing the amount of revenue gathered from motorists? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Hidden speed cameras were introduced by the National Government of the day. We decided that a more highly visible highway patrol would have a very good effect. It has but we are not so silly as not to look at all the options for making our roads a lot safer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a report that gives the comments of Mr Gosche advising that he scrapped hidden speed cameras because they did not work. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is. 
Health Services—Rural Areas 
10.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What recent initiatives has the Government announced to improve health for people in rural areas? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Last Friday a funding package was announced to help rural nurses become nurse practitioners with prescribing rights. The package will help clinical nurse specialists in rural practices to take 1 year off to complete the necessary study to bring their qualifications up to nurse practitioner level. Nurses in rural areas are finding it difficult to meet the necessary criteria to be approved as practitioners because of their isolation and the difficulty in getting replacement locums. This scheme will help them. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other measures have been announced to support improved health outcomes in rural New Zealand? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This announcement is one more part of the rural funding package of $32 million announced last year by this Government which is going towards ensuring a better quality of care and better access for people in rural areas. For example last month I announced the establishment of the rural primary health-care recruitment service. This initiative is helping to ease the burden and reduce costs met by rural providers in recruiting primary health-care workers in rural areas. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Has the Minister seen the letter to the Minister of Health from Dr Paul Noonan a rural general practitioner of 21 years in Matamata who is leaving general practice because of inadequate locum cover and because primary health organisations are forcing one ideological race-based system on all in a way he describes as medically and morally unsound; and how does losing such an experienced general practitioner possibly help rural general practices? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not in any way accept the claims made by that general practitioner. There will always be individuals who have their opinion. We have put in place many schemes in rural areas. The rural recruitment scheme the locum replacement scheme and the rural retention scheme help and assist general practitioners. The establishment and development of primary health organisations will again assist in spreading the workload for many general practitioners working under pressure in rural New Zealand. 
Pita Paraone 
: Can those living in rural areas be guaranteed medical care in times of emergency? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This Government is doing everything possible to ensure that people in rural areas get health care when they need it. We are looking at the ambulatory services throughout this country and we are boosting the skills of rural nurse practitioners so that they can as the first point of contact deal with the trauma that they often come across. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Minister aware that the primary determinate of poor health is poverty whether rural or urban; if so will he be advising the Minister for Social Development and Employment to drop his plan to cut the benefits of people living in rural areas with higher unemployment because it will lead to poor health outcomes; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware of any initiatives to cut the benefits of anyone in any area of New Zealand. My good friend and colleague Mr Maharey is putting in place schemes that will upskill people and assist them into employment and give them better incomes so that they can improve their health status. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does this Government see the increase in rural nurse practitioners as complementary to medical care or does it intend to replace general practitioners with nurses as rural general practitioners leave practices due to the primary health organisation strategy as Dr Noonan is doing? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Rural nurse practitioners will be complementary. I would like to quote the member herself when she said: “There’s nothing wrong with nurse practitioners working in practices.” 
Infrastructure—Community Funding 
11. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
 to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Does she stand by her statement to the House that “the infrastructure of Auckland and New Zealand cannot be funded on the basis of people on fixed incomes”; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
 Yes and the full sentence is: “The infrastructure of Auckland and New Zealand cannot be funded on the basis of people on fixed incomes who are often in expensive properties.” My point is that the rating system based on land or capital value of a property is not one that takes into account the income of the person who lives in that property. 
John Key 
: How does the Minister reconcile her statement of 6 August when she said: “The regional council made a democratically arrived at decision. It’s not for Parliament to attack that decision” with the Prime Minister’s comments on Monday that the Auckland Regional Council had set off “a bonfire” that the system adopted by the Auckland Regional Council was “biased against lower and middle income people” and if she is truly doing her job as Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues why did she not make those comments before the Prime Minister did? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I think if the member had bothered to read the  
New Zealand Herald 
 last Saturday he would see that I had said almost exactly that but I had made it very clear that I was making those comments as a citizen and not as a Minister. I do not believe it is useful for Parliament or Government to attack local government for doing its job. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Now that she has admitted to the  
New Zealand Herald  
on Saturday that as a citizen she deeply disagrees with the Auckland Regional Council’s new rates will she as the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues apologise to 88-year-old Mrs Janie Farquharson and her blind son for saying on Radio Pacific that if they could not pay their rates they should “talk to their bank or their insurance company and use their assets to pay an $8500 rates bill”; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: It is very unhelpful to personalise this issue. This is about trying to find the funds to build the infrastructure that Auckland needs so that New Zealand’s economy can grow. What I was saying about the individual—and it applies to every individual—is that people have to make sure their assets are used for their own benefit and to pay for their outgoings. That is the choice every citizen every ratepayer every homeowner and every renter has to make. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a point of clarification is it acceptable to you and to this House that a Minister can go on Radio Pacific and personalise an issue then come here and say she is not prepared to personalise the issue? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a political debating point not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it your understanding—it is important for us when asking questions—that a Minister can go on public radio and say “I am speaking as a private citizen” and therefore not be able to be asked questions in this House on that exact issue as a Minister; or is there no such thing as a Minister going on the public record as a private citizen and speaking on an issue? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not ruled out any question so far in this regard today. I most certainly will listen to the questions. 
Helen Duncan 
: Why is improving Auckland’s infrastructure so necessary for New Zealand’s well-being? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Auckland is pivotal to the economic and social well-being of the whole country. Auckland’s regional economic development strategy for example advises that Auckland’s economic development is being held up by its infrastructure much of which has reached design capacity. We need to get the problems fixed. 
Mike Ward 
: Does the Minister agree that the public transport component of the Auckland rate increase would be more fairly funded from the same central government vote that pays for the motorways in this country? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: A large proportion of it is. It comes through Transfund New Zealand in the form of a public transport subsidy. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Minister agree her party is one that has traditionally upheld the interests of those on fixed incomes; if so what sort of message does her statement in the primary question send to the Government’s traditional supporters? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The message is that yes of course we care about individuals but we are also concerned about the economic and social well-being of the country as a whole. Politics is a matter of trying to get that balance. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister taken on board the comments made by Mrs Janie Farquharson an 88-year-old widow on the North Shore facing an annual rate bill of $8500 when she said: “If she wants to stay in Parliament she had better do a lot of thinking … because believe me she won’t have a seat there next time.”; if so how has her thinking progressed from the rather uncaring and “let them eat cake” attitude she portrayed to Mrs Farquharson last week in Parliament? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have heard this now several times today. Just then the Minister of Health called out an interjection before the Minister got up to speak. When members on this side of the House do it you jump on us and throw us out but Ministers can do it at will. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether the member would let me run the House. He does not help by contributing in that way. I try to be fair to everybody. I thought the question was properly asked and the Minister was about to start answering. 
Rodney Hide 
: You didn’t hear my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please sit down—I have had enough. Not on that issue. 
Rodney Hide 
: You didn’t hear my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the point of order. It is not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the Minister of Health interjected before the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues had a chance to speak. My point is that if members on this side do that we get pulled up we get asked to withdraw and apologise and we get thrown out. We have heard the Minister of Health the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education do it all on the front bench—and you do nothing. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In terms of the latter couple of claims the member is confused between answers and questions. He has continuously referred to an interjection made by the Minister of Education. I was aware of it being made. The interjection was made during an answer not during a question. I would be very happy if you were to rule that there would be no interjections during answers. It would certainly make life a lot easier on this side of the House. Secondly the Minister of Health did make an interjection but it was after the question had been finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was perfectly correct. I want to say to people that I would be very happy to have no interjections whatsoever during the whole of question time. That is the current Standing Order and Speaker’s ruling. I will want to discuss that with the Standing Orders Committee. I would be very happy to do that indeed. It would make my job very much easier all round. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you are having those discussions with the committee with power to look into those matters I hope you do not come down with a finding that would continue what I think is a recent trend in this House to make it a sterile and sanitised place. Frankly it is a debating chamber and I for my part want to see it alive. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I completely agree with the member. That is why I think we have one of the liveliest question times of any country in the world. We allow more supplementary questions than any other country I know of. As far as the flow is concerned I will take notice of it. Direct interjections and noise during the asking of a question are out of order. I did not deem that to be so in this case. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I have been thinking about Auckland’s infrastructure problems for the 27 years I have been in public life and for the whole of my life that I have lived in Auckland. I would like to quote the Mayor of Auckland John Banks who told a recent political party conference: “This Labour Government is better connected to this city than any other Administration in our country’s history. We recognise that the problems we have with our infrastructure are putting real costs on individuals and businesses across New Zealand and in Auckland and those costs have got to be met one way or the other. I would prefer them to be met through making sure we have the infrastructure so New Zealand can grow.” 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think that Auckland Regional Council ratepayers will be well served by Britomart—a building that cost over $200 million to build a building that will cost $22 million a year to run and which the operator Tranz Rail currently earns $5 million out of total revenue? Does she think Auckland Regional Council ratepayers will be well served by that infrastructure investment? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Britomart is just one step in improving Auckland’s rail infrastructure. I suggest that the National Party do more work and think about positive answers for Auckland rather than trying to bring up trivial and interim objections. That member who when introduced as a new MP admitted he would never have to work again should start doing that. 
Immigration Act—Disclosure of Sexual Services 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What steps has she taken to ensure that all immigrants who apply for a permit under the Immigration Act 1987 disclose any past present or intended activities related to the provision of sexual services? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The amendment to the Immigration Act contained in section 19 of the Prostitution Reform Act took effect on 28 June this year. It states that no permit may be granted “on the basis” that the person has provided or intends to provide commercial sexual services and that is being enforced. If the member or any of his colleagues has come across anyone on a temporary permit who is providing commercial sexual services then I would be grateful for the details because that would be grounds for revoking the permit and removing the individual from New Zealand—something that could not have happened before the amendment took effect. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer can the Minister confirm that the Asian syndicate or syndicates that are endeavouring to establish brothels in this country are not in breach of section 19 of the Prostitution Reform Act? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am unaware of the matter that the member raises and if he would like to address the issue to me I will have it investigated. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that given the minimal police involvement with the prostitution industry under the new law trafficking and sex-slave activity will probably now be drawn to the police’s attention only when these young women are admitted to hospital or die; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No to the contrary and I would like to acknowledge that it was the member himself who raised the original question in the House that led to some investigation into amendments to the Prostitution Reform Bill as it was. As I said in my original answer under the law as it was if we discovered somebody working on an open work permit in a massage parlour—ergo a brothel—we would not have been able to cancel the permit and remove that person from New Zealand. We can do that now. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether the Minister did address my question. I was talking about the situation since the new law came into being and the fact that the police are no longer involved in the sex industry and therefore it is unlikely unless someone is admitted to hospital or dies that the police will find out about sex slaves. I do not believe that question was addressed. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I did say “No” at the outset because it will not be less likely. The people who investigate those who are breaching permits are in fact the Immigration Service. It has more powers than it has ever had thanks to that member. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that by inserting section 19 into the Prostitution Reform Act—and I recognise it was her initiative—there is huge responsibility to comprehensively police it and if she does recognise that as a responsibility can she tell us what she is doing to police it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I can tell that member that I was in Auckland last week launching the advance passenger screening system which uses the advance passenger processing system and that the head of border and investigations of the New Zealand Immigration Service was very complimentary about a law change that has given them some real teeth. 
General Debates 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I want to talk to the House today in the wake of the report of the Health Committee last week regarding the legal status of cannabis. Firstly I want to say how pleased I am at the assurances that have been given as recently as this afternoon’s question time by the Minister of Justice that there will be no change in the legal status of cannabis arising from that report. That is consistent with the agreement between United Future and the Government but further I venture to suggest it is consistent with the view of a large number of New Zealanders who are concerned at the current state of drug use in New Zealand at the fact that a P epidemic is under way and at the fact that drugs like marijuana are seen in many cases as a gateway to that type of more serious issue. 
I want to make the point too that since the committee has reported or completed its investigation a number of other studies have come to light that reveal the very severe risks that prolonged and excessive cannabis use poses to young people in particular. I draw the attention of the House to a 3-year study conducted in the Netherlands between 1997 and 1999 of over 4000 persons that has shown that 50 percent of psychoses diagnosis is attributable to cannabis use. That study is consistent with a Swedish study that reported earlier this year that cannabis use before the age of 18 raises the incidence rate of schizophrenia by some 600 percent. A study at Maastricht University shows that people who smoke cannabis are three times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder such as hallucinations paranoia manic depression and/or schizophrenia. There is also a recent United States 15-year follow-up study showing that cannabis use has increased the risk of major depression amongst users by over 400 percent and that mirrors a finding in Australian studies as well. 
All of this information which is constantly coming to light makes it absolutely critical that there be no moves by this Parliament to change either the legal status of cannabis or the regard in which it is held by the wider community. I draw attention to the comments made by the Professor of Pharmacology at Otago University on the medicinal cannabis issue because there have been some who have argued that this is the path we ought to consider. He made a point on  
Checkpoint 
 last Friday night that of some 400 elements in the cannabis plant approximately 40 were beneficial to health and that for there to be an effective medicinal-use strategy those 40 elements would have to be extracted turned into tablet form and then ingested under the most severe strict prescriptive arrangement. 
 The point he made that those who claimed that the mere inhaling of a cannabis joint as a pain relief or other health benefit is simply wrong. The only risk they impose upon themselves is a greater risk of lung cancer. I make the point—and we have acknowledged this—that any move to medicinal cannabis needs to be on the basis of that professor’s advice—isolating the particular elements and turning them into a medication that can be supplied under prescription subject to the relevant clinical trials having been undertaken and proved successful. 
I want to draw the attention of the House to what is perhaps the best piece of information of the lot. Okayama University in Japan is now reporting evidence that cannabis is capable of causing genetic abnormalities. There is a delicious irony in that statement because right here in this House we have the Green Party fighting furiously against any genetic modification or adjustment to plant and animal tissue yet at the same time advocating the decriminalisation of a drug that Okayama University is now saying is capable of causing genetic modification in human beings. In other words Green Party members are quite happy to protect plants and animals but are far less happy to protect human beings. 
I am appalled by the attitude of Mr Tanczos and his colleagues since the release of the report which does not give them the carte blanche they were seeking for purely selfish recreational reasons. Let us be absolutely honest about that. This is public policy to satisfy private prejudice. Here we have consistent thorough international evidence coming forward all the time demonstrating the folly of that cause yet those people over there still continue on that path and still try to dress up their support for cannabis decriminalisation as being in the public interest when we all know it is in their private interest. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I want to talk about a time frame and a time line of deception that this Government has indulged in over the last few months. I will start with the Prime Minister’s announcement on Sunday 22 June when in the wake of a report from the court she was very strong that the ownership of our foreshore and seabed had long been considered to lie with the Crown. The following day she said: “Legislation would clarify this issue.” On Monday 23 June the Prime Minister announced that legislation would be the Government’s answer to the debate that had begun to rage in this nation on the ownership of our seabed and foreshore. 
For 7 weeks the Prime Minister has spun on this issue. She has waxed and waned and moved every way possible as she has tried to wriggle herself off the legislative hook she promised she would deliver to the House to guarantee New Zealanders ownership. In fact on the Monday the Prime Minister promised legislation; by the Wednesday she said that the legislation would not extinguish customary title. I say to her that no one ever thought it would. Everyone thought it would clarify ownership not customary title. By the end of the week the Prime Minister had the Labour Maori caucus up in arms totally opposing any legislation. She put Michael Cullen in to run the show and 9 days after the Prime Minister’s promise to this nation that there would be legislation Tariana Turia announced there would not be legislation on the issue. Who is right? The Prime Minister or Tariana Turia? We do not know. 
Three weeks ago the Prime Minister said that she would solve the issue and make the announcements the following week. That week came and went with no announcements. Last week she promised us an announcement this week and surprise surprise no announcement has been made this week. We have now been told that it will be next week when Parliament is not sitting. Next week when the matter will not be able to be debated next week when the Prime Minister will not have to answer any questions next week when she is being taken on a helicopter to some ski field there will be an announcement and we will find out who is right. Will it be Tariana Turia or the Prime Minister? Most members of our caucus are backing Tariana Turia. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Jill Pettis the Labour whip is backing Tariana Turia. She is saying that Tariana Turia is right and that there will not be legislation on this. That is what Jill Pettis is saying in Wanganui. She is not defending the Prime Minister back in Wanganui but she is very careful to defend Tariana Turia and the ownership rights around the Wanganui harbour and the Whanganui River. We know what Jill Pettis is saying. She is a lion in the Wanganui  
Chronicle 
—she is absolutely fierce in the  
Chronicle 
—and she delivers some very fierce one-line speeches when she moves motions in this House as well. 
This issue around the seabed and foreshore is a watershed issue for this Government and it does not know what to do about it. It is caught between doing what is right for all New Zealanders and being politically correct. I bet that the Government will go down the politically correct line. All New Zealanders will be the losers because they will no longer have exclusive ownership. I think there will be some cooked-up deals. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 What a laugh! We have a Leader of the Opposition in trouble. He was squawking away during question time like his underwear was too tight but can he stay here and lead his party in a general debate? No he gets his shoeshine boy to do it. Why does he do that? Because he is in enormous trouble. It became clear last night that compared to a year ago the National Party has absolutely lost faith in Bill English as leader. In July last year 62 percent of National Party supporters—and I must say that that is not particularly high—thought that he was performing well. What is the story 12 months later? That level of support is down to 31 percent. He has lost his support amongst rank and file National Party members. What does that mean? It means in the end that his time is coming. National members do not have a date yet. They are desperate. 
Darren Hughes 
: Desperate and dateless! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes that is exactly the line. The National Party is desperate and dateless. I predict that pretty soon National Party members will get a date. 
Jill Pettis 
: When? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not know when; it depends on how desperate they get. I know that there are people who only just won their seats in 1996. In 1999 there were people like Simon Power who is getting the wobbles now. He was the man who was groomed to be the National Party leader but now he is in danger of losing his own seat. He knows that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When did this member lose his seat? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This member knows about losing his seat and he knows about the wobbles that occur when there is a danger of it happening. He has seen it with a number of his colleagues as well. So I speak with some experience in this area. I know the sense of desperation a little personally. In 2002 27 percent of people thought that Bill English was out of touch with ordinary people. That has gone up to 39 percent. That is a very very serious figure. The common touch was the thing that Bill English had and clearly more and more people know that he is out of touch. Twenty-seven percent of people used to think he was narrow-minded. That has now gone up to 41 percent. 
Dianne Yates 
: How many? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Forty-one percent. If I were Phil Heatley I would be getting exceptionally worried. It is all very well being Roger Sowry and having a high place on the list. In that particular case one can get whipped by Darren Hughes whipped by Judy Keall but saved by the list. But the list will not help Phil Heatley who I am told is the member for Whangarei. What people used to think about Bill English—rather what half the people in the country used to think; 49 percent—was that he had sound judgment. But that number has dropped away now. It is down to 37 percent. So only just over a third of the people think Bill English has sound judgment. How long can National hold on to someone who is performing so badly? I think that to a certain extent Roger Sowry is right—in the last month the National Party has had an enormous opportunity to make mincemeat of this Government. If I had been over on that side and the Government had had an issue the way that this Government has had an issue they would have been floundering all over the place. We would have been attacking and we would have been scoring. Well Bill English is giving signs of not scoring at all. He is giving signs of a leader who is getting to the point of being terminal. They cannot have that. Maybe the National Party has decided that really it does not have anyone better; so it accepts yet another loss. We know it has made the approach to Mr Peters. We know National has been asking him to come back to National and to merge the parties. Well what are they doing sending Gerry Brownlee down to spend time with the member at half past three in the morning in Courtenay Place? They are hopeless they are going and Bill English is finished. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The Minister of Education said he wanted a laugh. I have a laugh for him right here because if we do not laugh about what I have to say then we would weep. Last week the New Zealand taxpayer wined and dined up to 25 health bureaucrats and anti-tobacco activists not in New Zealand but in Helsinki Finland. This could best be described as “25 go smoking in Finland: thanks very much taxpayer”. While ex-servicemen on pensions are being told they will not be able to enjoy a beer and a smoke in their local Returned Services Association up to 25 anti-smoking bureaucrats and activists were having a great time in historic Helsinki on a taxpayer-funded anti-smoking junket. Information on the Web—[ 
Interruption 
]; if Ms Pettis ever took the time to look at it she might find these things out—about the 12th World Conference on Tobacco or Health held in Helsinki from 3 to 8 August names 25 New Zealanders attending and almost all are either Ministry of Health officials or from organisations funded by the ministry. The registration fee alone for these 25 people was $1180 each. I challenge the Minister of Health to say how precious Vote Health dollars are being spent. Did that money fund all those 25 people to go to this conference and represent New Zealand while everybody back here endures a bleak winter? Included among the people back here of course are people on hospital waiting lists which are growing. People are being bumped off hospital waiting lists and there are staff shortages in virtually all specialties. Small health providers are whittling away taxpayer-funded health dollars with little if any accountability. We know who these people are; there was also a list of them on the Web and it is very interesting to see where they all come from. We know that Chris Laurenson Nicola Holden and Louise Delaney are Ministry of Health officials and were presumably funded by the taxpayer to get to Helsinki—not to mention their accommodation. Shirley Ann Brown and Adela Hamilton of Northland Health— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where has Deborah Coddington been for the last 6 months? 
HEATHER ROY 
: She paid for herself to go there thank you. People from the University of Otago went as did employees of Northland Health. They all work for publicly funded organisations. Some Maori health groups also sent people. There were people from the Quit Group the Smokefree Coalition and the Health Sponsorship Council. They are all representatives of organisations receiving taxpayer funding. It is very easy to spend somebody else’s money is it not? I had a quick ring around Air New Zealand offices to find out what the cheapest possible flights from New Zealand to Helsinki would have been last week. The cheapest possible flight was $3000 per person. So for 25 people that is $75000. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Was that business class? 
HEATHER ROY 
: No it was the economy fare. We do not know what class they flew. The registration fee for 25 people was $21840. In terms of accommodation—I do not know where they stayed—let us assume they stayed somewhere middle of the road. I suspect that is not the case but if we gave them US$100 per person per night that comes to NZ$25729 making a grand total of $122569. 
Phil Heatley 
: How many hip operations is that? 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is an awful lot of hip operations. Each person spent almost $5000 and that is with very conservative estimates for their flights and their accommodation. Why we ask—and I would like the Minister of Health to stand and answer this question at some stage—are we sending 25 people from New Zealand to find out that smoking is bad for people? Do we not already know that? It is interesting to note that China sent 20 delegates to this conference. China has 300 million smokers and it sent 20 people to find out how to combat smoking. New Zealand has about 750000 smokers. How many people did we send to find out that this is not a good idea? We sent 25 delegates at a cost of $122569. ACT says it would have been much better for this Labour Government this “tax and grab” authoritarian Government to have paid for only a couple of people to attend—although judging by the programme it is doubtful that anybody would have got anything out of it—and for those people to have reported back to their colleagues in New Zealand. Unless of course the Government thinks they are not capable of doing that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I suppose the country is wondering a little—perhaps not a lot—why it is that the National Party and the ACT party want to get into bed with one another. Why was it that Murray McCully decided to get along to the ACT party conference and start to talk up the idea of some sort of a coalition beginning with some sort of non-hostility pact? Why might that have occurred? Well it is not too difficult to work out that Mr McCully who loves to be on the winning side can see that Bill English is not cutting it. He sees that Dr Brash—God help us all!—is the one who has to move into the position of leading the National Party in the future perhaps not for long into the future and that Dr Brash and the ACT party have got a compatibility that is not as existent between Mr English and the ACT party. So that is probably why Murray McCully went along and that is probably why before he went he did not ask Bill English whether he could go. He just told him he was going. 
What happened then was that when Mr McCully started to be interviewed on some of his thinking at the second-tier level we realised that actually it is a candidate-renegotiation deal that they are thinking about and all of a sudden the light goes on and says that even now Mr McCully cannot tell the difference between first past the post and MMP. A candidate-negotiation deal for example might say: “Let’s have no ACT candidate standing in Murray McCully’s seat. After all his majority is not that flash. After all the demography of his seat is changing on him. After all the Labour Party is more popular now than it was even in the election. After all Mr McCully probably thinks that the cool wind of change is blowing up his majority.” 
When we get down to the second tier we find that this non-hostility pact has got a little bit to do with the “Save Murray McCully” view of life but actually it is irrelevant. Last night’s TV3 poll amongst all the things it showed us showed that the preferred Prime Minister ranking gained by the National Party is now half that gained by New Zealand First although a National-ACT alliance of course would mean there would be a National leader of that alliance not an ACT leader. The reason for that is very straightforward. It is that no matter how unpopular Bill English is these days—and he is really unpopular—no one in this House is as unpopular as Mr Prebble so Mr English or Dr Brash must win that particular campaign. But it is irrelevant anyway because it is New Zealand First that is starting to show through. It is New Zealand First that is making the biggest noise in the House and getting the biggest gains. 
So we have an impossible split on the far side of the House. It is sufficiently impossible that Nick Smith will be in Opposition for a long time to come—9 long years. Do not even think about it; go to double figures and beyond! Roger Sowry will be standing against Darren Hughes’ daughter before he wins office again and Tony Ryall will be talking about 15 or 18 long years in Opposition if indeed he learns how not to dribble into his whisky. The long and short of it is that the splits and divisions on the far side of the House are irreconcilable and deep. 
There is no point in saying that Mr Williamson has to take the rap; that has not made and will not make a drop of difference. He was not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is that in politics if one does not stand for something one should not stand. That is a lesson the National Party has yet to learn. New Zealand First knows what it stands for. The ACT party knows what it stands for. The Green Party knows what it stands for. National does not know what it stands for—and that is why it is garnering no support. The great party of the 20th century is about to become the third party in this House if it is not careful. That is a remarkable event. I tell National Party members to forget about the ACT party for the moment forget about Mr Williamson for the moment and forget about treaty post-outs and the whole lot of campaigns they are running on agricultural emissions tax. They should forget about all that and ask themselves what the National Party stands for because the public for the moment has a great big zip alongside the answer to that question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 We know how effective the Leader of the Opposition is when every single Labour member who speaks in the general debate insists on giving a speech about him. That is a credit to him. The previous speaker asked what unites the National and ACT parties. It is wanting to get rid of stupid Ministers like Pete Hodgson who wants to put a tax on the most silly of things: the flatulence of sheep and cows. That is unbelievable. 
The member asked what National stands for. Well we stand for one standard of citizenship. One of the key issues before the public of New Zealand right now is who owns the foreshore and the seabed. Members on the Opposition side of the House are absolutely clear that the Crown—the public of New Zealand—owns the foreshore and the seabed. I challenge Mr Hodgson to tell us where Labour stands. Can Mr Hughes tell me Labour’s position on who owns the foreshore and the seabed? 
Darren Hughes 
: Keep your diary free for Monday! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh I see. Well the problem is Mr Hughes that we were told 7 weeks ago by Helen Clark that legislation would be introduced to state that it is owned by the Crown. The Government does not know what to do; it is confused. In the very polls that Government members are so keen to quote 68 percent of New Zealanders believe the Government has flunked that issue. 
Then we have the disgraceful conduct of the Minister for Land Information. As Helen Clark’s little helper he hopped out last week and made the extraordinary claim that thousands of kilometres of the foreshore are in private ownership. He repeated that on Wednesday on Thursday and again on Friday. Even yesterday in the House the Minister for Land Information stuck to his line that huge amounts of the foreshore are privately owned. Why was that significant? It was significant because the Government’s spin was this: if private New Zealanders own the foreshore what is the big deal if Maori own it? That was the devious strategy of the Minister for Land Information but we caught him out. 
Finally even the Prime Minister had to admit that her own Minister had got it all wrong. I do not think there is a member in this House who now has any doubt that for 7 days the Minister for Land Information has been telling porkies about the ownership of the foreshore. Last Tuesday he said we should wait for the land access report to come out which would show all that foreshore was in private ownership. We have looked through all 111 pages of that report and I ask Mr Darren Hughes where it refers to Mr John Tamihere’s claim that one-third of the beaches are in private ownership. It surely is not in those 111 pages. The Minister for Land Information and even more extraordinarily the Minister of Statistics has it all wrong. 
Thirty-eight claims have now been made through the Maori Land Court for exclusive titles to areas of foreshore. We now have over 6000 kilometres claimed and still we have no answer from this Government as to how it will prevent huge areas of New Zealand beaches from going into private ownership through the Maori Land Court. I simply challenge the next Labour member to back up what Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson said which was that they would legislate for Crown and public ownership of those beaches and foreshore. Seven weeks ago National said that that should occur; National has been saying that over and over again. That is what 68000 New Zealanders have said in responding to our electronic petition. This Parliament should get on and do that. 
I challenge the Government to stop fudging. I ask Helen Clark where all her strong leadership is when it comes to standing up to the Maori caucus. How come 7 weeks ago we were told that we would get legislation to fix this issue— 
Jill Pettis 
: We just don’t stand up; we consult and listen. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh well if those members consult and listen perhaps they would like to talk to Margaret Wilson and get her to explain why she said 3 days after the Court of Appeal ruling that the Government would legislate for Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The member has shut up now. I would too because the Prime Minister has messed things up. This Government does not know where it stands. The Prime Minister has shown an appalling lack of leadership on an issue of fundamental importance and the member needs to explain that. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It really was very interesting to listen to the Opposition member because the one thing the Prime Minister does is to show leadership. We know that the Leader of the Opposition who is now third in the polls is showing very little leadership. 
I received a little postcard in my letterbox this week with a picture of Bill English on it which I understand cost the taxpayer $15000— 
Jill Pettis 
: How much? 
DIANNE YATES 
: It cost $15000 to send postcards out all over New Zealand and that did not include the postage to get them back again. Those postcards were sent out and I was quite upset at receiving one because I believe the postcard pits New Zealander against New Zealander. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has put his photograph let alone his name on that postcard. Given the things that I have heard him say in other contexts I was ashamed to receive it—ashamed that a New Zealander should put out that kind of postcard containing shall I say such brief information as to be unfactual. I was ashamed that it should have come in my letterbox and that the Leader of the Opposition should be pitting New Zealander against New Zealander. I found it entirely embarrassing. 
We had another example of that last week with the attack on Mr Duynhoven. I have a lot of people in and around my electorate whose surname begins with Van Der. There are an awful lot of “Van Der This” “Van Der That” and Van DerHeydens and so on in the Waikato. Those people came to New Zealand in the 1950s and happen to be the leading lights in our dairy industry. They were embarrassed at what some of the people in the Opposition were saying around Mr Duynhoven’s attempt to claim his Dutch citizenship. I think that should be very embarrassing for the Leader of the Opposition as well—pitting New Zealander against New Zealander once again. 
Then we had the whole issue of the agricultural gas emissions levy. I hear that some people demonstrated outside Parliament today. I understand that the ACT party organised a demonstration and that there were more media present than demonstrators— 
Jill Pettis 
: Not a gumboot in sight! 
DIANNE YATES 
: There was not a gumboot or a farmer in sight as far as I could tell. One could count the number of people on both hands. They were all the people who are supposed to be terribly terribly upset about the agricultural gas emissions levy which let us face it will cost the average farmer about $300 a year. 
Anybody who read Mr Oram’s article in the Sunday paper the week before last would have seen that there has been a great deal of consultation about that levy. The recommendation came from the Primary Industries Council which represents farmers. The recommendation regarding the research money came from its consultation whereby it hired scientists who recommended that $8.4 million could come from that levy. That is why so few people were demonstrating outside Parliament today. 
Mr Smith asked what the point was in attacking Mr English. He said that we should talk about some good things and asked what Labour stands for. There are four main things—health education housing and jobs. We have talked about the primary health organisations and we know they are making good progress in New Zealand. On the subject of education I am glad that Mr Mallard has spoken in this debate. I have visited a number of schools and have found the schools have never been happier. They say that Mr Mallard is doing an excellent job and they are very pleased with their 10-year plans. I have seen some wonderful building going on some new classrooms and some great developments and the schools are saying that they have never had a better Minister. So I thank Mr Mallard for the work that he is doing. 
Would members believe that we have also had some criticism of the fact that Mr Maharey wants to get the long-term unemployed off the dole? We know that we have got unemployment down to 4.9 percent and I am glad that Mr Maharey is not sitting back on his laurels. He is not satisfied with that and he is working on getting people who have been unemployed long term off the dole because those people are still there. 
Housing is the fourth thing I want to talk about. We brought in income-related rents and that was a great thing. The previous National Government sold off 13000 State houses and the people in my electorate who are on a waiting list for a State house ask me why on earth it did that. The present Government is working with local government on housing issues and is coming up with plans. Last week Mr Maharey brought in the mortgage insurance pilot scheme to help low-income families and families with young children into homes. That scheme will give stability in our community. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 A very predictable sound is coming out of Auckland today and it is the sound of the chickens coming home to roost. It is not a pleasant sound but it is the day of reckoning for this Government. Someone in this duplicitous gang of political garbage collectors has to stand up to admit to the people that he or she was wrong. It is time for the Prime Minister and her Cabinet to beat their breasts from which the milk of human kindness has long ceased to run and to confess to their political sins. 
For 10 long years New Zealand First has warned of the dangers of bringing in hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures and dumping them in New Zealand and particularly in Auckland. Pensioners are being rack-rated to pay for the follies of this foolish Government. The Government of course blames the Auckland Regional Council for the skyrocketing rates rises. But the blame for that rests fairly and squarely on the Government whereby citizen Clark and her cronies work on reconstructing Auckland in the image of Calcutta and Hong Kong. The infrastructure of Auckland is collapsing under the weight of Third World immigrants and students coming here to be exploited by both New Zealanders and their fellow countrymen. The people of Auckland can blame this Government for their transport problems the decline of their social services and the explosive costs in the housing market. 
Things are so bad that even the Chinese Government of all things is worried about the problems caused by the Asian crime wave hitting Auckland which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Police deny has been happening. Members should look at the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
 today. It is great is it not? The  
Dominion Post 
 has discovered that there is an Asian crime wave. [ 
Interruption 
] But that is the  
Dominion Post 
. We read of kidnappings killings extortion prostitution drugs and loan sharks all of which Helen Clark and her followers have repeatedly denied. I suppose that now the Chinese Government will also be accused of being racist for even raising the issue of Asian crime. The police cannot handle the situation. 
To be fair though two of the Government’s policy changes are really working. Hundreds of new Asian prostitutes are coming to work in the new Asian brothels that are being set up in this country. That is Lianne Dalziel’s idea of matching immigrants to jobs—jobs created by legalising prostitution. The Minister of Immigration the employment Minister and this feminist Government must be really proud of themselves with regard to what is happening to Asian women in this country. The Government must be proud of its feminism and of what it claims to stand for. This is its vision of giving Asian women a chance to improve their lives in this great land of opportunity. Let us not mind about the crime syndicates— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am able to write my own speech unlike the member over there on the Government benches. Let us not mind the drug dealers the pimps and the other riff-raff who hang around that sordid industry. Those enterprising business people are combing New Zealand towns and cities in search of their new brothel sites. We are on the slope towards the Third World now and this Government is responsible for our decline. Normal New Zealanders are aghast when they look at the strange odd people who clutter up the Government benches and make strange decisions. 
It is time for a diet of sanity in New Zealand politics and we will force-feed it to the doctrinaire weirdoes over there on the Government benches as soon as they fly the white flag. Our message is very clear. Mr Hodgson said that the great lesson of politics is that if one does not stand for something one should not stand—and he is right. However the second great lesson of politics is that if what one stands for is the wrong thing then one will most certainly go. Today we in New Zealand First say to all those people who are hurt by this Government who are prejudiced by its policies in respect of race who are denied by this Government who are made poor by this Government who are overtaxed by this Government who are excessively rated because of this Government who are sick and homeless because of this Government and who are uneducated and unskilled and made second-class citizens in their own country by this Government that they should hang on and not give up. New Zealand First is rising in the polls and the Government will not stop us now. Help is on its way. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 The learned member who preceded me made the statement that if one stands for the wrong thing then one will certainly go. Anyone who reads the papers in Hawke’s Bay will realise that that member must have stood for the wrong thing at some stage. He has certainly gone from the pages of the Hawke’s Bay papers where he has been replaced by the “member for Courtenay Place”. We see the strength of our policy in Hawke’s Bay today when the papers write about the “member for Courtenay Place”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know one of my colleagues is speaking but I think that referring to the Hon Winston Peters in that way is not appropriate. He is the member for Tauranga or the leader of the New Zealand First Party. While that term may be common parlance amongst the police and other people who frequent the area in question it is not appropriate for it to be used in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a perfectly valid point of order. The member is the leader of New Zealand First. He should be referred to as Mr Peters or as the member for Tauranga. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I accept that and I thank you. I was referring to how the papers write about certain members. What is significant is that New Zealand First has no profile in Hawke’s Bay. 
When we visit the electors of Hawke’s Bay as we do regularly we find three issues emerge. Not one of those issues is about good leadership by the National Party or about any policy advanced by New Zealand First. Instead people in our district talk about health and they do so in terms of two tangents. The first is the deceit practised by the previous National Government during the 1990s which made promises to retain the hospital on the hill at Napier. Meanwhile the closure process was in train. That drew headlines. People in Napier recognise that the health system run under the Minister of Health Annette King is working. Every person one speaks to in Hawke’s Bay who has experience of the health services in Napier speaks loudly of the service he or she is receiving from Hawke’s Bay Regional Hospital and of the services being delivered at the ground level. Every person looks forward to the formation of the primary health organisation. 
The second issue that people talk about in Hawke’s Bay is education. People talk about it in glowing terms whether one goes to primary schools or secondary schools or to the doorstep of householders. Children are receiving education in their schools and are bringing home work that gives the adults in Napier great hope for the future. Children are receiving a rounded education. They are learning about tolerance about biculturalism and multiculturalism about how to train for jobs about how to broaden their minds and about how make worthwhile interjections that are intelligible. 
The third matter that we hear about is employment. In Hawke’s Bay unemployment is at a record low and employment is at a record high. In Hawke’s Bay if one wants a job one can find a job. We have portrayed the new initiative by this Government to help people into employment. But that initiative has been misportrayed by the press that is owned out of Hawke’s Bay which has stated that people living in rural areas will have to move to the city for jobs. That is absolutely incorrect. If one lives in a rural area where there is no work that is suitable in terms of a person’s background he or she is not required to uplift his or her family and move into a city. Someone who moves to a rural area to avoid employment is of course answerable for that. On the streets and in the households of Napier people are very positive about their employment prospects. 
That all adds up to a sound and stable economy. It is no wonder that in the TV3 poll of earlier this week 44 percent—over twice the next estimate—thought that the economy of this country would improve over the next 3 months. That is despite the doomsayers in this House and in the press who indicate that we are riding a lucky wave. When I speak to people on their doorsteps they tell me that they know this economy is well managed. They know that this country is well managed. They identify as a good leader someone who is a capable leader and 83 percent of the people who responded to the TV3 poll described our Prime Minister as a capable leader. They want a leader who is down-to-earth and 74 percent of the people who responded to the TV3 poll saw our leader as being that. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 What a terrible speech that was. When people from Hawke’s Bay write to me about the health system all that they talk about is that they cannot get their hips knees or hernias fixed. One nurse who has worked at the hospital for years cannot get a truss. They are not made any more because in every modern society except for New Zealand people have operations to fix their hernias—but not under this Government. One cannot get a hernia fixed any more. 
That was a terrible speech. The member talked about people welcoming the primary health organisations but people do not even have any idea as to what a primary health organisation is. People have no idea about enrolment; they do not know what the member is even talking about. But one thing that people do know is that their doctors will leave because they absolutely hate that system. The member then went on to talk about education but not once did he mention educational achievement excellence or kids doing well in New Zealand society. No he talked about conformity and about everybody being the same. What a hopeless member he is! 
Last Friday we had 300 people turn up in Blenheim packing out the Wesley Centre where there was standing room only. Why did they come? They came to hear the Hon Bill English because they know that Bill English has a message for them which is that there will be no deals on the ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The title to those areas belongs to the Crown and not to anybody else and this Government should have done something about it. It did something about minerals; it came out straight away and said that minerals belong to the Crown. Everybody was given certainty about that and there was no fuss or bother so why did the Government not do the same with regard to the seabed issue? It said initially that it would but Helen Clark and her Government have backed off that ever since. The Government has backed right off behind closed doors shutting the public out. 
The people of Marlborough want to know that the seabed and foreshore will remain in the ownership of the Crown and that people will have access to them. I grew up in the Marlborough Sounds and I think everybody should have the right to be able to pull up a kayak on a beach and to go fishing. The Crown should own the title to the foreshore and the seabed. 
People have had enough of this Government and its spin. I call it the “Tamihere principle” whereby one moves the decimal point. That is now a symbol of Government spin and it is absolutely appalling. John Tamihere tried to cloud the issue. He tried to tell us that a whole lot of the foreshore and seabed was in private hands but he made that up. He had no facts to back that up because the amount of foreshore and seabed that is in private hands is about less than 1 percent. That member has been backing down in this House ever since he said that but he will not stand up like a man and say he got it wrong. He just obfuscates the issue the whole time. 
People say to me that Australia looks pretty attractive. People in Australia do not say they are Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal; they say they are Australians. I am proud to be a New Zealander and I want New Zealanders to say they are proud to be New Zealanders no matter what their race or ethnic background may be. Kath Hemi said to us at that meeting in Blenheim: “We are one country but two different peoples; I am black and you are white.” But there are actually more than two different peoples in this country. There are masses of different people in this country from different ethnic backgrounds and political persuasions. We are all New Zealanders and that is what is important. We need to concentrate on that. 
In order to all be New Zealanders we have to have one standard of citizenship and that is what National and Bill English stand for. We need to have one standard of citizenship under the law. I am proud to be a New Zealander so I want everybody to understand we stand for that. National has gone all around New Zealand standing up for one standard of citizenship and that is why we had 300 people in that hall—we could not fit any more in; it was packed out to the gunwales. It was a really serious debate on the issues. People came to hear us talk about who owns the seabed and the foreshore and that has to be the Crown. People need to have the uncertainty removed. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 What an extraordinary speech from somebody who offers herself as a potential Cabinet Minister in New Zealand. That was the woman who stood up in Parliament and said that the Australian treatment of the Aboriginal people over the years was the perfect match for race relations in New Zealand. She said that people had to go to Australia to see how the Aboriginal people are treated— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Yes it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At the end of the speech the member can raise a point of misrepresentation; she cannot raise a point of order just to disagree with something. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. If someone is very clearly misrepresenting another member I believe that misrepresentation is a point of order under the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it is—at the end of the member’s speech. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The member has proved my point: she will never sit in Cabinet and she will sit on the front bench of the Opposition for only a short time longer because she gets cleaned up in the health debate every single day by the Hon Annette King. She has not suggested a single health initiative to try to improve the well-being of New Zealanders. She is silent on any alternative for how to run the health system. She comes into the House and just carps whinges and whines about low-income New Zealanders getting more health access. She has nothing to contribute. She started off her speech by criticising Russell Fairbrother. What an absolute joke! 
Today I want to talk about leadership not just of the National Party but across the three parties that make up the Opposition because in my opinion it is a coalition of the falling. It is a coalition of the falling every single time an opinion poll comes out. Mr Prebble has suggested a three-way coalition involving National New Zealand First and ACT. The problem for those three parties is that based on last night’s opinion poll their total support equals half that of the Labour Party. Those are the kinds of parties that offer themselves as an alternative and they are going nowhere. Their problem is their leadership—Bill English Winston Peters and Richard Prebble. 
Mr English is increasingly showing why he is too unstable for leadership of the National Party. Increasingly we are seeing the quick temper and the anger come out from Mr English. We now daily watch him in the House screaming and ranting instead of giving a speech. We are not seeing him offer any ideas; he just yells loses his temper and shows how he is out of touch with what New Zealanders want. We see in the opinion poll that only 5 percent of people rated him as somebody who was performing well in his job; 95 percent do not give him that rating. He is surrounded in his leadership team by his brat-pack mates and people ought to remember that when those four brat-pack MPs arrived the National Party spread itself around this Chamber with 47 percent of the vote. Today now that those members are in charge of the leadership of the National Party it sits on 21 percent of the vote and it is back in a little corner of the House—a corner that is receding as New Zealand First comes up and bites at its heels. 
What is happening with Mr Peters? He now has double the support that Mr English has as preferred Prime Minister and that is what is making Bill English angrier and angrier and making him take more and more extreme positions. I think the poll result that he will be most disappointed in is that relating to the question: “Is the leader in touch with the needs of Maori?” Seventy-five percent of poll respondents said “No”. I think that when Bill English reflects on that he will be very very sad because how did he get the leadership of the National Party? He got it by saying that the National Party had to become a broader church to get more votes. He said it had to reflect the new New Zealand which was browner younger and more different from the National Party of old. Those were the ideals he brought to the leadership of the National Party. But now that he has got the job he is going after the Maori people and attacking them in order to try to get some headlines. That is the part of the poll result that I think he will find most displeasing. 
 Then we come to the leader of the low-polling threshold party the ACT party. That is the party that knows all about getting taxpayer funds to use for what it wants and has the audacity as shown by Heather Roy’s speech to criticise public servants for going on public policy exercises while its members sit in the House without expellingDonna Awatere Huata because they want her cash for running their office. Very recently Mr Prebble was in my electorate. I say “my electorate” because I notice that the National Party debate was led off by Roger Sowry who talks as though he is in touch with New Zealanders despite the fact that he is a three-time loser in that seat and cannot get any votes from people. National Party voters give their party vote to the National Party and vote for the Labour candidate because they know what a hopeless local MP he would be. 
Mr Prebble rolled up to Levin to promote his book  
Liberal Thinking 
. He rolled up to McLeods Paper Plus in Oxford Street only to find that nobody despite advertising had turned up to buy his book. Mr Prebble was a bit put out by that but it gets worse: the bookshop owners knew his book would be so unpopular that they had not ordered any copies at all. There were no copies of his book available to buy in the bookshop. That is how relevant the ACT party has become. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 107 I believe that I was misrepresented by the last speaker. He said that I had said that the Aboriginal people had been treated well. I have never said that. What I said was that Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in Australia consider themselves to be Australian whatever their ethnic background and we should consider ourselves to be New Zealanders. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like the Hon Peter Dunne I intend to speak about the Health Committee report on cannabis. Unlike him I intend to talk about what the report actually states because it is a very very useful report and it gives us a clear answer to a number of questions that have been confused for some time. 
First of all the report deals with the question of how dangerous cannabis is. It states very clearly that moderate use of cannabis carries low risk of harm and that heavy chronic and under-age use carries significant risk of harm. It also refers to the World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine in the United States both of which state that cannabis use is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. It states that the most effective public health strategy to deal with the harms associated with cannabis is a harm-minimisation approach and it is quite critical of the punitive approach taken by many schools in relation to suspensions for cannabis. It states clearly that the aim of cannabis legislation should be to focus on preventing under-age use. It also states that policy should avoid criminalising non-problematic cannabis users. It is very critical of prohibition. It states that prohibition does not reduce cannabis use; that it makes targeting education more difficult facilitates the black market and potentially exposes cannabis users to harder drugs. Given the significant problem we have in this country with the increased use of methamphetamine Parliament should take that issue very seriously. 
The report also makes recommendations about how progress can be made. Some of the issues included are the things that can happen without legislative change in the present Parliament such as medicinal use increased diversion and the possibility of reclassification of cannabis. It also suggests ways of keeping the momentum for legislative change going by asking the Justice and Electoral Committee to recommend an appropriate legal status for cannabis. Of course this is in line with an international tide of cannabis law reform. We see it happening in Canada Britain Australia Switzerland Germany—a number of places. Those in this House who oppose sensible cannabis laws are like King Canute trying to hold back the tide because the evidence that cannabis prohibition does not reduce use but creates significant problems of its own is very very clear. 
I finish my speech with a challenge to the Hon Peter Dunne in the House today. For a so-called sensible moderate man with family values Mr Dunne has subjected me to an extraordinarily high level of vicious personal abuse in the media. Over the last few years Mr Dunne has made a number of vicious personal attacks. His most amusing one was saying that I am involved in a seemingly obsessive campaign to make dope smoking retrospectively compulsory. I am wondering whether he was suggesting we go back in time and force people to smoke cannabis because that would seem to be the implication of his statement. It is crucial that we have an honest open debate in this country on cannabis policy. It has to be based on facts and on the evidence and it has to be conducted in an adult fashion. I challenge Mr Dunne to front up in the House today—if he really believes what he has said—and debate the issue of cannabis law reform with me publicly. I will do that in his own electorate. I challenge him in this House to take up the challenge and put up the evidence in order to allow the people to decide. I believe it is time to stop the personal abuse on this issue. It is time to grow up and to start playing the ball rather than the man. 
Most people in this country agree that we need a sensible policy on cannabis. We all agree that we need to discourage under-age use because there are serious significant problems associated with it. We all agree that we need to provide better education and treatment both to prevent and delay use of cannabis and to provide help for those few people who do have significant problems. Most people agree that prohibition does not work as a policy. As I have already said the evidence is very clear that prohibition does not reduce levels of cannabis use but causes significant problems of its own. Legislation should never create more harm than the behaviour it is trying to stop. That should be a fundamental policy. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave that notwithstanding Standing Order 145(1)(b) the votes cast for each party on any vote on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill may include votes cast for the Ayes Noes and Abstentions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will be so followed. 
Referral to Health Committee 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bill be referred to the Health Committee for further consideration 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that vote there were two interjections from Ms Kedgley alleging that United Future members supporting that vote were the hand of the tobacco industry and in the pocket of the tobacco industry. I make the point to you that that firstly is grossly untrue and without any foundation whatsoever and secondly has been the subject of a matter raised when a group outside this Parliament made a similar allegation that went before the Privileges Committee because a breach of privilege was held to be established. The member is grossly out of order and I request that she be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the remark. Did the member make that remark? 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I asked whether the member made those remarks. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I made one of those remarks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In that case the member will withdraw and apologise for any such communication. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I did not say what he said but I will withdraw and apologise. I did not say exactly what he suggested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member just says: “I withdraw and apologise.” Please say that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The title of this bill is very descriptive of what it is intended this bill will do. The idea is to have the air as clean as one possibly can. A smoke-free environment is designed to protect not only workers who are working in an area where people are smoking but also to protect children in school-grounds and young people under the age of 18 from having access— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I draw it to the member’s attention that she should be discussing the title. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Yes I am. I will try my very best to stick to the title. The words “smoke-free environments” relate to the areas where people work and to the environment of children who are at school or pre-school—to the grounds in which they play. 
The bill’s title was previously Smoke-free (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill because we already have smoke-free workplaces. That came in some years ago and has been well accepted amongst workplaces in New Zealand—workplaces being one environment in which initially there was some resistance. I can remember a lot of people saying to me how awful it was to have to work in an environment from which they could not escape. They could not move away from an environment that was filled with smoke and had to work in it day after day. The reason the bill had that title was so that we could look at passive smoking. 
People can make their own choices about whether they smoke—and cigarette smoking is highly addictive. But the problem is that if they are in an environment that is filled with smoke then there is passive smoking. More evidence has mounted over time that passive smoking can also affect a person’s health. We know that health is severely affected by cigarette smoking and as a doctor who was a geriatrician I am well aware that we need to have smoke-free environments. In geriatric medicine one deals with all the end results of people smoking and being in smoky environments—the effects on cardiovascular disease the airways and the lungs. Cardiovascular disease affects people by their having heart attacks strokes and arterial disease of the legs so that they have to have amputations. As a geriatrician I dealt with those effects a great deal of the time—the end effects of cigarette smoking that had affected people’s health. 
But we also have to look at children who are affected by their parents smoking. In that particular situation we want to have smoke-free environments because passive smoking by children leads to asthma and reduces the status of their heath. Later on in the debate on this bill we will be talking more about the environments that we want to see smoke-free and schools pre-schools and early childhood centres certainly will be some of those. We do not want to see role models—parents and the teachers in those facilities—smoking. So those environments will become smoke-free. 
There has been a lot of debate about whether the occupational safety and health legislation covers the concept of enhanced protection for workers and whether we need to be here tonight debating this bill and this title. Occupational safety and health legislation looks at whether an employee is subjected to a hazard in the workplace. As more and more medical evidence mounts about the fact that passive smoking is a hazard we have to look at whether a bill about smoke-free environments covering enhanced protection needs to be in this Chamber being debated tonight. But the decision was made that this bill needs to go forward whether or not occupational safety and health legislation covers smoke-free environments. So tonight we are talking about how we can enhance protection. 
Not everyone in the National Party will vote for this bill—by any means. It is a conscience vote for us because we have always treated such issues as a conscience vote. So when I am speaking tonight I am speaking simply from my own personal point of view as a doctor who has worked in this area. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on the title to make the observation that the reason I have moved the amendments which we will deal with later is that I do not believe this bill is accurately titled. I do not believe that this bill will provide enhanced protection. 
The experience of the Smoke-free Environments Act the principal Act over the last 14 years has been one of abject failure. Figures provided by the Ministry of Health show that it has cost in the order of $50 million to implement yet in that time the rate of smoking amongst young people has increased. The Act has been a complete waste of time and waste of money but here we are proposing measures in this bill under the guise of providing enhanced protection that will prove to be not only similarly unworkable but will prove yet again that in this area the law is an ass. 
The reason I question whether this bill is accurately titled is its central premise which is that smoking will be banned in bars restaurants clubs and a variety of other places to provide greater protection for both the patrons and the workforce. I want to make it clear that I am not one who likes being in a smoky environment but I am equally not one who goes for symbolic feel-good legislation. I want to see legislation that will work—and that is the substance of the amendments I will be proposing later on. 
The bill as drafted will not work because it says that in the first instance this legislation will be enforced by the Ministry of Health. That ministry says that it will probably not have the capacity to do this so the matter eventually will be one for the police to look at. Here is the absurdity: the police are going to go on smoking raids around pubs and clubs in New Zealand? If Ms Kedgley’s crazy Supplementary Order Paper gets effect and if the police do manage to find a smoker in one of those premises then the smoker will not be the one prosecuted; it will be the owner of the premises. That provision is clearly absurd. It provides no enhanced protection for anybody. All it will be is a law that will be ignored. 
I am coming to the title. This bill previously had the words “(Enhanced Protection)” in its title and my argument is that the bill will not provide that protection. It is lunatic and unworkable and it will be ignored as an unenforceable ass. At that point this Parliament will have to ask itself a very serious question: how can it have passed a Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act—as it will be at that point—that does not enhance the protection of anybody that is simply ignored as unenforceable unrealistic and unworkable and that sees life carry on in the way that it did pretty much before its passage? 
In that respect I pick up the comments that Dr Scott made. It was part of the reason that I moved the motion at the commencement of this debate. There is a wider issue here relating to occupational safety and health. It would be entirely appropriate to see this matter dealt with under that broad rubric as various other matters have been and not become the subject of this specialist legislation which is essentially unworkable and not befitting its title. 
No one will receive enhanced protection under this legislation. Workers who are allegedly one of its main beneficiaries will not receive enhanced protection because the law will be ignored. Patrons who want to be in cleaner environments will not receive enhanced protection because the law will be ignored. The law will not be enforced because the police frankly have more pressing responsibilities and quite properly so. So this whole bill becomes a nonsense and coupled with the failure of the principal Act shows that we are not really serious about dealing with the issue. We are much more interested in feel-good solutions that appeal to the World Health Organization and its zealots but that have no positive impact on the life of New Zealanders. 
 So as we begin this debate I agree with the sentiment about enhanced protection. I agree with the right for people to be in clean and non-smoky environments but I simply make the point that this legislation is not the vehicle by which that will be achieved. This is therefore falsely named legislation. It ought to be called something along the lines of“Smoke-free Environments (More Feel-Good Politics) Amendment Bill” because that is what it is. If we were serious in our allegedly professed concern for the well-being of our citizens we would be implementing measures that worked not measures that are simply bumper sticker slogans that will be unenforceable make us a laughing stock and prove yet again that when this Parliament is let loose it makes the law an unenforceable ass. I thought that in the light of recent events we would have learnt better. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I will just say to members that the bill is not now called the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. The words “(Enhanced Protection)” have gone from the title. It is now called the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. That is the first point. 
The second point I wish to draw to members’ attention is that despite members speaking to the title we are getting a rather wide-ranging debate. The title is supposed to describe the elements contained in the bill. The debate on the title is not a general discussion of the bill’s intent—that is the role of the second reading debate. However given the nature of the legislation I am prepared to take a member’s call to seek leave that there be a wide-ranging debate on the title. If no one so moves then I will keep the debate strictly to the title. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to have a wide-ranging debate on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just to clarify it would be a wide-ranging debate on clause 1. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Just to clarify that would be instead of a clause by clause debate? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No it is just for the title. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to make it clear at the outset to anyone interested in this debate that four New Zealand First members will support the bill and nine will oppose it. There may be an amendment or two on which that position will change but that is the general approach being adopted by New Zealand First. 
I was going to move an amendment to change the name of the bill so that it was called the “Anti - Returned Services Association Men and Women Bill” or the “Demise of the Returned Services Association Bill” because of my discussions with for example the Te Atatu Returned Services Association and Ian M Gibson with whom I have been in correspondence. I wonder whether any west Auckland or Waitakere members of Parliament have bothered to approach any of their local associations. It is clear that Te Atatu Returned Services Association members take the view on this legislation that “It is intolerable that politicians should dictate what privileges we may enjoy in clubs which returned servicemen and women built with their own labour and meagre demobilisation payouts.” They go on to say: “Such oppressive legislation is contrary to every precept of democracy and individual freedom of choice.” 
They recommend to Parliament a nice little cartoon that was in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 
22 March 2003 which looks rather like a scene from  
Dad’s Army 
. It is very fitting and I am only too pleased to present it on behalf of the Returned Services Association. There is one Captain Mainwaring - type saying: “Eyes peeled for dictators lads.” Someone who could be Lance Corporal Jones says: “What? Saddam’s in NZ?” and someone else on the side is saying “No you berk it’s those anti-smoking fascists from the health department.” That is the view of the Te Atatu Returned Services Association. 
Its members fought for their country were asked to smoke and were given fags while they were out in the desert and now as they are getting older are being told “No”—they cannot smoke in the clubs that they set up with their demobilisation payments way back in 1945-46 and the like. What a disgrace; what a sad day for New Zealand; what a total disregard for those people who were prepared to make the final sacrifice! 
I want to comment on another area for which this legislation could be called the “Smoke-free Environments (Lack of Evidence) Bill”. It is quite clear when reading the World Health Organization’s report of 2002 that the report states there is no supporting evidence on this issue. I had to go to the trouble of finding it out myself from page 66 box 4.1 and the statement referred to at the foot of page 2. I wonder whether any Labour member has read that World Health Organization report which is quoted in the select committee’s report and which I asked the Minister previously to table but she has not. 
The report does highlight however that: “In addition maternal smoking during pregnancy results in passive-smoke exposure for the foetus sometimes referred to as tertiary smoke resulting in an increased risk of low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome.” That issue should be the subject of a separate bill altogether. Has the Labour Party done anything about that real issue of an unprotected person? No—the Labour Party has done absolutely nothing which shows the double standard of the party by its lack of evidence. 
There was also a 1998 World Health Organization report which stated that the organisation found no evidence at all to support what is in this legislation today. Despite requests the Labour Party has never supplied that report. All it has come out with is this World Health Organization report 2002 and a general statement with nothing formal to back it up. The other report mentioned in the select committee’s report had references to A Woodward and M Laugeson. Those reports have been discredited by other people despite Action on Smoking and Health representatives in papers released to members of Parliament recently saying that those reports had never been discredited. Those reports have been discredited by Dr Proctor. 
As I mentioned before no one has repudiated what I have said since the speech I made about 4 weeks ago because the fact of the matter is that they cannot establish what they are trying to establish in this debate today. This is purely feel-good Labour Party legislation which has no basis whatsoever and which has total disregard for groups like the Returned Services Association. I am an asthmatic I do not smoke and I stay away from places where there is smoke. Why should a nanny State in the shape of this Labour Party tell me where I should go and where I should not go? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I will start on the title of the bill. I firstly congratulate my colleague Steve Chadwick for bringing it to the Parliament and shepherding it through the select committee. The title of the bill does reflect what she is trying to do and what this legislation is attempting to do which is to make smoke-free environments and expand them. In fact the speech that we heard from the Hon Peter Dunne was probably heard in this House in 1990 I would guess. I am sure it was because there were people then who said that we could never have smoke-free environments. They said there would be no way in the world that people would abide by the provisions of any smoke-free workplace. I am pleased to say that for the most part—although we have the odd exception but I will not name them—Parliament is smoke-free as are most workplaces in this country. 
What we are attempting to do and what the Government is supporting through this legislation is to create a safe environment for the many many people who work in the hospitality industry in this country. There might be claims of “nanny State” and draconian measures being put in place. The reality is that I am sure those claims were made when we changed the law in this Parliament to bring in the compulsory wearing of seatbelts; when we brought into this Parliament things like speed limits and the compulsion to wear a helmet—what a terrible imposition on liberty to force someone who rides a motorbike to wear a helmet! But thankfully as society evolves we learn things. We learn how to better manage safety how to protect one another and how to protect ourselves. 
I would like to say to Mr Dunne that what this legislation attempts to do—very clearly—by creating a smoke-free environment and expanding the smoke-free environments in the workplaces and hospitality sector is make a safer place for thousands of New Zealanders to work in. There is no doubting the evidence that second-hand smoke kills people. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I am sorry: if people want to bury their heads in the sand—Mr Jones might be one of them—and try to deny that reality— 
Dail Jones 
: There is no evidence to prove that. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: —the member should hang around the hospitals for a couple of years as I have and see the people who die every day from second-hand smoke. We would be irresponsible if we did not support an initiative brought to the House through a member’s bill sponsored by Steve Chadwick to make the workplace a safer place for thousands of New Zealanders. 
We would not accept a construction site where people wandered around without a helmet. Well we are not going to accept a work environment for thousands of bar staff in and around this country where they face the dangers of second-hand smoke. That is why we are supporting this bill that is why it is a sound bill and that is why it will work I tell Mr Dunne. In the same way in 1990 people doubted the ability to change habits to change the social norm in New Zealand. We have reduced the number of people in New Zealand who smoke. They understand that it is dangerous to smoke; it is dangerous to work in a place where there is smoke. For any Government to ignore that danger—if we brought a bill into this Parliament and said that we will allow people to please themselves— 
Dail Jones 
: It is a Government bill—OK. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No the Government is prepared to support this good initiative. If we said that we would allow people the liberty of not wearing a seat belt of not wearing a helmet on their motor bike—I tell Mr Jones—and we would allow people to speed anywhere they like we would be pulled into line and it would be said that we were an irresponsible Government. Well we are not. We will support this bill through with amendments to make improvements to it where necessary. I applaud the member Steve Chadwick and I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Many thousands—in fact I am quite sure the majority—of New Zealanders are thrilled about the passage of this bill which is widely supported in the community particularly by all of those of us who are fed up with coming home at night with our clothes reeking and our eyes and our throats hurting and so forth. Most of us are counting the days until we can breathe our clean unpolluted air and enjoy a smoke-free environment when we go out for a night on the town. 
Some of the views of the opponents would be credible if smokers were harming only themselves with their habit. But the truth is that every single time people light up they basically put at risk the health of everyone else around them. This is the central fact that we have to acknowledge. Two-thirds of the smoke is exhaled into the air so that everyone else around them is breathing in that smoke and the 50 carcinogens in that smoke. 
That is the issue we have to address. If smokers were taking all of the smoke down into their lungs and just harming themselves with their habit I am sure this bill would not be before us today. But the truth is that there is despite all the efforts to discredit it overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that second-hand smoke is the leading cause of death and disease causing about one person to die a premature death every single day in New Zealand. 
Of course we hear some of our opponents reciting the discredited arguments of the tobacco industry and using those discredited tobacco industry tactics to try to water down or defeat all or parts of this bill. This is sad but it is not unexpected. An excellent report by George Thomson and Dr Nick Wilson documents the fact that the tobacco industry has used every single trick in the book for the last four decades to oppose every form of tobacco control. They try to question the evidence and have thrown doubt on it. They have thrown in so-called independent experts and they have lobbied. 
Unfortunately we see MPs in this House singing the tobacco industry tune that somehow the research is inconclusive that somehow non-smokers’ rights are less important than property rights that somehow ventilation will solve the problem of second-hand smoke when we have had compelling evidence in the select committee that it will not. It is very disappointing that we see members in this House singing the song of the tobacco industry. But it is to be expected. It is yet another last-ditch effort to try to dilute or defeat this bill. 
Those members have been reciting all of these arguments that oh this will not work and so on and so forth. That is what they said in California—it is not going to work. In California the evidence that we had was that the people of California are absolutely delighted for the most part with this legislation. They are delighted with the fact that they are not having their health impaired every time they go to a café and so on. The fact is that nobody should have to risk his or her health to go to work. All this business about “Oh what about the rights of smokers?”! What about the rights of non-smokers? What about the rights of workers who have to work in these smoky environments every single day of their lives? What about the fact that they are vastly increasing their risk of ill health because of all the people who are smoking in their workplaces? 
The truth is that the majority of New Zealanders are just waiting for the day for this bill to be passed. Quite frankly I think we will look back and say with incredulity that we allowed ourselves to be in smoky environments where we know that 50 cancer-causing substances are swimming around in the room. We have to be honest and acknowledge that smoke-free zones in cafés and bars are simply not working; the smoke just travels all through the room. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Richard Worth. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My colleague Heather Roy has been calling consistently. I believe she should have been called in favour to the Greens on a numerical basis. You failed to do that. You have now chosen to call a second National speaker and have still not heard from the ACT party spokesperson on health. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already called the member now under Speaker’s ruling 23/8. I recognise the point that the member has made. I am also trying to do it in proportionality and National is entitled to three as against the ACT party’s one. ACT will get the next call. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: They should have had the last one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I appreciate the point that the member has made but I have already made the call. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is very good of ACT to yield its place to me. I will take only a small amount of time just the allotted 5 minutes in speaking on the title. I start by saying that two questions legitimately arise in the context of a title debate: the first is the legal accuracy of the title and the second is the factual accuracy. Here we have a bill that was called the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill and the Health Committee has very wisely stripped out the phrase “Enhanced Protection”. I suggest that it has done that for good reason because there are substantial disbenefits associated with this legislation. 
It must always be the case when significant rights are taken away that there needs to be a close and critical study of the consequences of taking those rights away. There needs to be in an atmosphere of measured debate an evaluation both of gains and losses. Whereas there was in the original bill a claimed enhanced protection the reality is simply the opposite. 
In the context of the title debate I would just like to pick up two points. The first point arises from material that was published on the Internet on 16 May 2003. It relates to a study that was published in a prestigious medical magazine the weekly  
British Medical Journal 
 which has found no significant evidence that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer or heart disease. The actual wording used in the early part of the study was: “The association between passive smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” It was a really surprising twist I felt that the study was backed by an anti-smoking crusader Dr Elizabeth Whelan. She said: “There is simply no convincing evidence linking second-hand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease.” She is an epidemiologist and president of the American Council on Science and Health. 
I certainly have the clear impression from looking at the submissions to the select committee—of which I was not a member—that an incredibly one-sided view of the world was presented to those committee members. It is critical in the context of submission hearings that the committee be given balanced material on both sides. 
The second observation I make is that this is draconian legislation—and I do not shrink from the use of that phrase. We have seen in other jurisdictions the economic impact of legislation that has been very similarly modelled on this legislation. Business in New York bars and restaurants plummeted by as much as 50 percent in the wake of a smoking ban framed in very similar terms to this legislation and the drop-off has sparked layoffs and left some establishments in New York on the brink of shutting their doors. 
Darren Hughes 
: Name one. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am asked to give an example. At Ruddy and Dean a well-known Staten Island hang-out near a courthouse that is popular with district attorneys lawyers and judges bar business has been slashed by half. I can give you a second example. We all know Bill’s Gay Nineties in Midtown where business is off 50 percent overall. As the manager said: “If this keeps up some of us might as well just close up shop.” 
A detailed study has been done by the  
New York Post  
of what has happened to businesses faced with comparable bans to the ban proposed by the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill and the impact has been truly substantial. It is not only an impact that is to be felt in the tills of those who own these businesses; the reality is that staff are laid off—staff who would wish to continue to work in those establishments are laid off. So let us not kid ourselves as we look at passing this legislation—and I will assuredly not be voting for it as there are big impacts. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to join my National Party colleague who said that perhaps the words “Enhanced Protection” have been removed for a very good reason for the fact is enhanced protection has nothing to do with smoke-free environments. There are several other titles I could suggest for this but two spring to mind. The first one reflects the actual intention of this Labour Government: that is to ban smoking completely in this country; so perhaps it should be called the “Banning of Smoking in New Zealand Bill”. ACT has also opposed this bill consistently from the start because of the loss of freedom it represents and also because of the blatant breach of property rights it presents us with. If somebody takes the time effort and financial risk of operating a business he or she should be able to have the say as to what goes on within those premises. This bill takes that right away from people completely so the other suggestion I would make is the “Blatant Breach of Property Rights Bill”. 
I would like to call for some intellectual honesty because that is what is missing from this debate. This debate ignores intellectual honesty. Several members on this side of the House have referred to various studies that have shown no significant harm occurring from passive smoking. 
 I would like to refer to the World Health Organization study published in  
The Economist 
 in 1998. The World Health Organization undertook a study. It was certain that it was going to link lung cancer with passive smoking but in fact it found that non-smokers married to working with or raised by smokers were no more at risk of lung cancer than anyone else was. 
Pita Paraone 
: Even Maoris? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Even Maoris that is right. The World Health Organization as we all know has long admitted that links between lung cancer and passive smoking are weak but those findings were not what it wanted and they were certainly not what it was prepared to tell the world. The study was summarised—[ 
Interruption 
] I can tell Mr Jones that it was printed in a very bulky world health document and was summed up despite being a lengthy and extensive experiment in three paragraphs. Fortunately  
The Economist 
 saw fit to exercise the intellectual honesty that the World Health Organization did not have at that point and printed the study in one of its 1998 issues. 
Several people have mentioned Returned Services Associations. I wrote to all the Returned Services Associations in New Zealand outlining my party’s stance and asking them for their comments. I gave them half a page on the back of the survey to write in and 80 percent of the forms I sent out were returned to me with comments. Just about all of those comments were in support of my party’s stand opposing the bill. They said—and I think the United Future members said—that the Returned Services Associations would just flout the law. 
The question that then arises is what exactly will happen when people flout the law. It seems to me that there is no point in having it. Good law as my colleague Stephen Franks is often heard to say should be enforceable and it should be routinely enforced. What point is there in having a law that we know will not be enforced? The Ministry of Health does not have the resources or the staff to do that. We are told that there are 17 part-time smoke police. How are they going to get around the country and enforce this legislation? It is just not possible. And if the law cannot be enforced we in this Parliament need to stop and think—if we are not making good law what are we doing here? 
Several members on the other side of the House have said that this bill will protect people from the effects of smoke. Mr Damien O’Connor said that he has been around hospitals. I have worked in hospitals and I have seen enough emphysema to last me a lifetime. If I have to treat another person it will not be a pleasant experience. But those people were not people who suffered from passive smoking—they were smokers. They had smoked for most of their lives. They had smoked for 40 45 and sometimes 50 years. The disorders they were in hospital to be treated for—the ones that Mr O’Connor referred to—were not as a result of passive smoking. Those people were smokers and they had been for some time. They recognised that they had brought their lung disorder on themselves yet in most cases they still did not give up smoking. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call to refute a couple of the allegations made today. First I note that the Hon Peter Dunne now understands that the title is the “Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill” not the “Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill” and I clarify that because the exact intention of the bill is to make workplaces smoke free environments. So bill clarifies that for members very nicely. One of the other comments made was about the “smoking police”. I want to clarify that this is a public health piece of legislation that is not about policing; it is about bringing communities with us through public health education and public health promotion. That was just a small point that Dail Jones made. 
I want to talk about research. We heard all the submissions about the research and about the effects of second-hand smoke. I am very surprised that the ACT spokesperson on health can take such a stand against the health effects of smoking. In fact we heard from the World Health Organization that it irrefutably states there is scientific evidence unequivocally establishing that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death disease and disability. The Ministry of Health in New Zealand cited several studies from Murray Laugesen and Professor Alistair Woodward at the Wellington School of Medicine. Those studies were all about the health effects of second-hand smoke. We can say quite unequivocally that smoking kills. As a midwife I want to clarify for the Committee that we know that 50 babies die every year from the effects of exposure to second-hand smoke; from sudden infant death syndrome. That is irrefutable. Members can argue about overseas research studies that they find useful but those of us on the Health Committee—those of us who had an open mind—heard all the science and all the reports from around the world and that gave us the very clear steer that we had to take this bill right across the board so that we had a total smoke-free environment. That is why the title so aptly describes where we are at today. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Rather than giving us a clear steer we have been given a bum steer on this matter. I do not believe that 50 babies die a year at the Returned Services Association the league club the rugby club or anywhere else. The reality is that this bill should be called the “Attitude Cop Bill” or the “Gestapo Bill” or the “I can’t keep my nose out of other people’s business (even though I can’t handle my own) Bill” or the “I know what is good for you even though I don’t know what is good for myself Bill”. 
Let us look at the facts. We are told by these proponents that one person a day dies from vicarious smoking. Is it not amazing that the most recent health study in this country demonstrated that two out of every five deaths in 1997 occurred not through cigarette smoking associated or otherwise but through over-eating? In 1997 two out of every five deaths occurred in respect of unhealthy diet. Two out of five—or 11000 people—died prematurely through unhealthy eating. I ask some of those members who are so quick to rush to tell everybody how they should behave how their diet and health is. Are they doing any exercise? Before they rush out to say that they want to save the world—how about themselves? Let us look at the facts. I have some information that is worldwide and respected. First of all on the issue of who smokes the most nation by nation— 
Darren Hughes 
: You! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Junior over there should try to keep up with the play. If he wants to become an important member of Parliament he should learn to close his nose and mouth at the same time open his ears and learn. Who are the most frequent smokers of cigarettes? They are the Bulgarians the Greeks and the Japanese. It is astonishing really that Japan is a very heavily industrialised country and its people are the heaviest smokers in the world. What is fascinating about this study is that on the obesity index the Japanese rank lowest in the world. How phenomenal it is that on the longevity index the average lifespan Japanese males and females win hands down. If smoking is so bad for people—actual smoking as opposed to vicarious or associated smoking—how come the Japanese figures do not back up one thing the Government is saying? Those members can destroy scientific evidence practice voodoo politics and come along here with a trumped up case that will not carry any water but I tell them straight that if they want to save New Zealanders then a good diet and exercise is more important than anything else. That is not my belief but the belief of the Ministry of Health and anyone who knows. So where is the Government’s “Good Health and Exercise Bill”? No those members could not do that because like the people at the whale conference in Auckland this morning half of them look like whales. It is unbelievable! People rush to tell us how to live our lives yet they themselves have no chance of living a long life because they are grossly overweight have a bad diet and do not do any exercise. But there are all the figures. With regard to obesity Japan has the lowest rate in the world followed by Korea. In respect of smoking Japan has the worst rate in the world closely followed by countries like Korea. 
Government Member 
: What about Bulgaria? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The Bulgarians are living so long that once upon time they put it down to Pinot Noir. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There are people in the gallery who know what I am talking about. People went amongst all those people and they thought that the only common factor in their longevity the only common thing in their diet was Pinot Noir. Then they realised it was the overall diet. The Pinot Noir people made a fortune for a short while until greater scientific evidence came in. 
Now here is the point: on health expenditure per gross domestic product is Japan the highest spender? No it is not but its people are living longer. The figures are all there. Japan is about the middle. I ask those people over there who are so hasty to tell us how to live what they are doing about people’s real health needs. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I speak on the title of this bill. I notice that the debate has now developed into a very wide-ranging debate. I want to say at the outset that under no circumstances would I be prepared to support legislation as bad as this. I say that because I wonder how far this Government will drive this nanny State so that people are not given the choice of what they can do with their own lives. We have heard contributions from Labour Party members and the Greens. They have said that this measure is needed because people have to go into smoky bars. I am not aware of any person being forced into a smoky bar. We used to have a similar situation with people complaining about restaurants. Over a period of time the market has determined that people do not find it pleasant to sit in restaurants with people smoking at the table next to them. Over time we have seen that restaurants have been able to adopt the practice of having no-smoking areas and in some cases a significant number have taken the opportunity of having no smoking at all. Those businesses have survived. In fact they have used the fact they are non-smoking as a marketing ploy. So if this is such an issue in the pubs and the Returned Services Associations again let the market have the opportunity to adopt the ability to market themselves as smoke-free and see whether they survive. I think that some of them would do extremely well. 
I note that this particular legislation is here in the name of Steve Chadwick on a members’ day. Yet when Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor took a call he spoke throughout his contribution about “we” having a position. [ 
Interruption 
] The Government has a position—the member is dead right and this is a whipped piece of legislation that should not be debated. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: No. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Damien O’Connor says it is not. Let him take the next call and name which Labour member of Parliament will stand up against Helen Clark. Let us find out. This legislation is Government policy and the Government should have the fortitude to debate it amongst Government business of the day. It should not be a member’s bill at all. 
We then heard Sue Kedgley talking about how dangerous this product is for people’s health. We heard how dangerous it is for people to have to sit in smoky bars and go home and shake and air their clothes because of the stench that descends on them because they made the choice to go into a bar in the first place. Also in the House today we had a question that reiterates the longstanding debate that the Greens run—about legitimising cannabis smoking. Where is the logic in the Government having before this House legislation to make it more and more difficult for people who are addicted to what is currently a legal product—tobacco—while at the same time the Greens and I know a good number of the Labour caucus are keen to legislate to legitimise cannabis? What is the logic for that? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Name one! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Ruth Dyson has said at many candidate meetings—I have been on the platform with her—that she supports the legalising of cannabis so that people have the right to smoke cannabis at will. So there is one and I bet Damien O’Connor knows there are plenty more. Then Steve Chadwick took a call. She told us a figure that I have not heard before—that is 50 babies have died because of second-hand smoke in the past year. The figure of those dying just continues to get bigger and bigger. We had evidence before the Health Committee that apparently 300 people a year die of second-hand smoke in New Zealand. By the time the bill went through the committee that figure had been magnified to 400 people. I say to the member in charge of this bill that she should table the 400 death certificates that have been filed and state that those people died of second-hand smoke. I guarantee that member will not be able to table those death certificates. 
Brian Connell 
: Not even one. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Not one because they do not exist. What we see here is a huge manufacturing and embellishment of the story about the effect of second-hand smoke on people’s health. I say we must stick to where the issues should be. People who have been addicted for years do not have the ability to stop smoking instantly. They are the very people who support the pubs—for example up and down Damien O’Connor’s electorate—and those pubs will go out of business because of this legislation. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: They’re not. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Damien O’Connor says: “They’re not.” and he may be right because those pubs will defy the legislation because it is unworkable. They are the only two choices. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 About a week or two ago I stood up here and spoke about the ideologically driven policies of the Labour Government. There is so much ideological b---s--- in this bill that I am surprised that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: One of the things we have to understand is the difference between the effect and the activity. Drunk people cause social problems all the time but we do not ban drinking in bars. If a smoke-free cigarette were developed would smoking it be allowed? What we do not seem to understand is that people presently have a choice whether they enter a smoke-filled environment. People have a choice—[ 
Interruption 
] Sue Kedgley interjects but if we were to follow her line of logic we should ban smoking in people’s homes because children who suffer the effects of smoking by their parents have even less choice than employees do. You are absolutely on the wrong track and I might add if you are so keen on being smoke-free why are you not also keen on being cannabis-free? Cannabis is something that does a little bit more damage perhaps. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not bring the Chair into the debate. I remind members of the longstanding convention that members on the cross benches who are sitting near the member speaking do not interject because it muffles the microphone. I ask members to be cautious. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I take your point. The other aspect of it and something that nobody has mentioned yet is that we do not need this legislation because we have the Occupational Safety and Health Service. If smoking is affecting employees and there is evidence of that the Occupational Safety and Health Service should deal with it. We do not need legislation to target smokers the hospitality industry people who choose of their own volition to smoke and people who choose to be in the company of people who smoke under conditions chosen by people running their own businesses their way. It makes no sense whatsoever. 
I am unique probably amongst the 120 members here in that I have had about 20 years’ experience in the hospitality industry. I personally do not like smoking and I do not smoke. In our restaurant we chose to be smoke-free but that was a choice we made. It was a choice I made as a proprietor and a person who worked there. I have to say we did not suffer any loss in business but the real issue here is that we made that choice. This legislation was not in place but we still chose to go smoke-free. We do not need to have legislation like this to ram it down people’s throats and to deny them the opportunity to make a decision for themselves. 
Another aspect too is that I know that in Christchurch for example there is a cigar bar. The whole business is predicated on the idea of people being able to come in eat have a drink and enjoy a cigar. It has a huge array of cigars on its menu. What are you going to tell them? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Chair into the debate. The member cannot use the word “you”. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: What is the Government going to do in that regard? A group of individuals have committed a large sum of money to open up a business predicated on something that this kind of legislation is attempting to take away their right to do. It will hurt not only the employees because they will be out of a job but also the proprietor who has put an amount of money into the business and the people who visit the restaurant to enjoy exactly those amenities. 
Another aspect is that we target cigarettes in this legislation but we have not targeted all the other things contributing to the atmosphere of a hospitality environment. We have not targeted the flu which people bring into that environment and all the rest of it. The suggestion put forward of having an air quality standard would actually address those issues. There is a very good argument to say that having an air quality standard would be healthier than simply stopping smoking in a hospitality environment. That is something that ought to be addressed in this legislation. 
Finally I suppose what galls me the most is that we are telling people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own businesses. But what happens in prisons? Under the guise of a prison cell being considered a home the employees who work in prisons will not be covered by this legislation. That is idiocy. If we are telling private individuals to succumb to this then the Government should succumb to it too. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for letting me make a contribution to this debate. I intend it to be fairly short. I need to say at the outset that I cannot support this legislation because I also believe it to be very knee-jerk. My idea for a title of this bill is the “Smoke-free Impossibility Environments Amendment Bill” because it just is not possible to have a smoke-free environment. 
I want to develop just a couple of themes. One of those has been touched on by a couple of speakers previously and that is the issue of choice. Why do we insist on this nanny State mentality? Why can we not simply let the market choose? Let us take the example of a restaurant. Why not let the market dictate what will take place? Entrepreneurial restaurateurs who think they can make a buck out of a smoke-free restaurant should open one and let us see what happens. The market will dictate; if people go to their restaurant word will get around and people will support them. But we cannot legislate for that. What members are doing is trying to tell people what is right and what is wrong for them. We just cannot do that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Jill Pettis 
: The member just said he made money in his restaurant. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is exactly my point. Let people choose. We should not legislate for it; let them choose. If people want to go to a smoke-free place they will. That is what I am saying. 
The second issue is the Returned Services Association clubs. Like a previous speaker I have made contact with some of them. I have a petition from one club that asks why this legislation is taking place. I tell the Committee that 137 people signed that petition. They are mostly old soldiers who they said have given their all for this country and now they are being told when they can have a fag and when they cannot and more important where. This goes right to the heart of their quality of life. They go down to the Returned Services Association club to see their mates to have a yarn and a fag. They have already risked life and limb most of these folks and they are not concerned about whether having a smoke might harm them. I am looking across the Chamber at Peter Dunne and am just reflecting— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Another returned soldier! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No no but if he had been a soldier I am sure he would have been a very fine one. I am looking at Peter Dunne and thinking that he has this issue pretty well sorted out because if people can produce a clean air environment why would we not support that? Is not that just an issue of common sense? 
If we are going to be brutally honest about all of this why do we not ban smoking full stop? I will say why that will not happen. The Government does not have the stomach for it. Damien O’Connor would not support that on the West Coast. Absolutely not! He would be out of business quick smart. Imagine going to the West Coast Damien and saying— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot refer to Mr O’Connor by his first name. Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement) says that the member must use his full name his portfolio or his title. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the Chair for his guidance. I think my point nevertheless is made. What about the hypocrisy of this— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot use the word “hypocrisy”. It has been ruled out of order many times in this Chamber. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I apologise. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt the member but I suggest to you that he was not referring to the hypocrisy of members which is out of order; the member was referring to the hypocrisy of the argument. An argument can be hypocritical and to say that it is does not imply a judgment on members who are making it. I suggest that you might want to reflect on your ruling which I think was unduly harsh in respect of that member’s comments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you I shall reflect on it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the member for his support. In fact I was referring to the arguments and I was not casting any aspersions on members of this Committee. But I will not use the term because obviously it upsets the Chair. 
What I will say is that I find it ironic that people who have committed heinous crimes in this country can sit in their prison cells and have a smoke but ex-soldiers of this country people who have given their all for it cannot light up a fag at the local Returned Services Association club. This is PC gone mad. I am looking at a couple of members across the other side of the Committee whom I have come to respect: they do not believe in this. A couple of them are now looking away. They do not support this legislation at all. They know that this does not make sense. They know that they will have a hard job selling this because it just is not saleable. The “Smoke-free Impossibility Environments Amendment Bill” I believe is a better title. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I suggest that the correct title of this bill should be the “Smoke-free Restricted Environments Amendment Bill” because I believe that it is missing out on some environments that are crucial. We are hearing a lot about the environment of the workplace and other environments that are mentioned in the bill but I want to focus some comments this evening on two environments that I believe are crucial if we are serious about protecting people from the harm that is caused by second-hand smoke. I will be referring to children in this regard and perhaps in some ways to those 50 babies that the member mentioned before who are supposedly dying every year as a result of being exposed to second-hand smoke. Whether it is 50 children or whether it is five I believe that issue is very serious for us as a nation. This bill does not address their needs. I believe therefore that it falls very far short. 
It is good that environments such as schools pre-schools and passenger-service vehicles such as school buses taxis and so on are covered by this legislation. But there are two environments that are not covered which is why I say the title is wrong. The two environments that I want to talk about are the private car and the home. I think probably those two environments contribute more damage being done to children in our country than any of the other environments. If babies are dying as a result of being exposed to second-hand smoke that exposure is most likely occurring in the home environment or when they are cooped up in the family car where mum and dad puff away with the windows up and the children gasp for fresh air. 
I have some sympathy for those smokers who are having their rights curtailed by this bill for the good supposedly of all non-smokers and for general health benefits as a whole. It would be reasonable for us to ask people to give up their rights if that would be for the benefit of the public health of all New Zealanders and if it would provide safe clean air for everyone. But I am concerned that children are being significantly missed in this bill and it is simply because we are afraid to make the hard decisions—the unpopular ones—and protect those who need protecting. Adults can always choose the environments they sit in or eat in or what pubs they go to but children often have no choice at all. This bill does address issues such as pre-schools and schools but it is the cars and the homes that I believe are crucial. 
Whenever we talk about homes of course we hear a great hue and cry about invasion of privacy about how could we ever pass a law to stop people from having the freedom to smoke in their own homes. But let us face it we would not allow parents to abuse their children in their own homes. It would not make any difference to us if that child abuse were occurring in a private home or in a public place; we would be in there like a shot to prevent it. Yet we are not prepared to do anything about children who are exposed to second-hand smoke day in and day out during their lives in their own homes or in their own cars as they travel around this country. We simply want to attack the easy options and not deal with the difficult ones. The Hospitality Association has said: “Well if you’re going to pass a rule make it one rule for all.” I say OK let us make it one rule for all—one rule for children and adults as well. Let us make sure that everybody has a right to clean fresh air. 
I was brought up in a home of smokers and as a result I began smoking when I was about 14 years of age. I was a serious smoker by the time I was 16 before I had left school and by the time I was 21 I was smoking 30 cigarettes a day. I used to give up all the time and I became very good at it. After becoming a Christian at 22 years of age I did finally manage to give up smoking and I am very glad that I was able to do so and I am very glad that my children have grown up as non-smokers as well. Often as a Christian I was asked: “Is it a sin to smoke?”. I would always of course refer them to the words of Jesus when he said: “Nothing passing into the mouth defiles a man. It is that which comes out of the heart that defiles us.” Smoking is unhealthy however and we should avoid it if possible. I will be voting against this bill—unless we see some amendments to it to make it more sensible—but not because of any religious understanding about smoking. In fact there is a good story that can put us straight in that regard— 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I say with great conviction that “enhanced protection” is absolutely right because we have had a history of people in this country not having protection from second-hand smoke. Just a little while ago we heard the Hon Winston Peters scoffing at the evidence that second-hand smoke is a reality and so did David Carter for that matter. However we know from very clear epidemiological studies right around the world of a whole area of organ systems—particularly the cardiovascular system if not the respiratory system—that it has a significant effect on shortening people’s lives. More so than that if we think of the statistics in New Zealand we know that 75 percent of people do not smoke and 25 percent do. But of those 25 percent who do smoke 50 percent or more are young Maori women. Many in that category become pregnant and they impose a significant problem on their unborn foetuses. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: You don’t get pregnant by smoking! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I heard the member for Rotorua saying that there was something like—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is absolutely right but this is not a flippant issue because the member for Rotorua did point out a mortality rate of about 50. I do not know whether it is necessarily that but more important is the sub-clinical pathology imposed on young New Zealanders and it is very significant. In fact the number of babies who die is miniscule in comparison with the number of children born with conditions like intrauterine growth and retardation that seriously affects all organ systems. Those children set off in life with a profound disadvantage. 
One might say that young pregnant women do not go to clubs bars casinos and restaurants. The truth of the matter is that they do and that an unborn foetus has no say whatsoever in the situation. 
Hon David Carter 
: They shouldn’t be drinking. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: They should not be drinking. However the point I am making is that we would hope that all New Zealand children had the chance to achieve their potential although a significant number of them are severely penalised right from the start. The bill’s title which suggests enhanced protection is absolutely spot on in trying to provide New Zealand children with that extra opportunity to achieve their full potential. 
I mentioned in the second reading that there is a real clash in terms of the freedom of the individual. Surely libertarian philosophy states quite clearly that the individual should have as much freedom as possible provided it does no harm and there is absolutely no doubt that second-hand smoke does harm. If one then transposes that to the children of this nation then the effect is profound. This bill has significant provisions to ensure that right from preschools to schools to secondary schools—sadly universities are not entirely protected or do not have the degree of enforcement that earlier education institutions have but they do have significant ones— 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I actually came to the House on my way to the gymnasium and probably with that in mind and reflecting on the speech given by Winston Peters I would say that a few members in this House should be doing likewise—as opposed to them telling the nation how its people should be living their lives. I recognise a number of people in this House whom I see exercising in the gym or occasionally padding it out on the road. However I do not see anywhere in the title where those members are seeking to tell the rest of Parliament how they should be living their lives in respect of their physical well-being. I want to put on record that I think the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill is another one of those nosy-parker pieces of legislation. 
I want to make it very clear right now that I am a non-smoker. I live with a wife who smokes and we have many discussions on the issues of smoking. But the one thing I would not dare to do—and any man would be a fool to do—is set about telling my wife how she should live her life. I would simply say to people who might suggest to me that my wife is not a good mother because she smokes and that her practice is detrimental to the health and well-being of our children to look in his or her own backyard before daring to suggest that my wife has not brought up her children well. I would suggest that one looks at one’s own whanaunga or at one’s own whanau before daring to suggest that my kids have not been successful in life or will not be successful in life. 
Nosy-parker legislation like this is fine if one is addressing the real issue. “Enhanced protection” immediately makes me think of some of the smoky bars I have been to in my time in the Middle East the UK and New Zealand and I have quite enjoyed being in many of those places. At times when a non-smoker finds it difficult to breath in any place he or she has the choice to leave. If a bar manager wishes to cater for a select crowd and make his bar smoke-free that is a business decision that that owner makes. It is not up to this Parliament to tell that man or woman how to run that bar. 
If that person wants to invest a huge amount of money putting in an air-conditioning system that filters the air so that Returned Services Association members can have a smoke-free environment that is his or her decision. It is a commercial decision based on the clientele’s needs and the ability of that business to recover that investment. But that is where it should stop. For Parliament to pass legislation like this under the guise of doing it for our own good smacks of the nanny-State stuff that I did not expect certain members in the Labour benches to be voting for. 
I know them personally. Having worked alongside those members as a Labour Party member many years ago I know what it is in their hearts. What I see happening here is a whip from the Prime Minister who occasionally turns up to the House to answer questions. It is the long handle of the whip she exerts. I simply say this: thank you Labour Party for helping us with the Returned Services Association vote. Thank you very much for putting legislation here. I hope it has the numbers and I hope it is passed but I will be voting against it. Thank you for telling Maori how they should live their lives. 
Quite frankly I would rather that this Government focused on obesity and that it dealt with pokie machines. I have been into many supposedly smoke-filled bar rooms and the places I am more concerned about are those little tucked-away nooks and crannies that are jam-packed with pokie machines and that at 2.30 in the afternoon are full of people. I suggest that many of them are Labour voters who should not be in there and who are spending money from a benefit or hard-earned money from their partners on the pokie machines. If there are areas that this Government needs to stick its nosy beak into maybe it should focus on those areas because many of those people are its own core members. I simply say that politically correct legislation like this is doing us a huge amount of good. Members have seen how New Zealand First is on the rise and continues to rise in the polls. 
If members are really concerned about the well-being of Maori women who smoke then I would ask Dr Hutchison how come Maori women live longer than Maori men if the health of so many Maori women is so poorly affected by smoking? The figures are there. How come the Japanese live longer than everybody yet they smoke more than anybody? There are a whole heap of inconsistencies in the arguments that have been put forward. I do not believe that this bill in any way shape or form stacks up to what people say are the reasons for passing it. 
I note the genuine concerns of some members of this Parliament and I appreciate them. I note Steve Chadwick’s concerns. However I also have a deep suspicion that for every one person who votes for this bill out of a genuine belief that he or she is doing the right thing some other Labour people will have been whipped into it. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I have a few corrections to make again. I just want to emphasise that this is not an anti-smoking bill. I say that very clearly because we do understand that smoking is an addiction. If that addiction happens at a very early age then people who are addicted to nicotine need help and that is something this Government is prepared to do. We have Quitline and smoking cessation programmes and it is very important to get that message across. Seventy-five percent of New Zealanders do not smoke and that is the aspect of choice that we were talking about. This amendment bill is protecting the air for those 75 percent who choose not to smoke. All we are asking is that smokers go outside and then come back and carry on with their drinking. 
The Returned Services Association issue is a difficult one but the select committee made the decision to take it across the board in the interests of consistency of argument and a level playing field wherever there is a liquor licence. I know that the Hospitality Association is looking at us today and imploring us not to make exemptions because we would be creating an unfair commercial environment. This bill went even further than it was originally intended because we did originally consider separate rooms but then we decided that that would not work. It would be like peeing in a swimming pool—it just mixes around. We have to take it right across the board and have an all-or-nothing approach. 
In relation to Returned Services Associations I also point out that only 12 percent of people over 65 smoke. That would mean that nearly 90 percent of the Returned Services Association patrons who are truly old soldiers—whom we respect value and thank for their contribution to our lives today—do not smoke. So we are very aware of that here. 
I also want to point out that we are talking about the rolling effect of Returned Services Associations and about how far we can take a bill. I have had a wonderful letter today from Ray Wolf the president of the Marlborough Returned Services Association saying: “We congratulate you. The Marlborough Returned Services Association welcomes the move to ban smoking in the club.” Only 5 percent of its patrons are smokers so I think we will slowly see an incremental change. We certainly do not want to be known as the nanny State. 
Larry Baldock brought up the issue of the environment. He is absolutely right about cars and homes but it is about bringing people with us and about how far one can go. I just want to remind the Committee that this bill first came in in 1990. It is now 13 years later and this is about as far as we are prepared to go here today. I think the issue of air pollution which somebody else brought up is a different aspect and one for an environmental air standard to deal with. 
The vexed issue of prison cells was one that came before the select committee and we decided to treat only the cell as if it were the prisoner’s own home—not the yard dining room or anywhere else in a prison. The Department of Corrections implored us to keep the cells provision in the bill simply because it has to manage prisoners in prisons. On that advice we treated the cell as the prisoner’s own room—unless a prisoner has a room mate in which case the smoke-free provision applies if the room mate does not want the other prisoner to smoke. 
I just wanted to make it quite clear to members of the Committee who are interested and have come today that this is not an anti-smokers bill. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I am a reformed smoker. I gave up some time back and I would remind those members who are speaking against this bill that much of the freedom from smoking they now enjoy has not always been there. Once upon a time people smoked in other people’s homes all the time. The staffroom in the school I taught in was a smoking staffroom and everybody put up with it. Larry Baldock spoke on behalf of children and I point out that smokers up and down the country smoked in their homes—it was a normal thing to do. However the culture has changed because people decided that it was not right and not fair to non-smokers. Now all of us can be fairly sure that when people come into our homes they will not light up. People no longer light up in the staffrooms up and down the country; they respect the rights of others. 
There is only one place where that is not the case and that is in the pubs. I like going into pubs but I do not like coming out smelling like an ashtray. I do not like going home taking off my clothes and waking up the next morning and finding that they still smell. The smokers I know say that they do not enjoy that density of smoke either. As a former smoker I can recall that it was not a lot of fun being surrounded by other people smoking. 
This bill is in the interests of all of us. Smoking is an exceedingly unhealthy habit. Imposing one’s smoke on other people is an exceedingly unfriendly thing to do and most people realise that. They will get used to it in the pubs and they will get used to it very quickly but I find the support of United Future members for this bill particularly strange. They seem to think that it is OK to go on smoking in bars but it is not OK. 
This is a good bill. I thank Ms Chadwick for her efforts. On behalf of those of us who no longer smoke I say well done. Ms Chadwick is in a long line of people who have been doing a grand job in making this place a little healthier for all of us. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am a non-smoker and I have been a non-smoker for— 
Jill Pettis 
: Do you ever do anything? 
PETER BROWN 
: —probably longer than that member has been a smoker. If the member thinks I have not had an enjoyable life I tell her that she is completely wrong. Indeed I have never known the member to be right so it is no surprise she is wrong yet again on something else. 
We hear of people going down to the pub or the club to have a cigarette after work so they do not smoke in front of their children. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: You don’t go to the pub to have a smoke; you go to have a beer. 
PETER BROWN 
: They go to the pub and the club so they do not smoke in front of their children. What is wrong with that? Why do we not trust New Zealanders to make their own decisions? Why can the owner of a bar not make the decision as to whether the bar is a smoke-free bar? Why can the owner of a club not make the decision as to whether the club is a non-smoking club? I accept that there should be a standard as to air quality and we will be supporting Peter Dunne’s amendment in that regard. I know that we can change air very very rapidly. Does the member in the chair Steve Chadwick disagree? I tell members that a ship’s hold can suck out air faster than one can say the words. [ 
Interruption 
] 
There is a serious side to this. This is robbing people of their freedoms. People have a legal right to smoke. Do members want to see schoolteachers leave the school area totally—the buildings the playground—stand on the sidewalk and smoke cigarettes in front of everybody? 
Rod Donald 
: In front of the schoolchildren. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is that what members want? Damien O’Connor laughs; he thinks it is funny. It is a sad thing to see teachers go out and stand on the pavement to have a smoke. It is terrible and I think we should respect the rights of all teachers. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Do you think they should do it in front of pupils? 
PETER BROWN 
: Let me put it this way: I would prefer a little bit of honesty a little bit of integrity and a little bit of respect in this. I have a very high regard for teachers. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: And marijuana too? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am glad the member brings that up because I find the Greens’ position on this absolutely loopy. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Why are you surprised? 
PETER BROWN 
: Only a year ago Rod Donald from the Greens was advocating that everybody who supported the Greens should go and make a public protest by smoking cannabis cigarettes in front of everybody then get in their cars and drive home. That is what he was advocating and at a public meeting when I said he had one of his members going out doing that he said: “No I’ve got two.” Those people think it is responsible to advocate smoking marijuana and then driving home. That is an absolute disgrace. They then complain about people going into a pub or a club and getting the smell of cigarettes on their jackets or whatever. I say to the Green Party members that they should not go in the pub or the club; they should sit at home and do their thing there. 
I have every sympathy for those who join the Returned Services Association. Its members fought for this country in the war and some fought for Britain in the war. They are entitled to go to their club and watch the All Blacks beat the South African and Australian rugby teams and have a cigarette and a pint of beer. Members on the other side of the Chamber know it is only fair that those people should be entitled to do that. 
I see in this bill that people cannot smoke in internal spaces on a ship but that they must go outside to smoke. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PETER BROWN 
: I was saying how stupid this bill is when it comes to ships. To illustrate the point people on a tanker cannot smoke outside the wheelhouse or the accommodation; they have to confine their smoking within the ship—[ 
Interruption 
] Even Mr Duynhoven knows that. Now we are debating legislation that states that people have to go outside where there is a huge fire risk to the ship and to the well-being of the people. That is how daft this bill is. That is just one aspect of it. I urge members to rethink this bill and amend it so that it makes sense. Or they could look at my amendment which suggests that the matter should go to public referendum. 
I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Hon Peter Dunne moved a motion at the beginning of the Committee stage to refer this bill back to the Health Committee. Our vote was mistakenly cast as a split vote when it should have been 13 in favour of the motion. I seek leave to have that vote— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have to correct that vote in the House rather than in Committee. We will do that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I give members notice that that is coming. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak again on the title of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill because as I said in my first speech on the title I think the proper title should be the “Smoke-free (Selective Environments) Amendment Bill”. The reason is that the bill—if it is to be taken seriously—has left out some environments that are vitally important. 
I need to finish the story I began in my first speech on the title. I know that many members will be anxious to hear the end of the story. It relates to a young man who after his recent Christian conversion was still struggling to give up the terrible habit of cigarette smoking—it is a very addictive habit and we have great sympathy for those who battle it; as I said earlier I battled it for many years myself. He was rather concerned as to whether he was a sinner because he was continuing to smoke so he went to see his pastor and said: “If I smoke cigarettes will I still be able to go to heaven?” The pastor looked at him very thoughtfully and said: “Well son it’s not really my position to be able to make those kinds of declarations. I can’t tell you but if you keep it up you’ll find out sooner than you really want to know.” 
There is no doubt that smoking is unhealthy but so is drinking too much soft drink or eating too much fast food and we are not considering banning those. We should remember that the reason for this bill is to reduce the harm caused by second-hand smoke. It is not about whether a person chooses to smoke; it is about whether others are subjected to the effects of that smoking against their will. 
I welcome the progress that has been made over the years. I remember when I first began working in 1972 for New Zealand Insurance in Tauranga. We had a smoko room and people who were not smokers had to endure their morning tea in the midst of a smoke-filled room. I have a smile on my face these days when I see the smokers having to stand outside on the footpath in the pouring rain to have their smoke whilst those who do not smoke are able to enjoy the comfort of what is still often called the smoko room. 
My concern with this bill is that there are two environments that it does not address and it should. As I mentioned earlier they are the car and the home. I call for support for my amendment from those who put the “Second-hand smoke kills” advertisement in the  
Independent 
 and on all those who agreed with it the Cancer Society of New Zealand Diabetes New Zealand Action on Smoking and Health and the rest of the huge list who were convinced enough about second-hand smoke being dangerous to our health that they put that advertisement in the paper and called upon MPs to support this legislation. Tonight I call on them to support the amendment I am tabling that will deal at least with the environment of the private automobile and address the issue of children under the age of 12 being subjected to the second-hand smoke of a driver—a caregiver or whoever it may be—against their will. That is an environment we should be guaranteeing to be smoke-free for the young people of our country. 
I will not try to address the issue of smoking in the home on this occasion. I will not add that to my amendment because everybody will run for cover and we will get nothing done. But I appeal to members of the Committee to consider making sure that this legislation can ensure a smoke-free environment for children being driven to and fro in vehicles just as much as it does to those who want to enjoy a smoke-free environment in a restaurant. If we believe second-hand smoke kills we should protect those who cannot protect themselves—the children of our country—and hopefully that message will eventually pass on to parents who subject their children to smoke-filled homes and then wonder why those children suffer from respiratory problems later in life. If we cannot make it a crime at least we may send the right signal by requiring them to think about it when they take their children out in the car. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I was quite happy to take a call later but as this is a wide-ranging debate and there is now an opportunity I am happy to speak now. The point I want to start with is something that struck me as I listened to my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison a person for whom I have tremendous respect. The thing that struck me about his contribution is something that I think is fair to say of all members who have made contributions. Some people have very genuine concerns about the effect of smoking on health—both first-hand smoking and second-hand smoking—but Paul Hutchison’s contribution was specifically concerned with the effect that second-hand smoke in pubs might have on in utero babies. The question has to be asked. If we have made progress on pointing out the damage that is caused by alcohol consumption during pregnancy what are those young mums doing in the pubs at that time anyway? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Some may not know they’re pregnant. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I guess that is true but having found out that they are pregnant which they should have found out after a relatively short period of time—and Damien O’Connor should know the answers—I suggest those people would be better to stay away from the pub environment and not drink or smoke. 
The second thing that struck me during the dinner break was Ron Mark’s suggestion just prior to the dinner break that people go down to the gym and take some exercise. I was amazed by the number of people who actually listened to Ron Mark. The place was packed to the extent that there were no running machines so I went out and had a run down Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place. 
Darren Hughes 
: Did you see Winston? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I did not but that is a good question. When I ran down Lambton Quay I was struck by the large number of people waiting for buses. As we ran past those people a high proportion were smoking and I had to inhale their used smoke. So I want to ask the member promoting the bill Steve Chadwick why my health should be put at risk—or do I not have a right to run down Lambton Quay? One cannot run down Lambton Quay at that time without passing people who are waiting for the bus and smoking heavily. Why are the rights of people working in the hospitality industry of far more importance than mine? I look forward to the member who is promoting the bill answering that question. 
I then proceeded to run down Courtenay Place and was struck by the number of people enjoying a leisurely drink at the end of a day’s work. A very high proportion of those people were smoking. I ask another question of the member promoting this bill. What sort of research has been done on the smoking rates of people who visit hotels? We hear the figure bandied around and I do not doubt that 25 percent of New Zealanders are smokers but I want to know from the member whether the people who use pubs and clubs etc. represent a higher proportion of smokers and whether that fact has been taken into account. 
The third thing I want to know from the member who is promoting the bill is what sort of work has been done on the practicality of implementing this legislation. I accept that it has been driven by people who are idealistic about this crusade to cut down the rate of smoking and the risk of second-hand smoke damage to people’s health but I do not think there has been any work done on the practicality. 
When I interjected earlier I challenged Damien O’Connor to answer what effect this sort of legislation would have on a battling small country pub on the West Coast to which he responded: “It would have no effect at all economically.” 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Means two things. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is right. It means one of two things. Either people will completely ignore the legislation or the smoke police will be standing right outside making sure those people never enter the pub in the first place. If that is the option the industry’s economics will certainly be greatly affected. But I guarantee that the former option will be the one. People on the West Coast will completely ignore this legislation. 
The other thing that struck me over the dinner break was if it were a cold wet night and people were drinking happily in Courtenay Place or wherever else would they all go outside to smoke? What sort of effect would that have on Courtenay Place if a hundred people poured out of bars and pubs— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: They won’t! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Russell Fairbrother said they will not. That is exactly right. They will stay and drink in the pubs they will stay and defy the law and if Parliament is silly enough to listen to Sue Kedgley later there will be no culpability on those people at all. But what will happen to the person running the business? Members should answer that question. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to take over from where my colleague David Carter left off. Overseas examples that Action on Smoking and Health and other anti-tobacco lobby groups love to quote are quite instructive. The example most often put forward is that of California. Apparently we are supposed to consider ourselves favourably with California where the climate is significantly different from the one in New Zealand. In fact if we had the climate that California has smoking outside would not be nearly the problem that it is here. 
David Carter asked whether people on the West Coast would go outside when the weather is wet and cold in the middle of winter. I doubt it very much. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Only wet! 
HEATHER ROY 
: Lynda Scott says that it is only wet. I thank her for that. I think that they will not go outside whether or not it is wet or cold. But what has happened in New York? We should look at the New York example. It was put forward initially as a very good example for us because the climate is somewhat similar to ours. There is now a lot of public nuisance on the streets there. People are forced to go outside to smoke because it is the law although that is in question at the moment. People go on to the streets and cause a lot of public disturbance and the police are having a great deal of difficulty controlling people who have had far too much to drink going outside to smoke. In fact I read a story recently in  
The 
Economist 
—a great source of information—which the members who were in the Chamber earlier will have heard. A bouncer working at one club was trying to prevent people who had been at other premises earlier in the night and who had had far too much to drink from coming into his club—he was not allowing them to enter—and he was stabbed. That is quite an extreme example I will admit but there is a lot of public disturbance on the streets of New York. Again that is not something that we want to see in New Zealand. 
Another issue that I would like to go back to is the Returned Services Association. The member in the chair who is promoting the bill Steve Chadwick said earlier on that she would like to correct the things that people have been saying about the Returned Services Association. I have had considerable contact with the Returned Services Association since the bill was tabled in the House. Steve Chadwick says that only 12 percent of the over-65s smoke. That may well be a fact although I am not quite sure where that figure has come from. Even so not all over-65s attend a Returned Services Association. The clubs who wrote to me said that the vast majority of their members smoked and I had a large number of letters from people who said that they were not smokers and that they did not object to smoking at their local branch of the Returned Services Association. They said that they went there for the social contact and if they objected strongly to the smoke and did not want people to be smoking there they would not bother going. That is a significant fact. 
There was a very interesting letter to the editor of the  
Dominion Post  
quite recently from somebody who called himself an “old digger”. He was in the Second World War and was provided with cigarettes at the front and became addicted as a result. When he went off to war he was not a smoker so the Government basically had given him his addiction. He wrote: “My local RSA club charges an annual subscription and issues a membership swipe card.” In effect he was saying that it was a private club. The membership swipe card prohibits the entry of the general public into his local club. He went on to say that the Prime Minister has said in no uncertain terms that there will be no exceptions to the smoking ban. His reply to that was: “Well I have news for you. I intend to keep smoking at my RSA club in the designated area. I won’t put up with her attempt to stop me at my age from having the pleasure of a quiet beer and a cigarette!”. And who can blame him? He has served his time for this country. He has given this country the freedom that every one of us in this Parliament enjoys and we are about to take his freedoms from him. “Old diggers” he went on to say “should fight again for their freedom—the freedom to do what they want in their own private clubs without interference from a dictatorial Government.” 
That sums up the attitude we are seeing in this legislation. There is a loss of freedom a loss of choice and a loss of personal liberty taken by a Government that thinks it knows best and that tells the people of this nation how to live their lives. For that reason the ACT party is opposing this bill. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to go back to a couple of comments that have been raised during the course of this debate on the title to date. Members have raised in what has been agreed should be a wide-ranging debate a number of issues regarding the practicality of the legislation. While we will explore those in more detail as we move through the parts of the bill some questions have been raised that neither the promoter of the bill nor the Associate Minister of Health who has taken one or two calls has answered. 
I want to go back to one that was raised by Mr Worth some time ago relating to the cigar bar in Christchurch. My colleague Mr Alexander made reference to it as well. That enterprise was set up specifically to provide a place where people who may like to enjoy a drink or a meal and a cigar or two are able to go pay for the privilege of doing that and enjoy themselves. It is not a place to which members of the general non - cigar-smoking public would go. The question posed which has not yet been answered is why an organisation like that has to be proscribed—as it will be under this bill. Members should bear in mind that that is part of the same agenda that saw a cigar-lovers’ magazine banned by the health zealots a little while ago because it was apparently offensive in some way—even though one could download it from the Internet if one were so inclined. 
But there is a real point of principle here. If we are to believe the promoters of this bill it has been introduced because people do not have choices. But it then denies people the opportunity of saying as in this instance that they may like to run a cigar bar knowing full well the implications of the atmosphere within that bar and the risks that may be attendant upon those who go there. Equally we may want to set up a smoking bar within our club a smoking dining room within our restaurant or whatever else. Those options have not been permitted and more important when questions have been raised about why they have not been permitted there have not been any answers. There has been a blanket statement that the bill is about occupational safety and health and we have not had an answer to the question of why if it is about occupational safety and health we have to have a different standard of legislation in respect of this activity. The promoter of the bill I think it was drew attention to the matter of unsafe building sites but we do not have specific legislation for them. The general occupational safety and health legislation is held to apply in those cases. 
We are left with the conclusion that there is another agenda afoot here and I think that was betrayed somewhat by the promoter of the bill when she said that this legislation had its origins in the late 1980s and that this is as far as the Government is going—and she sort of petered out by saying—“at this stage”. So clearly more legislation is intended. We need to know what else is intended and when it will be implemented. If the Government’s intention is to take further steps and this bill is only the first step down a path then the people who are worried about the legislation’s implications now need to know what lies ahead and on what time frame it will be happening. We need to know that so we do not get into the sort of situation for instance that the cigar bar in Christchurch—and I think there is one in Auckland—have got into by investing heavily in a business that will essentially be proscribed by law potentially as early as this evening. 
In a country that talks about having an open competitive economy where people have the opportunity to try their hand and to succeed or fail as the case may be to have activities that are not in themselves illegal proscribed by law is an absurdity. Some people have frivolously made comments about what goes on in the street as a result of another piece of legislation that this Parliament passed recently. One could mount an argument to say that technically smoking will now be banned in the street because that is where the hookers’ workplace is. That is a clear example of the sort of absurdity that we are getting into. 
We need to know the real intention here. Why is it that on the one hand we can hold an activity to be legal—Ms Chadwick said that this is not anti-smoking legislation per se—but on the other hand we just make it impossible for people to actually indulge in the activity? There is a word for that. I raised a point of order about it before so I will not do so again. But I think we are entitled to some answers as to the real motivation here. If people are carrying on an activity that is held to be legal how can we then seek to proscribe the legality of their carrying it out? Why can there not be alternative venues put in place? Why do people not have choices? The best choice I know is that if people do not like a smoky bar or a restaurant they should either stay away from it or get out of it. If people do not like as I do not the stench of smelly clothes and all that sort of thing then they should not put themselves into that circumstance. Why do we need the hand of the law to proscribe people’s participation? That question has not been answered. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 When I last spoke I put some statistical information before the Committee and I made some comments about the zealot group in New Zealand Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Those people were zealots when I was here in Parliament before in 1982-3 and I am staggered to see that they are still getting stronger. 
Hon David Carter 
: Because the Government finances them. 
DAIL JONES 
: So ASH is a Government body and we have the Government members all supporting this legislation. I want to quote from one of the newspapers that uses some of ASH’s research and compares it with other research. I will quote totally from this journal which states: “Here is some new info in the controversial debate about the perils of second-hand smoke. ASH’s research shows the relative risk of developing lung cancer from second-hand smoke is 1.24 and heart disease is 1.3 for second-hand smoke at home and 1.21 for second-hand smoke at work.” 
I will not go into any further details on that but that is apparently what ASH says. The article went on to state: “Here are some figures that ASH is not likely to tell you about gleaned from the  
International Journal of Cancer 
 the  
International Journal of Epidemiology 
 the  
Pharmaceutical Journal 
 and  
The Lancet. 
” Now we know that it is about 1.3 percent for second-hand smoke at home and 1.21 for second-hand smoke at work. The article continues: “The relative risk for the following factors causing lung cancer: dairy products 2.85”—that is twice the rate for second-hand smoke—“custard 1.7”. Custard is more dangerous than second-hand smoke. It then states: “Fried meat 1.54 manual work compared to non-manual work 1.4”. By that sort of logic Labour Party members should give up manual work because it is bad for them. 
Hon David Carter 
: They have. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well yes they have. The article continues on: “Drinking milk 1.73”—that is about 40 percent more than second-hand smoke. We are going to put milk in schools—we are going to give our kids free milk in schools—and it is worse than second-hand smoke. 
I assure members that the next statistic is the most serious one of the lot and I am terribly concerned about it myself. It states: “The relative risk for the following factors causing heart disease—baldness 1.23”. I am an asthmatic as well so I am on the way out—I am gone. Baldness is worse than second-hand smoke. 
Hon David Carter 
: You should come over to the gym. 
DAIL JONES 
: I do go to the gym; maybe that is what keeps me going. Now I like biscuits and I often have more than one biscuit a day but eating one biscuit a day has a 1.49 percent risk of causing heart disease. That is more than passive second-hand smoke—eating one biscuit. If one eats two biscuits or three biscuits one is gone according to ASH. 
Those are the statistics. That is the information from the  
International Journal of Cancer 
 the  
International Journal of Epidemiology 
 the  
Pharmaceutical Journal 
 and  
The Lancet. 
 One cannot be better informed than that; those are world-respected journals. I look across to the other side of the Chamber and I know some of the Government members will be affected by this next statistic: snoring has an 1.8 percent risk. That is well in excess of second-hand smoke. For bus driving in heavy traffic the figure is 1.6 percent. For some members—and I look at Craig McNair here although he is going to remedy this—never being married presents a 2.9 percent risk. It is just as well that Craig McNair is getting married; otherwise he would be in big trouble. Members can imagine that if they were snoring bald single bus drivers who were biscuit eaters they would be out of here. We would just have to give them a box and they would be gone. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is this your valedictory? 
DAIL JONES 
: Some members are suggesting this is my valedictory but it just goes to show how ridiculous some of the statistics really are. Here we are being made to pass legislation that talks about a 1.3 percent risk from second-hand smoke at home and a 1.21 percent risk from second-hand smoke at work. But drinking the beer that is served in the bars is probably more of a risk than the second-hand smoke that people are supposed to be worrying about. The bartenders who are handing the beers across the bar are doing more damage to people than any damage to them from second-hand smoke. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think we have had a very significant debate on the title and I am aware that the Government is about to move a closure motion. I just want to receive clarification as to how you will treat the rest of the debate. As far as the title is concerned we have certainly had more than a fair share of time. But I just want an assurance from you as we now move to the body of the legislation that there will be plenty of opportunity to actually get into the parts and that you do not propose to curtail that part of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the point that you have made. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 88 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9. 
Noes 29 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could you just check those figures as there is a general air of amazement around the Chamber at what you have just announced. 
Hon David Carter 
: We voted in favour. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: National voted in favour? Well we have a long way to go yet. [ 
Interruption 
] The National Party voted in favour of it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to 
. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Before you took the Chair there was actually a split vote on the matter we were dealing with so we would like to cast two votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Well I expected you to do that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 4; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 This part deals with the commencement date and it also has the interpretation provisions which basically are the definitions that apply within this bill. 
The commencement date is 1 January 2004 which allows a very short time for people to get used to the major changes that occur under this bill. If we look at what happened in California we see that it initially brought in changes to make restaurants smoke-free then 3 to 4 years later it brought in smoke-free environments in pubs and clubs. I do have some real concerns that by moving this legislation so fast we will create civil disobedience. People are going to say they are not prepared to accept this legislation and they will simply and utterly ignore it. That is not what we want to see. We want to see as we have seen over the past 10 years people slowly moving towards understanding the very negative health effects of smoking and understanding that second-hand smoke is detrimental. 
I remember the very first time someone got in my car lit up and about to take the first puff asked me whether I minded. I remember the first time I said yes. It really felt good to stand up for my rights as a non-smoker. I have to say that a few years after that I did become a smoker for some time but being reformed now— 
Hon David Carter 
: It was stress. It was the stress of the job. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Yes. It was the stress of the job. 
Darren Hughes 
: Being a member of the National Party caucus will do that to you. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: No it was actually when I went nursing. So many nurses at that time did smoke but we have learnt. When people look at the relative risks of smoking they see that their relative risk of having a heart attack is three and their relative risk of getting lung cancer is 20 compared with those who do not smoke. Those are quite staggering results. The evidence around second-hand smoke has been a little patchy. I do think that some of the evidence has been overestimated but there is no doubt that second-hand smoke does affect people especially a worker in an environment that is very thick with smoke. 
The interpretation provisions in this bill include things like “dedicated smoking room”. That means an internal area of a hospital or a care institution. We certainly do not want to see—and I promoted this provision—our elderly in residential care having to trundle out into the rain and the cold to have a smoke. By that stage when they are in residential care quite frankly if a smoke is all they enjoy they should be able to have a smoke. So we did allow for dedicated smoking rooms to exist in rest homes disability care institutions and mental health institutions. 
I was very pleased when I heard earlier speakers talking about schools. When the bill first came in it actually had provision for dedicated smoking rooms within schools. But 40 percent of schools have already gone totally smoke-free and they do not want that provision. We heard a lot of submissions on that fact. The people our children look up to—and teachers are the people they look up to; they are role models for them—should not have smoking rooms; it should not become the norm that teachers are smoking on school-grounds. So schools were taken out of that provision. We also took out early childhood centres so that younger children are not exposed to second-hand smoke. The risks of bronchitis and asthma are very real with young children. 
Another definition is that of “open area”. With pubs and clubs of course people can go outside into beer gardens and the like to have a cigarette then go back inside to enjoy their beer. So “open area” has been defined. 
The taxi federation was very keen to have smoking banned in taxis especially for those people like myself who do not smoke now and do not want to get into a taxi that stinks of cigarette smoke and for taxi-drivers who do not smoke. They certainly do not want to have to put up with it. For them to stop people from smoking in their taxis is very difficult if the law does not state it is illegal. Operating a taxi is defined as travelling time and resting time so it is very clear that smoking in taxis will be banned. Taxi-drivers will be able to put up a sign saying so and it will be enforceable. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak about the amendments to clause 1A and clause 2 that I have put and that are on Supplementary Order Paper 117. I am proposing an amendment that deletes the reference to new section 6B that appears in clause 1A(3) which states that several provisions “come into force on the day 12 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” and inserts a new subclause 5A stating: “Section 6B comes into force on the date of commencementof the first regulations made under section 39(1).” What that is about is that the proposal I will be advancing in further amendments as we proceed—to establish an air quality standard—hinges on the proposal taking effect after that quality standard has been established. So this amendment to the commencement provision is needed if we are to achieve the goal of saying that an air quality standard is to be promulgated by—I forget the date—2006 and to take effect in 2007. So that is what those two amendments to clause 1A deal with. 
I am also proposing an amendment to clause 2 that inserts after the definition of “managers” simply for alphabetical reasons a definition of “minimum air quality standard” as being a standard set by regulations to be made under section 39A which I will be proposing a little later on be inserted into the bill. I will be proposing that we take some time to allow the Ministry of Health officials who claim to be expert in these areas—they are medically qualified people who have suddenly developed an expertise in ventilation filtration and all forms of engineering and life in general which I find devastating fascinating and utterly unbelievable—to have the opportunity to consult widely with those who actually know something about this and are not just simply guided by the prejudice of the Dr Laugesens of this world. That man has made a career out of ripping off public funding simply to gallivant around the world going to conferences at the public’s expense. The fact is that the ministry ought to be given some chance to redeem itself by taking time to consult widely and develop a proper air standard which can then be implemented. That is what the definition inserted by my amendment to clause 2 implies. 
I notice a couple of other interesting things with regard to the definition clause of the bill relating to the definitions of “herbal smoking product” and also “additive”. I have checked with both the Associate Minister of Health and the sponsor who assure me that these particular definitions encompass cannabis. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: So it should. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: “So it should.” says the member opposite who spends his life going up and down this country campaigning for everyone to smoke cannabis literally from the day people are born. There is a word for that. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh it has always been that party’s policy. He says he is not sure what his party’s policy is! It is the pro-cannabis party. It is happy to be identified as such. Here those members are standing up in the Chamber tonight and trumpeting the need for cannabis to be legalised because it is so good for people while at the same time trying to deny the guys in the Returned Services Association clubs the right to light up a cigarette. That is the complete abnormality of the Greens’ position. 
I notice that when we look at the definitions that are contained in here we see that they actually limit the Greens ability to campaign for cannabis quite considerably. I wonder why the Greens given their advocacy for cannabis are supporting this bill because they will not actually be able to have their great smoke-ups that they like to do—they will also be caught by this bill. But I think I know why they are supporting it. They actually know that this law is essentially stupid unenforceable and unworkable and will simply be ignored. They will carry on in the way they are doing smug in their self-satisfaction that they have contributed to a situation where other people’s rights have been trampled upon where people’s freedoms of association have been threatened where we have removed any ability for a reasoned debate and where we have removed any ability for designated areas. 
 One of the lunacies that the previous member highlighted is that we can have designated smoking areas within hospitals of all places but we cannot let the cigar bars in Christchurch or Auckland for instance carry on. I would have thought that hospitals as a symbol of health protection and health promotion were the last place within which members would want a designated smoking area. 
Richard Worth 
: Hurray for Mr Dunne! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Absolutely; I will take that from the member opposite; maybe if we have a Monacan raise but I will take it as well. The point is that the definition clause does highlight a number of the contradictions and absurdities within this legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to confine my contribution to the commencement date of this bill. It is complex. If this bill goes through as it is one part comes in on one date another part comes in on another date and yet another part comes in on yet another date. 
I have a Supplementary Order Paper in my name suggesting that this bill because it is controversial because it is delicate and because it is sensitive should go to the public of New Zealand. In my mind this House stuffed up on the Prostitution Reform Bill. The letters that we get daily tell me that this House got it all wrong though members might think with pride they have done something worthwhile. This House only a fortnight ago stuffed up big time on the Death with Dignity Bill. Parliament denied the incurably ill and the sick any time to put their case formally to a select committee. That was all we were asking that day. The letters I have got the emails the faxes and the telephone calls tell me New Zealanders really resent that we did not even give them time to put a formal case expressing their concerns. 
Let us not get a hat trick let us not stuff up for the third time but let us ask the public what they really want. Let us get the bill in order as best we possibly can then put it out for public referendum. And we should make sure it is binding so that the House cannot do what it did with the 99 MPs question and the crime question that were on the ballot paper the election before last. Let us have a binding referendum and ask New Zealanders whether they want this sort of legislation. Do they want to stop old retired soldiers from going into Returned Services Association clubs and having a beer and a smoke whilst they watch the All Blacks beat South Africa or indeed watch the All Blacks thrash the Australians or—God forbid—have to watch the All Blacks lose to Australia? They might then need two cigarettes or even a cigar goodness me and a couple of Scotches to go with it. Do we resent New Zealand— 
Pita Paraone 
: Or losing to England! 
PETER BROWN 
: That would be even worse. It has been known. I have to say before anybody says something on that side of the Chamber I was disappointed as much as that member over there. 
But seriously this bill really is going to hurt the retired soldiers who go and have a fag in their Returned Services Association clubs. It is going to hurt their feelings. It is going to restrict them immeasurably. These guys have earned the right to go into the Returned Services Association clubs and have a smoke. Fathers who do not want to smoke at home with their young children want to go to a bar and have a cigarette away from their families. I appeal to my colleagues here who want to give it some thought that this bill is about restricting smoking and it is better to restrict smoking in the home where the youngsters are than restrict it in the bar. 
There is no argument that the air should be fresh and we are totally supportive of the Hon Peter Dunne’s Supplementary Order Paper that advocates changing the air frequently and properly. We totally support it because it is really a safe air bill and technology can do that. But we should not be imposing this on every New Zealander. 
I urge members over there to think seriously about adopting my Supplementary Order Paper which states that this bill should be subject to a binding referendum. Steve Chadwick was the member who told us not so long ago that 75 percent of New Zealanders do not smoke so members could expect that New Zealanders would say that yes they want this bill. There is nothing to lose; let them have their choice. This bill is not going to come in immediately so we have time to have a referendum. We have time to say to New Zealanders that this is the best we can do in the House this is what we want to do and this is why we are doing it—we want to restrict smoking—“Tell us whether you want it to be our law. You tell us whether you agree with this sort of legislation.” Then we can have a free clear conscience. But simply to impose this on everybody because we have a bee in our bonnet that this is the way to go and we know better than every New Zealander out there is totally wrong. There are some major flaws in this bill. 
Darren Hughes 
: Name six. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have not got enough time left in my speech unless the member will agree to give me an extension. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I acknowledge that the previous speaker Peter Brown has read the bill and rightly identified a few problems that can be improved on and one is the commencement. The dates in clause 1A are not all aligned and the Government intends to bring in an amendment to fix that in a technical way to ensure that the provisions around offences line up with the introduction of the main provisions and I put that on notice. There has been widespread consultation on this matter. I sat on the select committee for a year and went up and down the country hearing many many submissions on the bill. There were a large number of views from both sides of the argument. It was a very balanced debate and in the end that is why I feel confident that what we are moving ahead with is supported by a wide range of people up and down the country. 
I would also like to identify a few other improvements that the Government will be making through amendments. Some of them relate to technical difficulties brought up by cigarette companies in their attempts to sell cigarettes in some retail outlets. We are trying to ensure that in clause 2 “Interpretation” we identify what are tobacco cartons packages faces and pouches and ensure that where cigarettes are sold they are not sold alongside products that would normally be sold to children and thereby perhaps tempt children to buy tobacco products. The other changes we are proposing are as I said to clarify the definition of cartons and packages. In the last couple of weeks there was an attempt by one company to get around the proposals in this bill by coming up with a carton of I would have to say unusual dimensions. That has forced us to clarify in the bill the sizes of a carton the sizes of a pack and the face of a tobacco product to make sure that the generally agreed position of there being 100-count tobacco packages and 40-count cartons on display in one place can be adhered to by the cigarette companies. We have had to clarify those things through a Supplementary Order Paper which I will be putting up to ensure that it gives effect to the intent of Steve Chadwick’s bill. 
I think we are making reasonable progress on these issues and I will take the opportunity to speak on a few other amendments as they come up. We will not be as was previously indicated supporting the amendments put up by United Future. Many countries have considered the air-quality issue—Ireland California and numerous other countries and states in Australia—and they have all failed to accept it aside from the issue of the cost. One of the things we heard from right across the spectrum was that if we are going to make changes to protect workers then we should do it to all hospitality establishments. The issue with an air-quality standard and an extensive process of consultation as the member proposes to come up with a no doubt very expensive system would mean that many many establishments would go broke and could not afford that. 
 In the interest of protecting workers we have decided that we maintain a level playing field. In fact people in the industry have supported that position. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: The Minister should read the amendment before he speaks. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of the amendment. Mr Dunne might maintain that a proper air-quality standard can be reached but the evidence—after investigation by not just New Zealand officials but by those in Ireland in California and throughout the world—shows that it is not reasonable to have an air-quality standard. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Before I introduce an amendment I have to Part 1 I would like to comment on an interesting fact. During the select committee process United Future supported the report and the bill all the way through. Indeed the United Future member on the Health Committee Judy Turner was quoted in the paper explaining why she did not go for ventilation systems. She said that the problem with ventilation systems was that one would need a ventilation system the strength of a tornado in order to be effective. So she supported the bill all the way through with no minority report opposing it then suddenly along came Peter Dunne who started speaking and sounding like a representative of the tobacco industry. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry; I did not hear that comment. People were talking. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I will take you through it. Earlier this afternoon the member alleged that there is some link between the tobacco industry and United Future or me on this matter. I took a point of order and pointed out that that allegation had been made previously by Action on Smoking and Health and had gone as far as the Privileges Committee. I made the point that there has been no link is no link and will be no link. The Speaker ruled at the time that my comments were in order and that the member should withdraw. She should do the same now and frankly she should be warned about making similar comments in the future. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. The point of order is quite clear. The member is quite correct. It is out of order to suggest that a member is influenced by an outside organisation. I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: You have misrepresented what I said. I have written down here what I said. The member has misrepresented what I said. Can I please read out what I said? I would like you to tell me whether saying that somebody sounds like a member of the tobacco industry is defamatory. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am astonished. If I cannot say that certain members of this— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I have not finished what I am saying. 
Richard Worth 
: It seems quite clear that the member is challenging your ruling. That is clearly out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was not too sure whether the member was saying that. Members cannot make any comment on the ruling after the ruling has been given but I was not too sure what the member was doing so I did not call it. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I was saying that some of the arguments made in this Committee tonight sound like the clichés the discredited arguments of the tobacco industry. That is the point that I am making—that many of the arguments that we have here sound like the discredited arguments of the tobacco industry which I have already pointed out. We have a report here that shows that for four decades the tobacco industry has been trying to influence this House and oppose every piece of legislation to control smoking. I argue that the same discredited arguments are being used here. The point about cannabis has been made. Mr Dunne has been making defamatory comments about us. He is the party that is tough on cannabis and soft on smoking. 
I would like to introduce an amendment that relates to toy tobacco products. I am sure many members have seen that these particular toy tobacco products are on sale in $2 shops all over New Zealand. They have a specific purpose. They are aimed at children under 3 years of age and basically their purpose is to try to teach young children that smoking is cool and fun. We want to introduce into the list of definitions a definition of “toy tobacco product” which would state that such a product is an object that looks like a tobacco product or a smokers pipe can be used to simulate smoking but cannot be smoked is not confectionary and has a primary purpose other than to help people to stop smoking. When we speak of the tobacco industry we must be aware that cigarette toys are being sold to children as young as 3 and that basically the tobacco industry has been targeting young people with its campaigns for many decades. Philip Morris has actually said in its advertising material that today’s young person is tomorrow’s potential regular customer and that the vast majority of smokers begin to smoke in their teens—and that is true. So if we are serious about trying to stop young people from smoking and becoming addicted then we must seek to make it illegal to sell such products to people under the age of 18. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am seeking some assistance from you to clarify your ruling on the points of order that occurred previously in relation to the speech made by my colleague Sue Kedgley. When a member claims that a statement has been made about him or her and seeks that the member who made the statement should have to withdraw and apologise I would have thought that in the interests of natural justice the member who is accused of making the statement should have the opportunity to clarify what their statement was in order that the chair can then determine whether that statement breaches the Standing Orders. The second part of my point of order is that I would have expected that the point of order made by the Hon Peter Dunne was in relation to “an imputation of improper motives against a member”—Standing Order 117. I know there are Standing Orders referring to the influence of outside parties on members—that is clearly outside of the Standing Orders. However I make the point that my colleague Sue Kedgley did not impute any improper motives or any influence of an outside party on Mr Dunne. She simply compared his words to the words that other people had used. I want your clarification that that is a breach of the Standing Orders. My impression is that the situation was misrepresented to you by the Hon Peter Dunne. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The one thing I agree with in that point of order is that Standing Order 117 “Personal reflections” is the clear one. There are a number of Speaker’s rulings which I am just attempting to find at the moment that essentially indicate that if a member takes offence that is enough to trigger the Standing Order. I took offence at the comments. I took offence at them for the reasons that I stated in the point of order. I also took offence because of the fact that this matter had been raised once already in this debate this afternoon and ruled on in my favour by the presiding officer at the time as had been the case with the previous charge which ended up going to the Privileges Committee. That was also ruled on in my favour and the organisation concerned made an unconditional apology. In this instance I say that the provision of Standing Order 117 means that I am entitled to take offence at the comments made by the member and ask that they be withdrawn. It is not a question of whether the member likes what was said or likes what I said about her or anything else. The point at issue here is that under that Standing Order I have taken offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is entitled to invoke Standing Order 117. I just caution members to be very careful in this area as there has been some dispute previously and we need to take a more temperate view of the statements. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak in support of an amendment that is recorded in Supplementary Order Paper 95. I am absolutely delighted that the chairman of the Health Committee is in the chair at the Table at the moment because I earnestly solicit the support of herself and her colleagues for the merit of this amendment. It relates to cigar bars and I think it is an exciting amendment in the context of the raft of amendments that have come before the Committee in the course of this process. I think Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne is probably the best amendment before the Committee tonight but I would also say that Supplementary Order Paper 95 dealing with cigar bars also has undoubted pure and intrinsic merit in itself. 
I would like if I may for a moment to deal with that amendment which is concerned with altering the definitions in clause 2. It proposes that there be inserted the definition of “cigar bar” which means licensed premises at which cigars and tobacco-related smoking products are sold and in a particular calendar year that has been nominated 31 December 2002 that there was generated from that sale 10 percent or more of its total annual gross annual income from the on-site sale of tobacco products and the rental of on-site humidors not including any sales from vending machines and which continue to sell such products. 
So it is not a warrant that cigar bars may be set up in the future. But it seeks to preserve what are speciality premises with I would say a designed ambience. If we are concerned to protect property rights which I believe we should be then I would say that the small number of cigar bars that exist throughout New Zealand should have a continued future. How could it be argued that this legislation would be imperilled by an exception as minor as that? 
So I would like for a moment if I might to talk about cigar bars. There are four cigar bars in New Zealand. It is very interesting that in New York cigar bars were excluded from the draconian impacts of very similar legislation to this. The other cigar bars in New Zealand apart from the Cuba Cigar Bar are Casa del Oro situated in Auckland where ex-President Clinton was a favoured customer; Stogies Cigar Bar in Christchurch; and the Cigar Bar in Queenstown. I would like at this point if I might to read what the employees of one of those cigar bars who signed en masse andwithout coercion said: “We are the bartenders at Cuba Cigar Bar in Parnell Auckland. We understand there is a proposal before you to completely ban smoking in all bars. We have bar managers’ certificates. We have been employed at this establishment for about 2 years. We’re seriously worried about our future as a ban on smoking in this bar will affect its patronage drastically. We know this because we’ve discussed the situation over the last month or so with many of our customers of which about 80 percent smoke cigars and/or cigarettes. We don’t believe statements we have read that there will be little or no effect upon bar patronage especially in an establishment such as the one we’re very happily working in. We’ve heard that in New York cigar bars are exempt from smoking bans and for the sake of our jobs we earnestly request that you exempt our bar from any smoking restrictions.” How could the MP for Rotorua turn down that earnest request from those people who want to continue in work? 
Let me just finish in the short time I have available by talking about what these cigar bars are. I would like to take as an example the Cuba Cigar Bar. It has 14 private humidors as well as three communal humidors. There is an elegant display of a worldwide collection of cigars. There are monthly cigar club meetings with lectures by cigar aficionados. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Can I first of all congratulate the sponsor of this bill Steve Chadwick and also those who went before her—Judy Keall and Tuku Morgan—who started this bill. 
Peter Brown 
: Very much a former member. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes he was a past member of New Zealand First an enlightened member of New Zealand First who brought in this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] They want to deny his ownership now but they were quite proud at the time. He brought in this bill and started its process through the House. I want to say to Tuku Morgan if he is listening tonight: “Good things do happen. They just take a little time.” as the advertisement says. I would also like to congratulate the Health Committee because I think it put an awful lot of work into hearing submissions on this bill. It took the issue very seriously. The bill was not rushed through. I heard Mr Peter Brown say that we should step back; that we should take our time. But this bill started in the late 1990s. How much time does one need to think about a bill? I see Bruce Robertson sitting up in the gallery. He first met with me about this bill 3 years ago. So it is not as if we have not had time and the public have not had time to discuss the issues that are set out in it. 
I consider the bill to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation before the House in this term and probably since 1989-90 when we had our first smoke-free legislation. I believe it is a really important public health issue for New Zealanders. I listened to the debate and I heard Peter Dunne speaking. I respect the fact that Peter Dunne has his own views and he is entitled to them. But I do not agree with his comments about Professor Murray Laugesen. I have known Murray Laugesen for many years. Murray Laugesen certainly has not to my knowledge—and I am sure if it was said outside this House he would take it up—ever ripped off any public funding in order to gallivant around the world. In fact Murray Laugesen was responsible in many ways for the work that went into the first legislation. 
Can I tell members how proud I was to be a Minister in this New Zealand Parliament at the World Health Assembly this year when every single country that belongs to the World Health Organization signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Every single country signed the convention. Even those Third World countries that grow tobacco signed the convention on tobacco control. They did that because every country recognises the impact of tobacco on the health of its people. Every one of those countries wants to minimise the impact of tobacco on the health of its people and every one of those countries signed up. It took years to get everybody into the position where they did sign up but they acknowledge the impact of tobacco on health. 
I listened to Dail Jones. I know he was out of this House for a while but I did not realise that his name was Rip Van Winkle. He has been asleep for years. He has been asleep for 20 years because he does not know that evidence and science today can link tobacco consumption with cancer and with other illnesses in New Zealand and around the world. 
Dail Jones 
: Where is the proof? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A man who could deny that is a man who does not believe in science. The science tells us clearly that consumption of tobacco affects the health of thousands of New Zealanders. 
I say that we should give a thought to those who work in environments where they have to breathe in somebody else’s tobacco smoke day in and day out. I heard Dail Jones say in the second reading debate that those people do not have to work there. There are many New Zealanders who do not have a lot of choice about their workplace. There are a lot of New Zealanders who cannot flit from one job to another and pick themselves up a list position and get into Parliament. They have to go to work every day working in the hospitality industry working in bars and clubs etc. and earning a decent living with decent people. Why should they not have the protection that ensures they do not have to inhale somebody else’s cigarette smoke? 
There are almost 400 deaths a year from the inhalation of second-hand smoke. I believe that we ought to take account of the lives we could save. I do not blame smokers. I believe that smokers are people who have been hooked on to an addictive drug and they are stuck with it. It is very hard to get off it. In fact it is believed that it is harder to get off cigarette smoking than many other things. So we must have compassion and provide help for smokers. I believe that this legislation is very foresighted indeed. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Before I come to Part 1 I would like to comment on something the Minister said. She suffers of course from the same intellectual dishonesty that many of the other speakers on the Government side of the Committee suffer from. We had a protracted debate on the title about the studies that have been done. I mentioned in that debate that the World Health Organization has long known the very weak link between passive smoking and cancer. 
Hon Annette King 
: Not true. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is correct and there are many other studies that back that. I come now to the commencement clause. The commencement dates are as the New Zealand First member pointed out all over the place. Some clauses come into effect 3 months after the date on which the legislation receives the royal assent. 
Peter Brown 
: Who pointed that out? 
HEATHER ROY 
: It was the member; it was very well noticed. Other clauses come into force on 1 January 2004 on 1 February 2004 and on 1 February 2005. It is well known that the Labour Government and also the anti-tobacco lobby groups would like the commencement dates to be almost immediate not allowing businesses time to accommodate the changes at all. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Prosecute retrospectively. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is absolutely right—they would like to prosecute retrospectively. They will not get the opportunity thank goodness although this Government is getting very good at retrospective legislation as we know from last week. 
I refer for a moment to the anti-tobacco lobby groups and to the fact that they would like to see changes overnight. They have a lot to answer for really. They receive $13.7 million of taxpayer funding a year and last week many of them sent health bureaucrats 25 of them and some of their own activists to Helsinki for a conference as did the Ministry of Health. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Twenty-five bureaucrats! 
HEATHER ROY 
: Yes 25. 
Hon Member 
: How much did it cost? 
HEATHER ROY 
: It cost a lot of money. I will now give a very conservative estimate of the costs because we do not have the full facts yet. I rang Air New Zealand today and found out that the cheapest return flight to Helsinki economy class is $3000—and I bet Murray Laugesen who has been mentioned in the debate tonight did not travel economy but let us say just for a moment that he did. So $3000 × 25 people is $75000. It was not a cheap conference. The registration fee was about $1100 perhaps a little more. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Did you say 25 people? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Twenty-five people—just about all of them receiving taxpayer funding. I would be interested if the Minister would stand and tell us whether that money has come from Vote Health. Certainly some of it came from the $13.7 million that goes to the anti-tobacco lobby groups. Action on Smoking and Health Quitline and the like and many Maori health providers receive that money as well. I have not mentioned accommodation costs yet. A conservative estimate of that at least $25000 means that all up we are looking at about $125000 to send 25 people to Helsinki last week from 3 to 8 August in the sun— 
Pita Paraone 
: Double that! 
HEATHER ROY 
: My colleague says to double that. He is probably right but I did not want to overstate the obvious. Those people had a nice little holiday in the sun. The programme was not difficult. I would like to know what they will do. Will they come back and tell everybody? Why did it take 25 people to go to Helsinki to be told that smoking is bad for people? Even this side of the Committee admits that smoking is bad for them. 
Hon Member 
: They don’t trust each other! 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right they do not trust each other to pass on the information. Members on this side of the Committee know that smoking is bad for people. The bone of contention of course is how bad passive smoking is and that is what this bill is all about. I know it is of great interest that we sent 25 people overseas to a conference but goodness knows why that number was necessary. 
I come back to the commencement dates for a moment. There are groups that will miss out and the commencement date will not apply to all of them. The groups that spring to my mind and that have not been mentioned very much at all tonight are marae. Why are commencement dates not going to have any effect on marae? The reason is that marae are not affected by this bill. It is fine to smoke on marae. People will not be able to smoke in any indoor public place in the country except marae. Why that is I do not know. It is well known that young female Maori have the highest incidence of smoking in the country. They have the highest incidence of lung cancer. What sort of message is this legislation sending to people when it exempts from its provisions those who are most affected? It is no example at all. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call to clarify some of the issues that have been raised. Marae are not mentioned in this bill but if they have a liquor licence or have workers the smoke-free provisions apply as they do to a church hall or a bingo hall. Almost all marae in New Zealand are smoke-free. I also bring up the matter of hospitals. A member asked about hospitals. Perhaps he or she has not caught up with the news that District Health Boards New Zealand has supported hospitals going smoke-free. They have already gone smoke-free which is absolutely wonderful. 
I have an amendment I wish to talk to members about. We worked with the retail industry and the cigarette industry on point of sale. My amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 120 attempts to clarify the situation in respect of packets at point of sale. I have here a packet of cigarettes—just to show members that we all know what one is. But do members also know how some in the industry are trying to get around “packets”? We are trying to work with those who work with the ministry in a very constructive way by putting in my amendment a definition that clarifies what we are trying to do when we talk about the visual impact at point of sale and simply not have amazing artistic creations promoting cigarettes. The other point about promotion that I want to show members an example of is the inclusion of Maori on signage at the point of sale: “SMOKING KILLS Ka mate koe i te kai hikareti” which members will notice is already on packets. this is included in the amendment. 
I also want to show members an example of some of the creativity in the industry which the bill deals with—that is the inducements to purchase cigarettes and nicotine. I have here a lighter—two for the price of one—and a little bottle opener. These are inducements to get young kids who might want the opener to take the packet of cigarettes as well. That aspect has been clarified in the definition. All we are attempting to do in my amendment—and we had agreement from the industry—is to try to keep the visual impact to the current levels. I thank the industry for working constructively with the ministry on this matter. 
I will finish by speaking about ventilation systems. The Health Committee looked long and hard at ventilation systems including filtration and vacuum systems and there was not one level of support from scientific analysis that ventilation systems work. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Even from NIWAR? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Let us talk about the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd which compared the study on the Casadron system—a system very similar to the machine used in the hospitality clubs of New Zealand—with the findings of Japanese and German studies. 
 The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd told the Health Committee that the Casadron system was not effective. That was the feedback we got. Ventilation systems set two standards of comfort: a comfort standard and a health standard. Nowhere in the world has any country been able to set a health air-quality standard. Ventilation systems certainly do work in terms of removing the irritants in cigarette smoke but they do not remove the carcinogens in sidestream smoke. That was the scientific evidence given to the select committee and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd did not support the Casadron system. 
Also there was some controversy around the robustness of the science used in the Bream Bay study which looked at the situation on a Tuesday afternoon—and one has to ask how many smokers were there on a Tuesday. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I respect the member for telling us the effects of this bill on various industries and workplaces. I seek leave of the Committee to ask the member to explain the detail as it pertains to ships. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member in the chair is quite entitled to continue her speech or to take another call but the member cannot seek leave for her. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: 
 I can clarify for that member that ships in New Zealand include those that are within the 12-mile limit. If they are within the 12-mile limit they are in the New Zealand zone. The Health Committee asked Ministry of Health officials to work with the shipping industry and come back with something that works. The result of that consultation with the industry is in the bill. I am very pleased we undertook that system. 
I want to show members some examples of the cleverness we tried to get around in terms of visual displays and I advise members in the Chamber to look at them. They are very very creative. We may get our heads around one visual display and find that acceptable but once we start getting the tilting of packages suddenly we find the impact of promotion of cigarette packets increases enormously. I thank the industry for working with us to come up with a definition that works so that the visual impact at point of sale is minimised. It is absolutely wonderful that the industry worked with us and that we found a compromise solution together. That is covered in my definition. 
With regard to cigar bars I am sure that the honourable member has wonderful intentions with his promotion on behalf of people who have gone to him about cigar bars. Cigar bars that have a liquor licence and have paid employees are included. We have taken the consistency of argument right across the board to include places that have liquor licences and workers. That is to protect the 10500 hospitality workers in this country from the effects of second-hand smoke. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I shall take a very brief call to address some concerns raised by the Green member Sue Kedgley regarding my participation at the Health Committee. I state upfront that I am committed to the issues that were raised about a safe work environment for New Zealand workers in terms of second-hand smoke. I support the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment. 
One of the issues that came up and on which we had a lot of submissions was the appropriateness of ventilation systems. The evidence that seemed to stack up at the time was that no existing ventilation system short of a ventilation system—and I quote my words—“that was the strength of a gale-force wind” was able to remove the harmful carcinogens from a facility. The problem was that we restricted our thinking and the scope of the bill to existing technology. Mr Dunne’s amendment—and I do not feel compromised as a spokesperson on health supporting that amendment—is forward-looking and requires an approved air-quality standard. It also requires that developers produce the technology so that an air-quality standard can be reached. Even if that is not technically possible at present adopting this amendment would mean that the legislation will allow for future development. I wanted to take a quick call to clarify that now as a sort of credibility issue was at stake. 
I do not accept that every provision in the bill is exactly as I would have written it myself. However the overriding issue for me is worker safety. Regardless of the suspicion that people hang over the evidence of second-hand smoke being detrimental to people’s health there is sufficient evidence and backing from medical professions to suggest that those of us with no medical background need to take heed and I plan to do that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I want the member Steve Chadwick who is obviously in the habit of answering one or two of the questions that were raised to clarify for the committee the situation regarding maraes. Heather Roy suggested earlier that maraes were exempted and I had a very helpful conversation with a Labour member who said that that was not actually true if they had licensed premises or employed staff. I wonder whether the member would be able to name any marae that has bothered to have licensed premises. 
Steve Chadwick 
: They could get a liquor licence. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I know that they can get a liquor licence. I want to know whether any or many of them have. I guarantee that they have not. My second question is whether they actually bother to employ staff. Then the further helpful advice— 
Jill Pettis 
: When was the last time that member was on a marae? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Frequently. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Name one. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Onuku. Has the member been there? 
Jim Peters 
: Where’s that? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Akaroa Harbour. The second question raised in the explanation I received from that very helpful Labour colleague of Steve Chadwick’s was that the Government had decided to treat maraes the same as churches. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This was its reason for passing legislation to exempt maraes if they did not employ staff and if they did not have licensed premises. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: So you can smoke in church. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am not sure whether I can name any church where people smoke. Perhaps the member could list those. Then there was the further worry—the person who helped me was of a similar belief to myself—the issue of incense and candles in churches was raised. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The burning of the incense. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I would not like to see that affected by the legislation. I shall move to some of the amendments spoken to by my colleague Richard Worth to clearly exempt cigar bars. Certainly I will be supporting that amendment. It would be no wish of mine at all to enter such a cigar bar but I cannot imagine any person going into a cigar bar who would object to being there. I do not think that that is logical. I want Steve Chadwick to reflect on her explanation when acknowledging that there were four such bars in New Zealand and who said no the Government was not prepared to entertain any exemption because of 10500 hospitality workers. I assure that member that those four cigar bars would not be employing 10500 people. 
Jill Pettis 
: She never said that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: She did say that. If Jill Pettis woke up and listened she would realise that that was said. 
I shall talk about the commencement date of the amendment moved by Peter Dunne. I am pleased that Damien O’Connor took a call and said that the Government would not be supporting the amendments around air-quality standards. I was in a dilemma as to whether I should support Mr Dunne’s amendment. He has provided a very sensible solution to this ridiculous legislation but it is clear that the Government has already taken a position on this conscience vote and will not be supporting it. So in that case I will be supporting the legislation being commenced as soon as possible because I want people to see the damage of this legislation out on Courtenay Place and the Strip in Christchurch as quickly as possible. I want that member to go back to her marginal seat in Wanganui and walk down the street when people are standing out there on a cold miserable night because her legislation has forced them to stand outside and smoke. She might be wandering along a 3-metre footpath in deep conversation with somebody but because so many people have had to obey the law and have all come outside to have a cigarette she and her companion will have to go in single file or step out into the gutter just to get past. The people will then be complaining about the mess that is left outside. 
Hotels currently provide ashtrays. Who will provide the ashtrays for the people to extinguish their cigarettes when they have finished with them outside? That is the sort of thing that this ridiculous legislation has not thought of. Jill Pettis shakes her head—she had not thought of it. I ask Jill Pettis why she supports legislation when she has not thought about the practicalities of it. Is the hotel going to put an ashtray out there or will that be another cost that will be imposed on the council? What about the mess that will be left? What about what has happened in other parts of the world where this stupid legislation has been passed where people buy a beer and open a tab take the opportunity of saying to the publican “I’m just slipping out for a smoke.” and then clear off altogether? That is what has happened overseas. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I suppose it was inevitable that we would have the old race issue raised here. The member asked “What about marae?”. The member might not know that many marae do have licences from time to time. Many marae are educational institutions and run educational programmes such as kohanga reo and many others. Many marae employ people and where that occurs those places will be smoke-free. There is no need to specify marae church halls or any other place. We are making a judgment based on whether a building is a place of work a place of education or licensed premises so there is therefore no need to specify. Does that answer the question for Mr Carter? 
Members from ACT would like us to put “marae” up front. Members asked before why we do not have a ban on marae and I tell them that we have a smoke-free ban where a marae is a place of education where it employs people or where there is a licence in place. The objective of this bill is to protect people in those places of work; it is not to specify where smoking should or should not take place in a private place. The issue here is to protect workers. 
I will very briefly go back to the ventilation issue. Why did they not decide to have air quality standards in New York? Why did they not decide to have air quality standards in Ireland? From 1 January next year smoking will be banned in all licensed premises in Ireland. Coming from the West Coast where there is a good proud Irish heritage I just about fell over when I heard that myself. It does not seem to go hand in hand with an Irish bar but thankfully the Irish are an intelligent race—the best of whom came out to New Zealand of course—and they have realised that to improve the health status of people in Ireland they have to bring in some measures to stop smoking in bars to try to help the workers and ultimately all the patrons of the bar who are suffering from the effects of second-hand smoke. 
That is why they did not decide to go along the lines of Mr Peter Dunne’s amendment and accept air quality standards. Regardless of the complicated bureaucracy that would be needed to set up the standard and to decide on where it should be and what is appropriate one would then need to go around and enforce it on what I suppose would be a half-hourly basis—would that be fair Mr Dunne? No the only fair way to approach this is to have a level playing field which is something that the hospitality industry has advocated for a long time and which is fair to all participants in the hospitality industry. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The hospitality industry has advocated for that because as was originally proposed in the bill it does not accept that premises can have smoking and non-smoking areas. It is simply not viable; it is not physically possible. Therefore the only sensible conclusion is that any provisions brought in by this bill should be fair to one and all. I accept that. 
Hon David Carter 
: They won’t believe that. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I think they will because the West Coast does have a poor health status with there being more of us there who smoke than should do so and who perhaps drink a little too much and we do have a health problem. I am sure we will see an improvement in the health status of the workers in West Coast establishments as we will with workers in establishments up and down this country and ultimately with their patrons. That will be a beneficial side effect of this bill which is aimed at protecting the health of people who are working in risky environments. We do not turn our back on that in any other area—whether it be on the roads on construction sites or in a car—so we are not turning our back on it here. That is why I applaud the efforts of the member here and why we are bringing in technical amendments in this part to improve the operation of the bill. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this bill and to commend Steve Chadwick for the very good work she has done in progressing this bill. I also commend her predecessors Judy Keall and others who have done considerable work on this issue. First of all I will address some of the points made earlier by the Hon Peter Dunne in terms of the Green position. He criticised the Greens for supporting cannabis coming under the auspices of this bill under the area of herbal tobacco. Of course if we had not supported cannabis being in this bill he would have been even more critical but he criticises us now nevertheless because he has got to have a go. 
Mr Dunne said he did not know what our policy was; he was confused. [ 
Interruption 
] No it does not. It has been consistent since 1999 and I suggest that the honourable member should read the policy because he has been going around the country misleading people about the Green Party policy. He misled this Parliament earlier in the debate about our policy so I suggest that he should read it before he tells us all that he is an expert on it. I would never suggest that he was deliberately misleading the Parliament because he was not doing that he just did not know what he was talking about. 
The Green policy has been consistent on these issues since 1999. We support an R18 rating for cannabis and we support cannabis coming under the Smoke-free Environments Act—that has been our consistent policy. We are totally consistent when it comes to tobacco alcohol and cannabis—they should be given an R18 rating; they should not be promoted or advertised; there should be restrictions to protect other people’s safety—for example other people’s air quality with things like the smoke-free environments legislation—and we should not make people criminals simply because of personal use whether it is tobacco alcohol or cannabis. Mr Dunne and United Future on the other hand are not consistent because they consistently oppose any restrictions on tobacco or alcohol consumption to the degree that Mr Dunne has become extremely sensitive on the issue. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is quite inappropriate for Nandor Tanczos to describe Peter Dunne as Peter Dunne; he is the Hon Peter Dunne. Surely those old courtesies should be pursued in a determined way. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: My apologies. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know this bill is wide-ranging but we are actually talking about the commencement date and I have not heard the member talk about anything on the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure the member will move to the commencement date and the interpretations. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Speaking to the point of order first of all I understood that the agreement of the House was that this would be a wide-ranging debate. Secondly I was replying to allegations made by the Hon Peter Dunne in his speech. It seems to me to be unfair if he can make allegations and I cannot reply to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. I have not yet pulled the member up so would he please continue his speech. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: But at the same time that he opposes this legislation he supports people being made criminals for personal use of cannabis. I consider that an inconsistent position. 
I move on to the question of Mr Dunne’s amendment. I came very close to supporting that amendment. Unlike Mr Dunne I do not support or oppose amendments to legislation on the basis of who puts them up. Green Party members make their decisions based on the merit of the argument. I am sympathetic to the view that legislation like this should take an approach based on outcomes rather than on mechanisms. The objective is to provide a safe environment and it should be up to the premises how that is defined. 
If I were convinced that the amendment was workable I would be supporting it but there are a couple of issues that do need to be addressed. The amendment is silent on who would bear the significant costs of ensuring compliance because costs are not just the cost of installing the equipment but the cost of maintaining it and running it consistently. Given the very limited resources of public health officials who will do the ongoing checking to make sure that the equipment is working adequately and is actually being used? The amendment is silent on that. It is just an easy way to avoid the intention of the legislation. 
I am persuaded that that is the intention of the amendment because it comes into effect no sooner than 1 February 2007. That is not “no later than” 2007; that is “no sooner than” 2007. That date and the ease by which the amendment would be got around by any premises wishing to do that convince me that the intention is actually to find ways by which people can get around the bill and so I cannot support that amendment. I do support the bill and the amendments of my colleague Sue Kedgley. Once again I thank Steve Chadwick for the very good work she has done. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to clarify the situation regarding the marae. If the member in the chair Steve Chadwick could just take us through it— 
Hon David Carter 
: Or the Minister in charge of the bill. 
DAIL JONES 
: Or the Minister in charge of the bill Mr O’Connor. For a change I will talk about clause 2 “Interpretation”. It provides a definition for “early childhood centre” “registered school” “residential disability care institution” “volunteer” “workplace” and “licensed premises”. As I understand it if the marae does not have an early childhood centre or a registered school does not employ anyone and does not have licensed premises then people could still smoke on the marae. That would be the case. I raise that point because there has been some doubt and ambiguity about the whole thing. 
Of course I am an immigrant to New Zealand as people say. I am Rip Van Winkle as the Minister said tonight in her rather vitriolic attack. In the scheme of things how does one actually define a marae? As I understand it it is the open place outside the meeting house. That is where all the talking tends to take place. That is the actual definition of the marae. How does that fit in to all those things? Does one stand out there and have a smoke? Because that is what a marae actually is. Or does one go into the various whare? We have a degree of confusion about this bill that needs to be clarified and to take the earlier point perhaps more consideration should have been given to it. 
Where and how on a marae does smoking take place? The place is not defined anywhere. Nowadays the definition of a marae is given to the buildings which is strictly not the proper definition as I am sure Ms Tariana Turia would say. We are going to strict Maori definitions these days. I thought “Maori” meant “normal” but she now tells me it means “natural”. There are two other definitions in the seventh edition of Henry Williams’  
Dictionary of the Maori Language 
. 
What does “marae” actually mean? What are we talking about in this context? If someone is smoking in a building—the “John Waititi” marae or as it is sometimes not properly called the Hoani Waititi marae an original urban marae of the late 60s and early 70s—what is the situation there with regard to smoking in the building? It seems to me that in that sort of building with all these exemptions in the bill people could smoke quite freely without any difficulty even though it is a public place. There is some considerable doubt about the whole thing. 
Of course as far as the cigar bar is concerned Mr Worth need not have any problem. The new answer from the Labour Party is that one just turns it into a brothel. Is it not perfectly set up for one? Has he thought of that proposal? That is the Labour Party’s answer to everything at the moment. The cigar bar can be turned into something formerly illegal. It seems to me that that is what the Labour Party is getting at. That is the Labour Party’s solution from the member’s description of the cigar bar. 
Richard Worth 
: Not the same. 
DAIL JONES 
: Is it not the same? I do not go into cigar bars or into those other institutions so I would not be able to tell. Mr Worth tells me it is not the same as a brothel. 
Richard Worth 
: Ask Mr Cosgrove. 
DAIL JONES 
: He tells me to ask Mr Cosgrove. One sometimes has to be careful as to how one replies to interjections or one can get into trouble! I will leave it at that point. I am trying to be helpful because I think there are problems with how one deals wih the marae situation and I think I have explained that it is not as easy as it might seem. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Firstly I say to Mr Dail Jones that sometimes a cigar always is a cigar. 
Speaking strictly to clause 1A “Commencement” I note the buried dates ranging from section 6 coming into force on 1 January 2004 to various other sections that come into force at other dates. I understand that that is to accommodate the commercial arrangements of the marketers. One of the things about that is indeed the commercial arrangements. In my speech on the second reading I mentioned that the Gresham Hotel in Dunedin which has gone smoke-free was absolutely incredulous at the remarkable response it had to that with a clientele going from about 600 per week initially to 2000 per week. The bands in the area love going there because they can play in a smoke-free environment. 
I was most interested in some of the remarks from the Minister of Health because when she first came in she had a letter from the ministry that stated that the greatest gains in health would come from health promotion disease prevention and the integration of primary and secondary health. The Minister has made a remarkable balls-up of most of that but it is good to see her supporting the Tuku Morgan amendment here which focuses absolutely on health promotion and disease prevention. 
I have heard several members speak about Dr Murray Laugeson. I would like to pay tribute to his work because for many years with great commitment and great passion he has worked extremely hard to ensure that the information we have in New Zealand is of an absolutely best-practice world-class quality has been published in international peer-review papers and has data that is very solid indeed. 
As well Professor Rodney Jackson from Auckland University has made the point time and time again that the greatest gains in health will come from the simple things—right diet exercise and quitting smoking. That is what this bill is all about; there is no question about that. But I get a little cynical when I hear Heather Roy talking about the money being spent. On this occasion it is cynicism about the Labour Government—the tax-rapacious Labour Government—that actually gets over $800 million a year from the tobacco tax and spends a miserly $37 million or so— 
Hon David Carter 
: $13.7 million. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Is that all it is? Well that is even worse than I thought. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s the quality of expenditure that you worry about. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Both quality and quantity are absolutely important here but I am very concerned that so little is spent in this area when health promotion and disease prevention have been identified as the areas where the greatest gains would come from. 
I noted Marc Alexander when he spoke earlier on occupational safety and health laws in New Zealand because there is no doubt that those laws have not been enforced. In 2001 the Occupational Safety and Health Service handbook defined second-hand smokers as a significant hazard capable of causing serious harm and damage. Theoretically employers around the country are required to identify and control hazards but that enforcement has just not occurred. It is quite right to say that if that provision were being enforced appropriately there might be no need for this special legislation. It is one of the areas that make me uncomfortable. 
The other area is the question of smoking in private clubs venues Returned Services Associations or other organisations. I give notice that I have put forward an amendment that would cover smoking in private facilities. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call to make a couple of points. Firstly one of the revelations that has become clear during this stage of the debate is that a number of the provisions are linked to the holding of a liquor licence. So if a cigar bar ceased to hold a liquor licence—if I heard Ms Chadwick correctly—it would be able to continue to operate. Is that not what she said? So the cigar bar is dead under all circumstances? 
Steve Chadwick 
: They have a paid worker. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
:If they have a paid worker? This is where we get into a whole lot of nonsense because the argument that has been promoted throughout this debate is that smoking tobacco is bad for people and is a practice not to be encouraged. I accept all of that but the argument here does not turn on that. The argument now turns on whether one has a paid worker so it has nothing to do with the health issue but everything to do with something else altogether—which brings the whole set of provisions in this bill into absolute disrepute. 
I want to go on and talk about the comments that a number of members have made about the amendment I have proposed which will be discussed more in the debate on Part 2 regarding air-quality systems. I will deal with some of the comments that have been made in the following way. Firstly the responsibility for the maintenance purchase and operation of those systems would be with the premises concerned. If they chose not to go down that path then by 2007 they would be mandatorily smoke-free. So the option rests with them and if they choose to go down the path of installing the relevant equipment maintaining that equipment and abiding by the standards etc. then the responsibility rests with them. 
The Associate Minister talked inadequately about overseas experience and I want to draw to his attention a couple of things. The University of Glamorgan has recently conducted studies on the Irish situation and has demonstrated that it is possible to remove all of the particulate from smoke on the premises up to a rate of 82-plus percent. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research study released at the weekend on the work done at the Bream Bay Club at Ruakaka demonstrated a similarly high rate of extraction—not just recycling of the air but extraction of the particulate which is the cause of a huge amount of the problem. 
I have material from New Zealand manufacturers saying that they are capable of achieving standards of up to 95 percent. The place I was at last week—the Beaujolais Bar where we launched the Supplementary Order Paper—has a machine with a 99.9 percent extraction rate. I have material from the United States—and people have spoken about the United States today—which demonstrates that the Comair Eagles 5000 product is capable of significant elimination and so on and so forth. 
It is clear from the debate today that the select committee had certain evidence in mind at the point it made its determination. If we believe in the integrity of the people promoting the argument and accept that they acted on a best-faith basis surely they should now be prepared to analyse the fresh information that has come to light and to determine whether in the light of that information the procedures they are advancing right now need to be carried forward. That was why right at the beginning I moved the amendment that the bill be referred back to the select committee to enable a greater examination of these issues. 
I have heard all sorts of extraordinary claims by the promoter of the bill and a wad of information has been sent to me by a variety of people in New Zealand Australia and elsewhere all debunking those claims. Yet what we now get is a plaintive cry from the Minister and the sponsor of the bill saying that at the time they considered this matter none of that information was available. Basically they are now saying: “Tough! That’s what we are going with.” 
That is a totally inadequate response and it will produce unworkable law. Unworkable law brings this Parliament into disrepute and will be ignored. People will flout it and they will challenge firstly the “health police” and secondly the New Zealand Police because that is the ultimate objective—to hand this law over to the police to conduct smoking raids on bars and restaurants. That will not happen—life will carry on pretty much as usual and the patrons who smoke in bars will do so with impunity because this law is incapable of being enforced and it will certainly not achieve the objectives designed for it. Parliament once again will be a public laughing stock for having rejected the opportunity to do something worthwhile and chosen instead to indulge in pure fantasy politics. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The Hon Peter Dunne is absolutely right. This legislation is nothing to do with health protecting people’s health stopping young people from seeing people smoking or protecting employees from second-hand smoke—which is a matter of dubious statistics at best. The World Health Organization has come out and said that 400 people dying each year from second-hand smoke is a very dodgy statistic. Dr Paul Hutchison might be a very good gynaecologist and obstetrician but I would like to inform him that the Gresham Hotel has been closed for the last 18 months and was an abysmal failure. 
I would like to ask those honourable members over there who owns their lives? All of those people in the Government who voted to send Peter Brown’s Death with Dignity Bill to the select committee thought for a moment that they might own their own lives. This bill is all about telling other people what to do with their lives. It is about a bossy-boots nanny State. It has nothing to do with protecting people’s health; it is all about control. If it were about protecting people’s health it would not be such—I think that I am allowed to say this—hypocritical legislation. It is hypocritical legislation because if it were true to principle—I agree that it would be bad principle—it would ban smoking in private homes. It would not exempt maraes. 
The point was raised by the Hon Peter Dunne that if a cigar bar gets rids of its liquor licence— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: And its full-time employees. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: No I just want to continue with that because volunteers are redefined in this legislation as employees exactly as under the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill. Volunteers are now employees courtesy of this Labour Government. That is why we are seeing school camps closing down. That is why volunteers all over the country are stopping doing what they do which is volunteering because their employers will be liable under the legislation that this Government is passing. 
I have run a couple of restaurants in my time and I have done a helluva lot of working in restaurants carrying plates and serving drinks etc. I would like to inform this Government that restaurants are private places. Who pays the rent? Who pays for the liquor licence? Who has to put in all the extra toilets to comply with the liquor licence? Who has to set all the spaces out between the tables to comply with the liquor licence? Not the Government. Who takes the risk? Who borrows the money? Who goes into debt and mortgages his or her home to set up these businesses? Who pays the taxes? It is private individuals; people who own their own lives. It is about property rights and they do it from choice. Why should they not have the choice of being smoke-free? 
Sue Kedgley 
: Who pays the costs if they get sick? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The honourable member Sue Kedgley asks who pays the costs when they get sick. Actually the smokers pay the costs when they get sick because the tax that the Government takes from smokers pays for those costs 10 times over. 
Taking up that point from the Green Party I remember listening to another member of the Green Party Sue Bradford. Before she became an MP she was an advocate for unemployed workers’ rights—a contradiction in terms but we will not go there—and was fighting the fact that the Government of the day had increased the tax on cigarettes. She said that was unfair to unemployed people and people on benefits because they needed their cigarettes—they were the only luxury they had in life. Oh dear how the worm has turned! Again with legislation like this we get this hypocritical situation. A party wants to ban people from smoking cigarettes but does not mind if they smoke cannabis. 
If a marae is exempt because it does not have a licence and does not have paid employees and if I open a café that does not have a licence and does not have paid employees why am I not exempt too? If this is not about control and bossyboots Government telling people how to live their lives answer me that. If a victim of a sex crime cannot have a cigarette at his or her place of work and they know that the person who perpetrated that crime can smoke in his or her prison cell what sort of legislation are we passing here? This Government pretends to be concerned about victims’ rights. What about the victims it is banning from having cigarettes and at the same time allowing the perpetrators of those crimes to have a cigarette in their prison cells? Why should prisons be exempt? Why should maraes be exempt? 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to talk a little bit about the commencement of this bill which is really the commencement of the end of freedom of choice. What if for example I were to ask individuals to come into my home and cater for a function I was having? Strictly speaking they would now be my employees! Will I now be able to smoke in the privacy of my own home or not? These are my employees providing hospitality in my home in the company of my friends who might or might not smoke. It is my home and my choice and the company will then forbid me from smoking in my own home presumably to be consistent. There is no mention of that in the bill so I would love a bit of clarification on that point. It makes no sense whatsoever. 
When I walk down the Strip in Christchurch as a pedestrian I do not have much choice. I have to walk on the pavement. But if I walk past the Strip I am bombarded by smoke. So what is the Government going to do? Will it now turn round and forbid people to smoke on the pavement? I do not have a choice—I have to walk past there. It is true that I could go a different way or perhaps go by taxi but I will not know that until I am bombarded by smoke in the first place. There is a whole lot of inconsistency here. 
That is also increasingly true of a lot of ethnic restaurants in Christchurch which are mom-and-pop operations and some have children involved. I am talking about Korean restaurants Vietnamese restaurants and so on where all the workers smoke. These restaurants do not have employees as such because they are family-owned businesses. Will they be allowed to have smoking in their restaurants? Those restaurants could have a sign out the front saying: “This is a family-owned and operated restaurant that allows smoking because a Korean family a Vietnamese family”—or whoever—“works here. There are no employees. We all enjoy smoking. You’re welcome to come in.” Will they be exempt? The logic outlined before about employers simply does not figure in that particular context in this legislation. 
I turn to the other point that Deborah Coddington brought out. I have to underline again that it makes no sense to treat prisoners any differently from anybody else. To turn round and hide behind the notion that a prison cell is somehow a person’s home in the way that a hotel room is is an absolute nonsense. When people commit crimes they go to prison. It is not their home; it is a cell. It is part of the punishment so take away their cigarettes. But I suspect very strongly that this Labour Government does not have the kahunas to take that right away from prisoners because it is too damn hard. They do not want problems in the prisons and they want to protect their own patch. However it is OK to go after the innocent law-abiding people. That is fine—let them suffer. Deprive them of their choice but give prisoners who have chosen to commit crimes the right to smoke. That makes absolutely no sense. If we want consistency in this bill at least address all these other issues. You have not and you will not so get rid of this legislation. It does not bear close scrutiny. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Please leave the Chair out of the discussion. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I withdraw and apologise. This proposed legislation is an absolute nonsense. It has everything to do with taking away the rights of individuals to decide for themselves. I have outlined a number of scenarios in the hospitality industry that make a mockery of the very idea that employees need to be protected. If we jump from a room to a womb we have the absolute nonsensical situation of a pregnant woman for example being allowed to smoke. Where will the politically correct anti-smoking Nazis be on that one? By their line of logic that should be child abuse. I do not see that anywhere in the legislation either. 
If the legislation is about consistency then take it away and redraft it. If it is about common sense at least look at the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment because it makes sense. In fact if members go along with that amendment we will end up with a healthier environment. Not only will it get rid of smoking it will get rid of all the other impurities in the air. Otherwise this legislation is a crock. It just does not stand up. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to support the sentiments of the previous speaker and also commend to the Committee the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Peter Dunne. I think it is a tragedy that on an issue that should be a conscience vote Labour has forced its members to vote in a particular way without regard to the importance of the issues that arise in legislation of this type. 
Having commended the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Peter Dunne I am nevertheless drawn to the attractiveness of another Supplementary Order Paper which is Supplementary Order Paper 106. That is the one I would like to speak about now. It is a Supplementary Order Paper of outstanding merit—I do not think anyone would deny that—and it is similarly concerned with the issue of cigars but not I hesitate to say with cigar bars. It centres on section 32A in clause 8A and relates to displays of cigars. 
It is an interesting aspect of this legislation that it is concerned with primarily a smoke-free environment but it goes further than that—I think in a most insidious way—to block displays of tobacco products. As others including Nandor Tanczos have said this is not about the outlawing of cigarettes; it is about the smoking of cigarettes in bars clubs and places of that nature. So I would just like to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 106 in that context because it is about making changes to the section relating to compliant product display. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: And who is the outstanding member who moved Supplementary Order Paper 106? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I take pride in the fact that I have been given the opportunity on behalf of the Committee to move Supplementary Order Paper 106! 
The explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper states: “As presently drafted two paragraphs limit the number of tobacco packages to be displayed to 100 and the number of tobacco cartons to be displayed to 40. The commercial result of that restriction will be that retailers will not display cigars and the displays will be limited to cigarettes and cigarillos.“The bill proposes that retailers will not need to meet the display limitation in respect of cigars which in any event are only carried by non-tobacconists in limited numbers.” 
Can I just say these things about this particular Supplementary Order Paper. The bill imposes a restriction on the number of tobacco product packages that may be displayed at each point of sale. The bill also provides—and this is fair enough—that tobacco products should not be displayed adjacent to children’s products. The bill also prevents tobacco products from being placed on shop counters. So very clearly the thrust of the bill’s restrictions on product display is to reduce the impact of tobacco product displays on children. But the result is a grossly anti-competitive situation as the permissible number of packages on display will be far less than the number of different packages that are available on the market. Retailers will be forced to deny display opportunities to many slower-selling brands and that is quite contrary I would suggest to the principles of the Commerce Act. Only the major brands will be on display thereby depriving minor brands of the opportunity to compete. 
That is particularly punitive for cigars and that is why Supplementary Order Paper 106 is being valiantly and I hope triumphantly promoted. The cigar market in New Zealand is less than 0.2 percent of the total tobacco market. The product has no real appeal to children and is smoked only by a few adults. Yet these legal products cigars will simply disappear from display shelves because even the small amount of display space they require will be allocated to faster-selling brands of cigarette. So what I am seeking I say to the member of Parliament for Rotorua is that this Supplementary Order Paper be treated with favourable consideration by a whipped Government and I hope the member will oblige me in that regard. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I must say that Supplementary Order Paper 106 which was described as being of outstanding merit may not really fall into the category of “outstanding” but certainly that argument was expounded with outstanding merit. There is no doubt about that. 
 When I hear the somewhat shrill tones of Deborah Coddington talking about who owns one’s life I just wonder what she would have said 13 years ago when the Smoke-free Environments Bill first came into the House and how she would have felt retrospectively had she come into this Chamber then when it was hung heavily with cigarette cigarillo and cigar smoke as were aircraft trains and all manner of public places. People just take for granted the huge leap forward that came with that somewhat controversial—at the time—legislation back in 1990. So when she asks who owns one’s life and claims the bill is all about control I would say that the very opposite of that is the case. 
This bill in my view is all about freedom—the freedom to be able to go about one’s business free from tobacco smoke. I think that that particularly applies to children and as I mentioned before to babies in utero who have no choice. One of the things that I think is absolutely vital is indeed to give children the opportunity to achieve their potential. Here we have a bill that certainly gives a much greater possibility of them having that opportunity. 
I want just to make a few comments on the question of private property and marae because that issue has been talked about to quite a great extent. If a private facility does not have a drinking licence and has no employees then there is no reason in my mind for there to be a ban on smoking there. I think that private facilities should indeed be respected where adults are present and that may or may not apply to a marae to a Returned Services Association or to any other private club. 
Hence the perhaps outstanding merit of the Supplementary Order Paper about to be numbered that I have signalled in relation to smoking in private facilities. As I was saying if a club a Returned Services Association or any other organisation is privately owned and does not have paid employees then that club Returned Services Association or other organisation which could include a marae should be exempt from the legislation. I think that would be— 
Dail Jones 
: For volunteers. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Yes that is absolutely right. I think that has outstanding merit just to make it absolutely clear what constitutes the difference between an establishment where there are paid employees which should certainly fall under the occupational safety and health laws anyway and one without paid employees. 
Just to finish I mention Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. [ 
Interruption 
] I am getting signals from the sponsor of the bill. I want to say only that enforcing the measure in that Supplementary Order Paper would be awfully difficult. I understand that right now councils throughout the country have problems with regard to enforcing the swimming pool regulations and are boggling at the thought of additional dog regulations. The clean-air regulations would indeed be extremely costly to administer. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The bill has obviously brought about some confusion about the classification of marae. The Health Committee discussed for some time whether marae should be included or excluded from the bill. If members look through the bill they will see that there is no specific mention of marae. I suspect there was some difficulty with the drafting. The same difficulty arises with owner-operators who do not employ anybody: are they covered? Again that is not clear in the bill at all. What has happened—I suspect this snuck by some of us at the select committee—is that they are excluded because they are not specifically included in some of the clauses. Certainly if there are no employees on a marae or there is no liquor licence for a marae then smoking is not prohibited on that marae. 
At the time when this matter was being discussed at the select committee there was talk about whether a marae was somebody’s home. Certainly some of the members on the select committee felt that people considered their marae to be like their home. But that did not carry over. We have talked about having a level playing ground and having some balance but that did not carry over to other areas that some of the other committee members felt people would consider as their home. So there are anomalies in the bill that mean there is not a level playing field at all. Labour members in particular said that that is very necessary and tried to get the hospitality people involved in that line of argument but it really does not stand up. 
Another area that I have not mentioned but would like to is that of ventilation systems. I would like to support the amendments of the Hon Peter Dunne. It has taken United Future quite some time to reach this point. In fact at the select committee I was the only person to support ventilation systems but I must give credit to United Future for at least coming to its senses and doing the right thing in the final instance. The ACT party acknowledges that sometimes people take a little bit of time to come round to the right way of thinking. We will give United Future the benefit of the doubt and will support its amendments to this part and those relating to ventilation systems. 
If there is a minimum air standard which is what Mr Dunne’s amendment is about the ventilation systems will sort themselves out. If premises do not reach a particular standard of air quality then the ventilation system will not be allowed to operate. If however the ventilation system can remove offending carcinogens and particles from the air then the ventilation system will be allowed. This would seem to make perfect sense and for that reason ACT will support these ventilation systems. [ 
Interruption 
] Obviously somebody needs to go round and test ventilation systems. 
It seems that many members in the Committee have not actually read the report of the Bream Bay National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. I took a great deal of delight in reading it. It is a very good report. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research is an organisation respected by just about every party in the House. Its scientific knowledge is good its research is well documented and certainly the statistical significance of that research is very credible. Members who have not had the opportunity to see that report or who have not read it because they think ventilation systems have nothing to offer should take the time to read it. 
It is important to look to the future and not just to look retrospectively or at the moment. Advancements are being made in all areas at the moment. Ventilation systems are improving all the time. If we can support having a minimum air standard of a particular level then that is a very happy compromise so that the rights of smokers can be balanced with the rights of non-smokers. That provides the ideal situation for everybody. So ACT New Zealand will support those amendments. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I was part of the new committee which did not hear all the evidence but the new ones did not come forward. The new system that is talked about in the report of the Bream Bay National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research was not put forward and discussed by the select committee at all. So that evidence is new. We now have the opportunity to look at that evidence take it into account and put it into action. I suggest that the opponents of this amendment should look very carefully at that report because it has a lot to offer. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will be very brief. I raised this issue with the previous Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the Committee to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Voting 
Correction 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 The New Zealand First vote on Mr Dunne’s amendment was incorrectly put by myself. There should have been 13 in favour of Mr Dunne’s amendment. I seek the leave of the House to alter the New Zealand First vote to 13 in favour of Mr Dunne’s proposal. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member did indicate this earlier. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Thank you. That will be recorded. 
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.