Baldock Larry: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7948] 
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.