King Annette: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
King Annette: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7962] 
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.