Alexander Marc: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7975] 
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.