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:7940] 
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.