Turner Judy: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6613] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I stand to speak to the second reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. The debate on second-hand smoke tends to revolve around several key issues: firstly whether exposure to second-hand smoke is in fact harmful; secondly whether we should take steps to protect workers and the general public from exposure to second-hand smoke and thirdly what strategies best serve the interest of all parties—that is smokers non-smokers and business interests. 
The difficulty that this bill presents us with is akin to what psychologists often refer to as “cognitive dissonance”. Cognitive dissonance occurs when one is caught between two or more conflicting and seemingly contradictory sets of information. Problem solving when faced with opposing information is difficult. It has posed a series of concerns for us in United Future and obviously for other members around the House—hence split votes in a number of parties. On the one hand there is increasing evidence that links cancer heart disease respiratory problems reproduction and developmental effects and strokes to the prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. It is the effect of prolonged exposure that has necessitated a closer look at environments where work is done in a smoke-filled enclosed facility. 
An increasing number of New Zealanders understand and support the notion that smokers’ rights should not infringe on the health and well-being of others. For instance most of the smokers I know do not smoke in their own homes as a way of protecting the health of loved ones. The difficulty therefore is not to do with the health risks associated with smoking and second-hand smoke. That is because although there are those who question the research that lays the blame for at least 388 deaths a year in New Zealand by diseases related to second-hand smoke inhalation few would debate the fact that many of the concerning health statistics we face here in New Zealand—like diabetes and asthma—are further exacerbated by the presence of second-hand smoke in the living and working environment. The difficulty comes when one balances that against the rights of business people to target their products and services at the smoking niche group. United Future has weighed those concerns against the health concerns of workers and has measured them against suggestions by some that pubs and clubs could choose to give preferential employment opportunities to smokers. We consider the implications of that suggestion outrageous. 
Others have looked to technology for solutions to this dilemma. It has been suggested that ventilation systems could be used to remove health hazards and create smoking and non-smoking zones within a facility to provide for everybody’s needs. The problem has been that as far as can be ascertained no one has yet perfected a ventilation system that reduces levels of contaminants to an acceptable level. At this point everybody seems to have given up—but not United Future and in particular not the Hon Peter Dunne. So when the bill is debated at the Committee stage we will be putting up an amendment that provides an alternative for businesses affected by this legislation a challenge to the innovation sector of technology in this country and a requirement of the Ministry of Health to give the New Zealand public some realistic guidelines. The Hon. Peter Dunne has drafted an amendment that would replace the ban with a clear-air standard. Smoking would be allowed in premises or in designated areas of a premise that met approved air standards. 
The claims made by submitters in the select committee were that there were no ventilation systems in existence that would meet acceptable standards. However the truth is that there are no clear standards for air quality and this legislation is primarily about air quality. It is unnecessary for legislation to rule out the chance for future innovators to provide acceptable alternatives. This amendment accepts that the smoke-free provisions should be in place but allows for the business community to partner with innovators to address the health concerns that motivate this bill rather than locking everybody into existing ventilation limitations. It is clear that the hospitality industry welcomes this amendment and understands that the onus would be upon them to meet the challenge. Claims that air-quality standards are difficult to set are acknowledged. However because this legislation is all about air-quality standards quantifying those standards is not an unrealistic request and United Future requires in this amendment that the Ministry of Health provide such a measure. 
If unamended this bill establishes smoking bans in a range of facilities and environments. It introduces a series of marketing controls on tobacco products and it sets in place enforcement powers and infringement provisions that would apply to those who blatantly disregard clear requests to comply. United Future supports the ideal of healthy work environments. It invites all those who shared our disquiet about the aspects of this legislation that locked us into a time warp to support this amendment at the appropriate time.