Roy Heather: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Heather: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9240. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I am lucky I get to speak twice. There is one thing that has not been pointed out in Part 2— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the good member’s speech but will you confirm that Heather Roy has had two calls and that as we are all seeking more the precedent will be allowed to all of us? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is true it is a second call. 
Rod Donald 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any assistance on this matter. Heather Roy sought the call. It is her second call and I have given it to her. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I hope everybody else gets the opportunity to speak twice too. Part 2 clause 7 refers to new section 17(A) “Penalties”. No one has mentioned these but I think they are very significant. There was a lot of discussion at the select committee about whether there should be penalties and the Labour Government did not want any penalties. It wanted law but that there be no retribution as a result of it. United Future members said they would not support the bill unless there were penalties. The Labour Government must be feeling a little disgruntled about this I would have thought because there has been a bit of a U-turn. Here we have a $4000 fine for establishments that allow smoking within their premises. Originally we were supposed to have a fine not exceeding $400 for any person not a body-corporate who lit up in any given establishment. An amendment was put forward—by the Green Party I think—which does not want any individual to be punished for smoking in an establishment. 
The Hospitality Association came out—yesterday I think it was—stating that it was very angry firstly about the contracts with Action on Smoking and Health Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore and the Smokefree Coalition. The Hospitality Association pays taxes and it has been lobbied against so the bill will punish it. It will be the body-corporates establishments or premises that will be fined when somebody smokes but no individual will be responsible. That sends a very strong message to the country does it not? People are not responsible for their own behaviour in New Zealand any longer. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: It’s socialism. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right—we are moving towards “the socialist republic of Aotearoa” as Richard Prebble is so fond of saying. That is my first point. The other people who are very upset are members of Clubs New Zealand. There are 240000 members of that association. It sent a letter and I received mine yesterday—I do not know who else got one. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am finding it very difficult to hear what I am saying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Manners please! 
HEATHER ROY 
: Yes manners would be good. The first thing that Clubs New Zealand asked was why does the Government accept the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report on vehicle exhaust emissions but not its report on the air quality trials at the Bream Bay Club? 
Peter Brown 
: That’s a good question. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I thought it was an extremely good question. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Because it is selective. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is exactly right I thank the member. Gavin Fischer is the leading scientist at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and chairman of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand so why is his methodology for the exhaust emissions report acceptable but his methodology for the report on the Bream Bay Club not acceptable? What is the answer to that question? 
Brent Catchpole 
: Another good question. Do they have the answer to that? 
HEATHER ROY 
: No—well I am coming to that. The third question is where is the Ministry of Health report that questions his methodology? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Tell us! 
HEATHER ROY 
: It is non-existent. Roger Parton the chief executive of Clubs New Zealand said in a letter to me: “Is any member of Parliament prepared to give a public response to these questions?” Well we have demonstrated tonight who is prepared to stand up here and give answers to those questions. This side of the House does—that side of the House remains remarkably silent. 
Clubs New Zealand had one more question too and a very important one: what part did anti-smoking campaigners have in the production of the ministry’s report and if they had a part how were they funded? They were funded by the taxpayer! The contracts with Action on Smoking and Health the Smokefree Coalition Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore and goodness only knows who else—which might amount to the best part of $13.7 million—have been paid for by you and me. The workers of this country have paid for them to lobby MPs and different people and the clean-air standards people have been ignored. 
Mr Dunne has put forward amendments that would give us a minimum air quality standard which would have been a very sensible compromise. Everybody on this side of the House acknowledges that but most of the select committee were adamant that it was not necessary. They took it as read that ventilation systems were not acceptable but the compromise would have been to have a minimum air quality standard. If that is able to be met then the ventilation system is obviously adequate and that should have been perfectly allowable.