Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8805] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It has been a while since we dealt with this bill but in the intervening period since our last discussion a number of issues relevant to Part 1 have become more apparent and of even greater concern than we may have imagined at the time the bill was last before the Committee. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the clauses that have been struck out and to those that have been inserted which mean in effect that there will be no facilities available on sites for people who wish to smoke. That is in accordance with the Government’s stated intention of banning smoking in bars restaurants and other places of that type. But what has become obvious in recent times is the sheer extent of the change and the ill-considered way in which it has been thought through. 
 I want to give the committee two examples of that and I am sure other members will have other examples to draw to the committee’s attention as this debate proceeds. I have acknowledged the presence of Mr Worth who last time we debated this bill made some very valuable contributions regarding cigar bars. That issue has escalated even in recent weeks. I have been approached over recent weeks by a number of builders and developers who want to know in terms of the provisions of this part of the legislation what the new building standards will be to govern what may be defined as open space under this legislation. Inquiries that have been made of the Ministry of Health—the experts who know everything about what makes people sick and who are now said to be experts on ventilation and other engineering matters—show that its officials have no idea about that. They have not even thought about what the definition of open space may be in the context of this legislation. That work has not been done which means that the promoters of this legislation cannot even give that definition to the people out there who want to develop hospitality premises and who are saying that because this dumb bill will go through Parliament they had better figure out how to configure their premises in relation to it. Here they are trying to rush this legislation through tonight without that work having been done. 
At the same time it was intriguing to listen to the previous debate. The Minister of Tourism—and I take my hat off to him for doing a great job in promoting New Zealand tourism—will be put in a position whereby our capacity to provide good tourism facilities is threatened by a Mickey-Mouse approach to planning which sees us put in place social engineering legislation of this type without any idea of the practical consequences that flow from it. 
Let me give the committee a second example. I came through Auckland International Airport a couple of days ago and observed to my surprise that there is a smoking room down in the bowels of that airport. It was filled with tourists who had just got off long flights. They were visitors to New Zealand who were desperate to have a cigarette. I do not actually agree with that but that is their privilege. Now under this legislation that option will go for them. I did not see any signage up to warn people of the legislation before the New Zealand Parliament that will tell first-time visitors to this country that after a 12-hour flight across the Pacific if they feel like lighting a cigarette in the smoking area they will not be able to do so because there will no longer be a smoking area there. The question that then arises is this: what input has there been from the airports and from the tourism industry about the potential impact of this legislation on tourism? What about the people who will suddenly find themselves in that position with one of the “health Nazis” leaping down on their back and saying they have breached the law and are now subject to the fine procedures? Actually those people will not be subject to the fine procedures because under the Greens’ amendment Auckland International Airport will be subject to the fine procedures for every tourist that gets off a plane goes to what he or she thinks is the smoking area and lights up a cigarette. 
This legislation is an absolute absurdity. We have heard no explanation from the Government. The Associate Minister of Health paraded today as an expert in engineering and ventilation. He did not cite as the authority that says that ventilation systems do not work the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd or another scientific research body but instead cited the officials of the public health directorate of the Ministry of Health—the “health Nazis” themselves. I want him to take a call and say what advice those “health Nazis” have given him about what we should do for the tourists. He should also tell us what we are to do for those builders who ask about how to redesign facilities in order to cope with this legislation that the Government is passing. 
None of that work is there. Yet if I go back to clause 1A of the bill I see it states that some of the provisions come into effect on 1 January 2004—less than 3 months away—and some come into effect on 1 February 2005. We still have no answers from the Government with regard to the issues I have raised.