Paraone Pita: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6622] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker tena no tatou. 
I rise to take a different position to that of my caucus colleague. As I do so I should explain that while I agree with a lot of the sentiments that have been expressed by the opponents to this bill I support it. One of the reasons I do so is that as health spokesperson for the New Zealand First caucus I find it would be rather hypocritical for me to oppose the bill given its intent. Therefore I signal that I will be one of those within the New Zealand First Party’s caucus who will support this bill. I note that in a speech made last week the Minister of Finance expressed his failure to suppress the repeated calls for increased public health spending when its share of overall Government funds is rising at the expense of everything else. I suggest to this House that the intent of this bill will go a long way towards addressing that particular issue. 
Most people agree that smoking is not conducive to maintaining good health. Not only is it bad for the smoker’s health but research shows that it is also detrimental to the health of those exposed to second-hand smoke from smokers. Second-hand smoke is a carcinogen and it increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and respiratory illness. The issue of the effect of second-hand smoke is vitally important to the health and well-being of all New Zealanders including those who work in the hospitality industry. I fail to see why those workers should not have the same protection under the law that someone working in an office has. Instead workers in that occupational group many of whom are Maori are subjected to extreme levels of cigarette smoke every time that they go to work. Is that fair? I think not. 
I have already mentioned the fact that many Maori work in the hospitality industry. They are also overrepresented in blue-collar industries that are not covered by the Smoke-free Environments Act meaning that they are 50 percent more likely to be exposed to second-hand smoke during working hours than others. On top of that the sad fact remains that Maori women have the highest rate of lung cancer in the world and are also more likely to smoke than any other demographic group. Those statistics clearly show that Maori are severely disadvantaged in terms of health and to ignore that fact is to contribute to that inequality. This bill makes an attempt to address the disparity and to create a level playing field for all workers in all industries. It is simply wrong that occupations should impact directly on health outcomes in this way. It is high time that we did something about that. 
Earlier this evening we heard reference made to freedom of choice. Opponents of the bill—and some of my colleagues are among them—argued that this is yet another example of nanny State telling us what to do as if we were not capable of making our own decisions. In essence I may agree with that comment because do we really want the State to control us in this way? Where is the freedom of choice given that tobacco is a legal substance and smokers are engaging in a legal activity? Where will the State reach into next? Obesity is also linked to illness so will our diets be the next thing to come under the State’s microscope? Similarly with alcohol the issue of individual rights is a serious one and is not to be dismissed. In this case though legislation has been in place for 13 years to restrict smoking. This bill merely extends the restrictions in order to protect the health of all employees. 
Let us not forget that around 75 percent of New Zealanders do not smoke which leads me to wonder about the veracity of the statements made by bar club and restaurant owners that if this bill is enacted they will see their businesses decline. It may well transpire that more people will frequent their premises if they can rest assured that they will not be annoyed by second-hand smoke. Research also shows that interventions such as smoking bans and restrictions have the effect of reducing tobacco consumption and increasing smoking cessation. That should surely be an objective if we wish to improve the health of New Zealanders as well as to reduce the health budget. 
During the hearing of submissions comment was made with regard to the effectiveness of ventilation systems. We heard from people in the hospitality industry who agreed on the need for ventilation systems but asked that the quality of air standards should be set. While I support the bill I say the failure to do that is one of its shortcomings. 
Debate interrupted.