Paraone Pita: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Paraone Pita: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10397] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena ano koe ara tatou katoa for the opportunity afforded me to speak in the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. It is with some reservation and a large amount of ambivalence that I rise to indicate I will vote for the passage of this bill. As spokesperson on health for the New Zealand First Party I fail to see how I can in all conscience do otherwise than to vote for it. Yet I have severe misgivings about the direction in which this Government is leading us with this legislation. 
My concern stems from the fact that this Government seems to think that it knows best what is good for the people of New Zealand and to think that legislation is an effective way to get people to behave in the desired manner. While this legislation may be well intentioned it is also patronising. While any legislation should obviously reflect the values of our society there are some things that we just cannot legislate out of existence. I wonder how long it will be before members on the Government side of the House will attempt to make New Zealand a smoke-free country. This bill is certainly a step in that direction. What will be the next focus? Will we all be required to be in bed by 10 p.m. to ensure that we are getting enough sleep? Will we be denied employment if we do not have the correct body mass index ratio? That may sound ridiculous now but Governments have been known to do some pretty outrageous things in order to effect the desired results. Let us remember carless days. Governments lose touch with reality and become so arrogant that they think they know what is best for everyone. 
The thing that concerns me is that the alternatives to this legislation have been dismissed completely out of hand or not seriously considered. For instance why could we not debate the idea of letting bar owners choose whether their establishments would be smoke-free or not? There would be smoke-free bars and smoking bars—as indeed there are now in some places. I also feel that the clean air standard as supported by some members on the Opposition side of the House could have been given due and proper consideration. It could well have been a workable alternative but was not given a fair go. Because this Government had already decided the outcome of this bill it would not hear anything that might have threatened the holier-than-thou attitude that it is mired in. 
Bar and restaurant owners are concerned about the effect of this legislation on their livelihoods and we cannot blame them for that. That is in spite of the reference made by the previous speaker when he gave an example of a particular bar in Auckland’s Viaduct Basin that seems to be doing well because it went smoke-free at that particular time. However the essence of the story will be known if that same bar can say that it has received the same support from its clients 12 months out from that time. What guarantees do businesses have that they will not fall over as a direct result of this legislation? They have been bending over backwards to come up with possible compromises but their pleas have fallen on deaf ears because this Government never had any intention of considering any alternatives to this bill. So where does that leave the bar owner whose whole life is invested in his or her business? On very shaky and stressful ground I would hazard to guess. Sure anyone who goes into business takes a risk but the last thing a business owner needs is for the Government to march in and move the goal post on a whim without even a thought for those who stand to lose everything. Of course bar owners will try to accommodate the needs of their customers as they do now. What kind of ingenious law-bending tactics they will come up with in order to do so remains to be seen. However there is no doubt in my mind that if there is a loophole they will find it. 
 Another potential area of concern is enforcement. How exactly will this law be enforced and who will be liable if someone lights up in a bar? We know it will be the proprietor. Will the whole onus be on him or her to ensure no one lights up? If so has any consideration been given to the practicalities of such an arrangement? What will happen if patrons become belligerent and defiant about it which can easily happen when alcohol has been consumed? Has anyone thought about the potential danger to bar staff if it is left to them to police this law? And who will be prosecuted? Apparently it will not be the smoker which leaves only the bar owner or manager. I would certainly think twice about investing in a bar or working in one once this legislation has been enacted. 
The fact is that a significant number of people will not lie down and roll over when the Government says they should do so and they will continue to want to smoke when they are having a drink. I would hazard a guess that most people who currently smoke while drinking will continue to do so. That means they will find ways of having a smoke with their drink. The obvious place to do so will be outside the premises they are drinking in. That may be quite a civilised thing to do on a sunny afternoon in the middle of summer but it will be much less comfortable on a cold winter’s night to have a few drinks downtown. I foresee trouble ahead here with crowds of inebriated people standing around outside bars causing mayhem to those who happen to cross their paths or mayhem to the bar owner when they refuse to extinguish the cigarettes they have decided to smoke. 
There are also some grey areas of this legislation that to my mind seem to be unworkable. Who for instance will complain if everyone in a particular environment agrees that people can smoke there? Smoking then becomes a victimless crime with all the attendant problems of credibility and enforcement that come with it. What criteria will be used to determine who gets busted for smoking and when? And what about smoking in taxis on marae and on ships? Will those places be subject to random searches by overzealous smoking police? I think not. 
My colleagues in New Zealand First are opposing this bill and I have no difficulty with that. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for allowing me the freedom to exercise my view—unlike a number of Government members who oppose this bill but who are unable to exercise that view. Despite the foreboding I have in respect of this bill for the reasons I have just outlined I am voting for it because I want to do all that I can to arrest the rate at which New Zealanders particularly Maori are dying from smoking-related diseases. When looked at solely from a health perspective one sees this bill will go some way towards achieving that. I also want to see some consistency achieved in terms of workplace health and safety. It is not equitable that hospitality industry workers many of whom are young Maori are not afforded the same protection from second-hand smoke as other employees. The clean air standard would have been a workable solution to that problem had it been able to be proved effective. Since that door was closed before it was even opened the only alternative is to vote for the bill as it is. 
The sad fact is that Maori women have the highest level of lung cancer in the world. There is not much we can do to make that statistic look better so we have to do something about changing that disturbing reality. As I said earlier I do not believe we can legislate people into behaving in the way that we want them to. If we attempt to do so the price will be public apathy and disobedience and there will be even less respect for the Government from the public than there is already. We all know where we as politicians sit in the ranking of respected professions. It is really no wonder we have that rank when we are seen to be telling everyone what to do while taxing people to the nth degree. I would be happier to be voting for a bill or supporting a policy that had education as its central focus. Sure the smoke-free message is out there but is it really reaching the people who need to hear it? Could it be that they do not care enough about their future because they do not see themselves as having one so smoking is one way to get instant gratification? Maybe I am reading too much into the phenomenon of smoking but I do not think it would hurt to try to find out what motivates people to smoke rather than to try to ban them outright from doing so—and of course that does not include paying groups to lobby MPs. A policy that aims to get to the causes of a problem will obviously be more effective than any band-aid approach. 
I will cast my vote today in favour of this bill not because I think it is robust legislation but because as New Zealand First spokesperson on health and as someone who is concerned about the high rate of smoking-related illnesses and the fiscal effect it has on our health services I feel it would be hypocritical of me not to do so. Kia ora.