Scott Lynda: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Scott Lynda: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6611] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 As you have just heard the National Party will be considering this bill as a conscience issue because we have always treated this subject as such. 
The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill began as a member’s bill in the name of Tuku Morgan. That was three parliamentary sessions ago so this bill has had a long passage to this point in the House. Members’ bills represent the right of every MP to try to put legislation in place that he or she believes is needed. The original bill was markedly changed and expanded when a Supplementary Order Paper was added by the Labour Government.At that point Judy Keall took over the management of the bill through the select committee process. As I mentioned earlier this is the third Parliament that this bill has survived and it is now before us in its second reading. 
I need to say early in this speech that National has always considered legislation relating to alcohol smoking ethics and moral issues as legislation that should be decided via a conscience vote. Consequently I am speaking for myself in this debate and other members of my caucus will have their own views about whether this legislation should or should not become law. 
Second-hand smoke is a serious health risk. The leading causes of death in this country—cancer stroke and heart attacks—are all contributed to by smoking and that is not just active smoking but also passive smoking. Asthma and chronic obstructive respiratory disease are also contributed to by smoking. The first disease linked definitively to active smoking was lung cancer and it is therefore not surprising that the first disease identified as being caused by passive smoking was also lung cancer. So it is a very serious issue and we cannot take it lightly. 
The original bill and Supplementary Order Paper contained what the Health Committee considered an unfair playing field. Separating pubs from clubs was seen to be grossly unfair and the decision was made that there must be a level playing field. Whatever the standard was going to be regarding smoke-free environments—a totally smoke-free environment or a ventilation air standard that could be chosen from—it had to be across the board so that all were treated equally. Insisting that restaurants and pubs should have 50 percent of their areas smoke-free while clubs were exempt would cause massive problems. We heard submission after submission from restaurant and pub-owners that that would impose huge compliance on them and would not solve the problems—that is their employees would still have to work in a smoky environment. 
During the hearing of submissions substantial changes were made to this bill until it reached its current form. There is still a great deal of concern from pubs restaurants and clubs about the economic impact that this bill will have on them. That has to be weighed against the fact that cigarette smoking costs over $2 billion a year in health dollars due to the fact that the relative risk of getting lung cancer if one smokes is 20:1 of stroke 3:1 and of heart attack 8:1. Those are very substantial risk factors if one is smoking. Passive smoking has also been shown to contribute to those diseases. 
As a doctor I am well aware of the harmful effects of tobacco which accounts for one in four deaths. There have been various estimates of how serious second-hand smoke is and how much disease it causes but 150 deaths per year was one of the figures quoted to the Health Committee. The effects of passive smoking hit one when one goes into a bar. If one passively smokes it can make one’s platelets stickier so by walking into a smoky environment one is at risk of a heart attack if one happens to have clogged arteries. We have to remember that we have 10500 deaths per year from heart attack and stroke. 
Only 25 percent of New Zealanders smoke. Although we have heard that there will be an economic impact if this bill does go through 75 percent of New Zealanders do not smoke. I would personally enjoy going down to the pub but I find the smoky environment very difficult to take. I never stay very long and tend to choose bars that are smoke-free. Those 75 percent who do not smoke are likely to spend more time out in a social environment and it is highly probable that more people might frequent pubs and clubs if they were smoke-free. However we do not know whether that would compensate for the loss of trade from those who like to have a smoke with their pint. That is undetermined and something that we must consider. 
The Health Committee agreed on some issues and did not agree on others. We all readily agreed that schools should be totally smoke-free. When the Supplementary Order Paper came in the issue moved from having totally smoke-free preschools primary schools and secondary schools to schools being able to have a smoking room. We heard a lot of submissions from schools that had already gone smoke-free and they did not want to go back to that situation. Teachers parents and those who work in schools are role models for our young and we would like to see totally smoke-free schools. That gives a healthy and very important message to our young that we do not normalise smoking. 
I remember that both my parents smoked. In those days no one knew the health risks of smoking to the extent that we do today. I always remember my father saying: “I’ll stop smoking when you can tell me it causes some problem.” He would then put an anginine under his tongue for his angina so there was not much point talking to some people! But we do want to send a message to our young people that because of its very harmful health effects smoking is not something to be taken up readily. So we wanted that provision out and we all agreed on that. 
We also agreed that banning smoking in taxis was a good idea. The New Zealand Taxi Proprietors Federation wanted that. We also agreed that hotel rooms are private space and should be exempt from any smoke-free legislation. We were all of the one mind that we needed a level playing field and that it was really important that we treated all of New Zealand’s pubs clubs and restaurants the same. We also felt that vending machines should be able to be operated by staff via remote control and that that would prevent under-age access to vending machines. 
But there were things that we did not agree on. We did not agree on the economic impact. We did not agree on whether pubs and clubs should have to meet a ventilation standard or whether a totally smoke-free environment should be an option. Ventilation does not remove all the carcinogens but if this Government introduces legislation to change the level playing field then it would be better to move at least halfway than nowhere at all and a ventilation air standard would be halfway. It is important not to push people past a point of tolerance that will create civil disobedience. There is no point having a law that everyone will ignore. 
We had a lot of debate about staggering the implementation of this law. In 1995 California made restaurants smoke-free and it was some years later that it moved to make bars smoke-free—that is once the people of California had become used to that environment. So there has been quite a bit of debate about how readily and fast this bill should be implemented and whether the approach should be a staged one. We also had a disagreement about vending machines. There was an agreement that vending machines for cigarettes should show only 100 packets. Whether there are 100 or 150 packets makes no difference whatsoever. It is a huge compliance cost and it is absolutely stupid and it should be out. 
Internationally we looked at Australia California and Norway. Australian territories have gone smoke-free but they have ventilation standards. Australian Capital Territory does for example and the Health Committee visited Canberra and spent some time looking at that issue. 
I mentioned California having a staggered approach with restaurants being made smoke-free first. In the UK Tony Blair has a charter. His Government supports ventilation in combination with the hospitality industry and Norway has an air-quality standard. We looked at all of those options. Tonight I want to say that I am supporting this bill on the grounds that it will improve the health of all New Zealanders.