Scott Lynda: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7955] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 This part deals with the commencement date and it also has the interpretation provisions which basically are the definitions that apply within this bill. 
The commencement date is 1 January 2004 which allows a very short time for people to get used to the major changes that occur under this bill. If we look at what happened in California we see that it initially brought in changes to make restaurants smoke-free then 3 to 4 years later it brought in smoke-free environments in pubs and clubs. I do have some real concerns that by moving this legislation so fast we will create civil disobedience. People are going to say they are not prepared to accept this legislation and they will simply and utterly ignore it. That is not what we want to see. We want to see as we have seen over the past 10 years people slowly moving towards understanding the very negative health effects of smoking and understanding that second-hand smoke is detrimental. 
I remember the very first time someone got in my car lit up and about to take the first puff asked me whether I minded. I remember the first time I said yes. It really felt good to stand up for my rights as a non-smoker. I have to say that a few years after that I did become a smoker for some time but being reformed now— 
Hon David Carter 
: It was stress. It was the stress of the job. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Yes. It was the stress of the job. 
Darren Hughes 
: Being a member of the National Party caucus will do that to you. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: No it was actually when I went nursing. So many nurses at that time did smoke but we have learnt. When people look at the relative risks of smoking they see that their relative risk of having a heart attack is three and their relative risk of getting lung cancer is 20 compared with those who do not smoke. Those are quite staggering results. The evidence around second-hand smoke has been a little patchy. I do think that some of the evidence has been overestimated but there is no doubt that second-hand smoke does affect people especially a worker in an environment that is very thick with smoke. 
The interpretation provisions in this bill include things like “dedicated smoking room”. That means an internal area of a hospital or a care institution. We certainly do not want to see—and I promoted this provision—our elderly in residential care having to trundle out into the rain and the cold to have a smoke. By that stage when they are in residential care quite frankly if a smoke is all they enjoy they should be able to have a smoke. So we did allow for dedicated smoking rooms to exist in rest homes disability care institutions and mental health institutions. 
I was very pleased when I heard earlier speakers talking about schools. When the bill first came in it actually had provision for dedicated smoking rooms within schools. But 40 percent of schools have already gone totally smoke-free and they do not want that provision. We heard a lot of submissions on that fact. The people our children look up to—and teachers are the people they look up to; they are role models for them—should not have smoking rooms; it should not become the norm that teachers are smoking on school-grounds. So schools were taken out of that provision. We also took out early childhood centres so that younger children are not exposed to second-hand smoke. The risks of bronchitis and asthma are very real with young children. 
Another definition is that of “open area”. With pubs and clubs of course people can go outside into beer gardens and the like to have a cigarette then go back inside to enjoy their beer. So “open area” has been defined. 
The taxi federation was very keen to have smoking banned in taxis especially for those people like myself who do not smoke now and do not want to get into a taxi that stinks of cigarette smoke and for taxi-drivers who do not smoke. They certainly do not want to have to put up with it. For them to stop people from smoking in their taxis is very difficult if the law does not state it is illegal. Operating a taxi is defined as travelling time and resting time so it is very clear that smoking in taxis will be banned. Taxi-drivers will be able to put up a sign saying so and it will be enforceable.