Mr Speaker, this bill will probably do more to improve the health of New Zealanders than any other bill before this House, and should be supported by every Member of this House.
It is nonsensical for some parties to claim that this bill is a conscience issue that should be voted on according to an individual MP's conscience, when there are in fact no moral issues in the bill. It is a bill about a specific public health issue and there are no moral issues in it at all.
Certainly the bill is widely supported in the community, and in particular the 75 percent of New Zealanders who don't smoke, and who are fed up with coming home from a night on the town smelling like an ash tray, their eyes and throats hurting and their hair and clothes reeking of smoke. Most people are counting the days until they can breathe clean unpolluted air in cafes and bars, and don't have to risk their health every time they decide to go out on the town.
It is also nonsensical to claim, as some parties are, that it is not the Government's role to intervene to protect people from harmful exposure to tobacco smoke.
We've passed laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets, and people in cars to wear set belts, to reduce their risk of harm. And we expect it to protect us from exposure to other cancer causing substances such as asbestos and dioxins. So why would we not expect the Government to take similar steps to protect New Zealanders from the well documented risks of second hand smoke?
The truth is, Mr Speaker, that some MP's and parties in this house are sounding like King Canute trying to stem the turning tide, reciting discredited arguments from the tobacco industry that the evidence about second hand smoke is inconclusive and that property rights should have precedence over the rights of non smokers, and using discredited tobacco industry tactics to try to water down or defeat all, or parts of, this bill.
Mr Speaker, the tobacco industry has spent decades denying that the product they sell is addictive or cancer causing and covering up evidence of its harm. They have used every trick in the book to oppose every form of tobacco control over the past four decades and to influence the political process.
They have flown in so called independent expert witnesses to cast doubt on the harm of second hand smoke, tried to conceal the evidence of the harm of cigarette smoke, lobbied against legislation, objected to health warnings and misled the public about the very real health issues created by tobacco smoke.
We know all this thanks to an excellent report written by two researchers Dr Nick Wilson and George Thompson, which exposed the tactics the tobacco industry used in New Zealand. It shows quite clearly that the tobacco industry knew they were pushing a product that was addictive and a killer. But still they spent billions of dollars trying to cover up the evidence of the harm of cigarette smoke so that they could keep on selling their harmful, addictive product.
It is disgraceful that the industry was able to delay effective protection from exposure to second hand smoke for so long, and in so doing contribute to hundreds — or more likely millions --of preventable deaths.
It is disgraceful too, that some of those tactics are being used today by opponents of this bill, who are doing the bidding of the tobacco industry by trying to water down or even throw out this important piece of public health legislation.
We can see the hand of the tobacco industry at work in frantic last minute lobbying, postcards MP's have been bombarded with, and in MP's singing the tobacco industry tune that property rights are more important than non-smokers rights, and that ventilation systems will solve the problem of second hand smoke, when compelling evidence was presented to the select committee that they will not.
It is galling that a party that brands itself as being family friendly and that supported the bill all the way through the select committee, is now trying to throw out the central provision of this bill.
Mr Speaker, if smokers were only harming themselves with their habit, then the arguments of opponents of this bill might sound credible.
But the truth is that every time a patron of a bar, a club or an RSA lights up, they put at risk the health of any other person who happens to be around. And the reason for that is that is simple: two thirds of the smoke from a cigarette is exhaled. So instead of going down the throat and the lungs of smokers, it is released into the air so that everyone in the room breathes it in even if we do not smoke.
The exhaled or second hand smoke contains 50 chemicals that are known to cause cancer and other toxins that damage the lining of the blood vessels, leading to heart attacks and smokes.
There is in fact an overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that second hand smoke is a leading cause of death and disease, and causes about one person to die a premature death every day in New Zealand.
The Heart Foundation estimates that people who are exposed to second hand smoke increase their risk of heart attacks by about a third, and other fatal diseases that plague smokers. It says bars and places where smokers concentrate pose the greatest risk to passive smokers because of the concentration of smoke in these places.
Armed with this knowledge, Mr Speaker, we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to its harmful effects, and allow thousands of workers to be exposed on a daily and continuous basis, to its harmful effects.
We must be honest and acknowledge that the present law which allows smoke free zones in cafes and bars is simply not working, because smoke travels throughout an entire room. The toxic particles present in cigarette smoke mix in the air, making it almost impossible not to breathe them in, even if you are seated some distance from a smoker. Its like trying to have a non chlorinated zone in a swimming pool by allowing chlorine only at one end.
Ventilation doesn't work either, because it does not remove the 50 cancer causing chemicals that lurk in second hand smoke.
We must acknowledge that hospitality venues are not just places to socialise. They are workplaces for staff who have to work around smoking patrons day in, day out. Studies show that restaurant and bar workers face up to 4 times the exposure to second hand smoke than even someone who lives with a smoker and have a 50% greater risk of getting lung cancer.
No one should have to risk his or her health to go to work. Nor should we force workers to choose between their health and their jobs. Yet we heard numerous submitters who have had to do just that, and whose health has been severely compromised as a result.
Mr Speaker this bill will benefit everyone in society, including the hospitality industry. There are no high compliance costs; no costly building alterations required. Employers, particularly in the hospitality industry, can look forward to reduced staff sickness and absenteeism, and reduced chance of litigation, when they implement the provisions of this bill. I predict that the vastly improved environments in bars will mean more, not less patrons.
But there must be a level playing field in its implementation. The bill must apply to all bars and all clubs equally. And that is why the Green Party is vehemently opposed to a last ditch effort to exempt RSA clubs from the provisions of this bill. This is absurd.
The aim of the bill is to provide all workers with a clean, healthy smokefree-working environment. So it would be contrary to the objectives of the bill, if we were to exclude workers from one small section of society from coverage under this bill.
Indeed, it would undermine the entire case for a ban on smoking in workplaces if smokers could just saunter down the road to smoke at the nearest club.
It would be inequitable and unfair on bar, pub and restaurant owners if the Government were to backtrack and exempt clubs from the ban. Clubs would then have a competitive advantage, and bars would inevitably try to turn themselves into clubs.
A consistent theme throughout the submission process was that the law must apply to all, regardless of the venue. The Green Party believes it is essential we have an across-the-board, level playing field approach, and not sabotage the bill at the last minute in a pork barrel attempt to garner votes from Returned Services Associations.
We need to remember too, how loudly people complained when we first started phasing smoking out of workplaces, and introduced smoke-free areas in dining and drinking establishments. Now it's an accepted part of life. Californians don't think twice about smoke free bars and cafes now.
I would like to signal that the Green Party will be seeking to amend the bill to ban the sale of toys that imitate the act of smoking, to anyone under the age of 18.
Cigarette toys are being sold to children as young as three, that essentially teach our children how to become the smokers of tomorrow. I have here 7 different toy cigarettes that have been sent to me from around the country. All of these products are designed to make children think that smoking is cool, and is fun.
Cigarette companies have long targeted young people in their marketing campaigns knowing, as a Philip Morris report put it, that today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and that the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens. ..It is during the teenage years that the initial brand choice is made."
So if we want to discourage our children from becoming the addicts of tomorrow, then we must prohibit the sale of products like these which are specifically targeted at young people, to encourage them to thing smoking is cool, and to get hooked at a young age.
I will also be seeking to amend the legislation to remove penalties, infringement notices and prosecution procedures that apply to individuals.
We would prefer that we relied on social pressure, not penalties, for getting smokers to comply with the new law.
Instead of fining smokers, we should focus responsibility on operators of bars and cafes, and on employers. The bill contains penalties for employers who permit smoking in any workplace, including bars and restaurants. If operators are responsible for ensuring a smoke free environment, they will have a strong incentive to educate patrons about the new law, to put up appropriate signage, and to remove ashtrays and so forth.
Placing the responsibility on operators is consistent with alcohol control laws, with host responsibility provisions, and the requirement that operators ensure they do not serve under age or intoxicated patrons.
Owners and operators of pubs and other premises can already evict people for a variety of reasons. Patrons refusing to go outside to smoke would merely be another reason to require them to leave.
In rare situations where a patron could not be evicted, the police could be called to enforce existing trespass law. This approach would avoid the risk of Government health agencies being involved in legal battles with smokers trying to resist fines.
Enforcement was not an issue in other places with smoke-free laws, and we don't expect it will be here. In California, for example, where there were no specific penalties, there was 92 percent compliance after one year.
Finally, the Green Party strongly supports the requirements in the bill that require fuller disclosure of the contents of tobacco products and for pictorial warnings relating to the products effect on health to be displayed on the tobacco packet. But we want to go even further than that.
Cigarettes contains more than 600 additives which are used in tobacco products to enhance the taste of tobacco smoke; to numb the throat so that smokers don't feel smoke's aggravating effects; to make cigarettes more palatable to first time users and even children.
Manufacturers must be required to disclose all additives and ingredients used in tobacco products, by brand, to the Minister of Health, and this information must be made available to the public through the internet.
Tobacco companies should be required to disclose the purpose of an additive and undertake extensive toxicology and pharmacological testing of all additives the use to demonstrate that they are safe, but also that they are safe when combined with smoke and other additives.
We require these toxicological testing and disclosure of all additives used in food. We can think of no good reason why would not require their disclosure in cigarettes
Mr Speaker seldom does a bill come before this House that will literally save lives. This one will and it is with enthusiasm and delight that the Green Party supports the Second reading of this bill.
Subscribe to email newsletters
