Editorial: Banning of bar smoke goes too far

It is difficult to square a parliamentary committee's extraordinarily rigorous anti-smoking plans with a legal activity. So draconian are the health select committee's proposals and intent that it seems almost as though it might as well have banned smoking outright. There seems no cognisance that the activity, no matter how inadvisably, is enjoyed by a sizeable minority. Or that the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, as now framed, steps over the line that dictates where a Government's right to determine personal behaviour terminates.

The rights of individual smokers must be balanced against the demands of those who do not want to be subjected to cigarette smoke. The dangers of smoking, whether active or passive, are well-documented and leave no doubt that non-smokers' rights must be met. But banning smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos, the bastions of nightlife and entertainment, and imposing a fine of $400 for those who breach the ban, goes too far. Non-smokers' rights could be met quite adequately by establishing minimum air quality standards and ventilated smoking areas, as previously suggested by the legislation.

What exists is, in fact, what was always the Government's intention. Early in its first term, the Health Minister, Annette King, proposed just such a blanket ban. She had to revise her thinking when Alliance MPs, wary of the reaction in the public bars, opposed it. Now that the Alliance has ceased to be a political force the shackles have come off. The Government's social engineering zeal is unencumbered. So boundless is it that venues with gaming machines and clubs that are licensed to serve liquor have now been drawn into the net. Originally, clubs such as the RSA were to be exempt.

Effectively, the proposed law would deny people a public gathering place where they can smoke. That seems not to matter to the select committee but it is the expectation of smoker and non-smoker alike. People expect to be able to smoke in bars if they wish, and non-smoking patrons enter that environment of their own will. They do not need the Government to tell them what to do.

If most people wanted smoke-free bars, such premises would bloom with no help from the law-makers. There seems no pressing demand. Possibly that reflects a lack of awareness of the perils of passive smoking. If so, the education could be provided by the anti-smoking lobby without the need for harsh regulation.

The Associate Health Minister says the tougher legislation is justified on health grounds. Indeed, one study found that passive smoking alone is killing close to 400 New Zealanders a year. In that case, why not ban cigarettes altogether? The answer might be found in the tax the Government extracts from the tobacco industry. And a realisation that a ban would not work, as was proved long ago by the United States' attempt to prohibit liquor.

Nonetheless, the proposed law change would carry New Zealand an uncomfortably long way along that path. Smoking remains legal but people would be denied the right to light up in the relaxing atmosphere of indoor entertainment venues. It makes no sense and ignores the existence of a reasonable middle ground.

Establishing minimum air quality standards, and leaving bars to meet these with specially ventilated rooms, is not an ideal compromise. Small bars might struggle to cope. But the select committee should not have discounted the idea. It is supported by the hospitality industry and would serve the interests of smokers and non-smokers alike. Most important, it would not involve the cavalier trampling of informed choice.