Stubbing out the night lights

MATHEW DEARNALEY looks at the conflict behind making smoking in New Zealand's bars and restaurants illegal.

Downtrodden workers milling about back doors for their nicotine fix are a wretched enough sight for Maori Alliance MP Willie Jackson.

So driving them out of public bars would be the pits of the most punitive society, he believes - even though tobacco smoke kills about 4700 New Zealanders a year.

Mr Jackson, who says he has never smoked a cigarette, represents an obstacle to the Government's hope of plugging a hole in its smoke-free legislation by clamping down in bars and restaurants.

New Zealand led the world in 1990 with the Smoke-Free Environments Act, a law aimed at protecting non-smokers in workplaces.

But bars, restaurants and casinos were let off the hook, apart from having to designate 50 per cent of dining seats for non-smokers, and other countries have since overtaken us.

Queensland and Tasmania are poised to enact tough laws, the latest of an escalating series of moves by Australian states against that last bastion of tobacco - the smoky bar.

Our lawmakers are anxious not to be left behind. But a long-awaited legislative amendment about to be presented to the Labour and Alliance caucuses is stirring controversy even before MPs have seen it.

As tobacco and hotel industries plead for free choice with provisions to "manage" smoke pollution, the union representing bar, restaurant and casino staff says it is unacceptable that they are the only workers unprotected in law.

What did the 1990 law do?


The Smoke-Free Environments Act was most notable for the restrictions it imposed on smoking at work, although it also covered certain public places such as passenger vehicles, aircraft, ships and transport waiting rooms.

Other features included bans on advertising tobacco products, compulsory health warnings on cigarette packets, and a subsequent amendment that raised the minimum age from 16 to 18 of those allowed to be sold tobacco products.

Every workplace had to have a written smoking policy.

Smoking could be allowed in offices, but only if every worker sharing an enclosed area agreed in writing. Some firms set aside special rooms for smokers, who make up a quarter of New Zealanders aged 15 and over.

But even smokers regarded these rooms as an added health hazard.

The more common response was to cluster outside workplaces at smoko.

Restrictions were harder to impose in non-office sites such as workshops, although staff could ask for no-smoking zones within 2m of their work area.

But not even that protection was available to restaurant or bar staff, because licensed premises are exempt.

What are our legislators up to now?


The Government has inherited from former New Zealand First MPs Tuariki Delamere and Tukoroirangi Morgan a member's bill proposing to:

* Tighten restrictions in non-office worksites.

* Ensure smoke is not carried through air-conditioning.

* Ban smoking from schools and all other educational institutions - not just inside but throughout their grounds, day or night.

* Remove tobacco products from display at shop checkouts.

* Ban shopkeepers from selling tobacco products if they are convicted of supplying minors twice within two years.

The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill declares that its goal is to "intensify further the community's battle against smoking."

But its sponsors, assessing political realities under the previous National Government, again left bars and restaurants alone.

It has since been adopted by Rotorua Labour MP Steve Chadwick, but was parked up at Parliament's health select committee for almost a year while the current Government agonised over how to extend it to the hospitality industry.

What is the next move?


Health Minister Annette King announced in February last year that she wanted a blanket ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos, but had to back off after hearing that Alliance MPs would oppose it.

This was despite support for a ban from Prime Minister Helen Clark, who introduced the original smoke-free law as Health Minister in 1990.

Mrs King's officials have since spent hours "trying to square the circle" of a compromise proposal, says one source.

The end-product will be put to the Labour and Alliance caucuses in coming weeks as a supplementary order paper.

The closing date of next Monday for submissions has been extended to June 2.

What is happening in Australia?


Several Australian states are following other overseas jurisdictions such as California and British Columbia in tightening the noose around smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos, as well as shopping centres and enclosed workplaces.

All states, apart from Northern Territory which has proposals in the pipeline, have introduced smoke-free laws under a national strategy.

The Australian Capital Territory moved first in 1994, banning smoking in restaurants and cafes unless exemptions are granted for up to 25 per cent of their premises.

Smoking is prohibited in hotel bars and gambling areas, although exemptions for up to 50 per cent can be sought if ventilation is provided.

Western Australia banned smoking in 1999 in cafes and restaurants, except in ventilated rooms where no meals are served, and similar restrictions apply at hotel bars.

The Sydney Olympic Games hastened a prohibition in September on smoking in cafes and restaurants in New South Wales other than in authorised reception areas, an exemption which will disappear on the ban's first anniversary.

Similar bans exist or are pending in cafes and restaurants in South Australia and Victoria, although hotel bars have been spared prohibition in those states and in New South Wales.

What about the latest moves?


Legislation was introduced to the Queensland Parliament two weeks ago which banned smoking where and whenever meals are served in bars and restaurants.

The proposed law, which will also ban smoking at casino gaming tables, is assured an easy passage by Labour Premier Peter Beattie's large majority and agreement by some industry leaders, including an organisation of more than 1000 licensed clubs.

How would smoking restrictions affect New Zealand restaurants and bars?


Restaurant Association chief Neville Waldren says his 1500 members are fairly evenly divided, a slight majority favouring a blanket ban. "I personally don't think there's a place for food and smoking at all but there would have to be a ban in bars as well, or it would create an unlevel playing field."

The Hotel Association, with over 1600 members, is more fearful.

Chief executive Bruce Robertson says most bars that go smoke-free voluntarily end up struggling to attract enough custom.

He advocates the continuing development of air ventilation and filtration systems to let smokers and non-smokers co-exist happily, while protecting staff.

"I'm not saying smoking is good for you, or environmental (second-hand) smoke is good, because it isn't - I'm talking about minimising the impact through good filtration."

Smoke-free Coalition director Leigh Sturgiss points to a Health Ministry survey in 1999 which found that 79 per cent of people wanted stronger controls on smoking in bars.

Leigh Sturgiss says ventilation systems are designed only to remove odours.

Engineering studies have found that it would take "hurricane-strength" extraction to banish the 43 cancer-causing chemicals so far identified in tobacco smoke.

How about bar owners and staff?


Mark Walynetz, owner of the Tribeca Bar and Restaurant in Parnell, is so against smoking that he pays bonuses to staff who kick the habit for at least 30 days, to discourage them from stinking of cigarettes.

Three have qualified so far, including one who quit a year ago.

Mr Walynetz initially made his entire premises smoke-free, but regretfully had to set aside a smoking area in his bar after customers wanting to light up fled to rival establishments.

Auckland Golf Club catering manager John Norton is also relieved his exclusive members-only institution made its newly refurbished clubhouse smoke-free.

"Certainly some people felt they had the right to smoke but a lot more feel they have the right to breathe."

Labour MPs wanting to ban smoking in bars are meanwhile holding out for important support from the Service and Food Workers' Union, whose workplace delegates are recommending prohibition at a national round of membership meetings.

But the Alliance's Mr Jackson, a former service union official himself, says many workers who enjoy smoking would see this as dictatorial.

"I know about the terrible smoking statistics among our people - one in two Maori women smoke and that's just terrible - but we have to look at why they smoke.

"It's a chance for them to relax and take a bit of a break from very boring jobs."

Leigh Sturgiss, also a former service union organiser, says second-hand smoke is slowly killing bar workers, who are unable to shield themselves while on duty.

What is the health risk from second-hand smoke?


Tobacco companies now admit, after years of stalling tactics, that smoking presents a real and serious risk of disease to active smokers.

But they continue to deny that there is conclusive evidence about second-hand smoke presenting a health hazard to non-smokers.

British American Tobacco (NZ) spokesman John Galligan says a seven-year study by the World Health Organisation was unable to conclude that passive smoking causes long-term damage.

But anti-smoking groups accuse the tobacco industry of spending millions of dollars subverting and misrepresenting a body of research which in fact found a 17 per cent increase in the risk of lung cancer to non-smokers who were exposed to tobacco smoke at work.

Researchers Dr Murray Laugesen and Professor Alistair Woodward also concluded, in a study published six months ago, that passive smoking kills 388 New Zealanders a year. This included 50 babies and 145 people who die from exposure to smoke at work.

Dr Laugesen, who is acting chairman of Action on Smoking and Health, says there is no justification for people to be forced to breathe dangerous and dirty air at work when it puts them at risk of heart disease, strokes and cancer.

The anti-smoking group says that regardless of what ends up in the smoke-free law, all workers are entitled to protection under the Health and Safety in Employment Act, which it claims overrides exemptions in the other legislation.

And it believes their ineligibility for accident compensation for tobacco-induced diseases means they have a right to sue their employers, as workers have already done successively in Australia.

Meanwhile, the Quitline service has already sent vouchers for nicotine patches and gum to about 50,000 people wanting to stop smoking under a Government-subsidised scheme which began in November.

And a spokesman for Attorney-General Margaret Wilson denies she has given up investigating the idea of a joint lawsuit with Australian state Governments to recover health costs from tobacco companies.

But he says the exercise is proving long and complex.

Need help?


Smokers wanting nicotine replacement vouchers or counselling can call Quitline free on 0800 778-778.