![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Celebrating 20 years of the Smoke-free Environments
Act, and the next steps to end the tobacco epidemic
Twenty years ago, the politics and hysteria about regulating
the activities of the tobacco industry in New Zealand reached a peak with the
passing of the Smoke-free Environments Act. Much of the frenzy was posed as a
show of concern for smokers. John Banks, then a National Party MP, said:
“The government will
have an army of leather-vested, jackbooted officials sniffing out tobacco smells
around the country...Little tin gods from the Department of Health will be going
around the country in hobnail
boots”.1
The tobacco industry organised a lobby group called
“New Zealanders for the Right to Decide”, fronted by former
national soccer coach John Adshead. According to a North and South
magazine article of March 1990, the group was actually run by a public
relations firm, Burston-Marstellar.2 This firm
had run a similar ploy in Canada, which was paid for by the tobacco industry. An
offshoot of their campaign in 1990 was the full page advertising from the
“Sports People for Freedom in Sport”, another front, run by
Andy Haden’s public relations
agency.3
The tobacco industry efforts weren’t off-the-cuff. As
early as 1981 or before, they were planning to oppose smokefree efforts, running
an international campaign “Operation Mayflower”.
The objectives in New Zealand, summarised by Ogilvy &
Mather in their report to the Tobacco Institute of New
Zealand,4(p.29) were to:
In the late
1980s the industry organised “Operation Leo”—a plan to counter
the Government’s smokefree plans.5 Within
this plan, there was also “Operation Bo-Beep” to develop the New
Zealanders for the Right to Decide and to form a smokers’ rights
group.6
What did the Smoke-free Environments Act
do?
The new law stopped print media advertising, restricted shop
advertising, phased out sports and event tobacco sponsorship, and created a
Health Sponsorship Council to provide smokefree sponsorship. It prohibited
smoking in buses, domestic aircraft, lifts, multi-person offices, and the public
section of any workplace.
But more importantly, along with the tobacco price rises of
1986–91, the publicity around the Act, and the impetus it gave to quit
smoking, saved thousands of lives. Thousands of New Zealanders now have parents
and grandparents alive and healthy, who would otherwise be sick or dead from
their smoking.7
Are the politics different now?
Smokefree indoor public places may now be
accepted,8 but there are a number of signs that
real change in ending the tobacco epidemic will continue to be delayed by
politicians. One example is the absence of substantive progress around smokefree
cars.
Prime Minister John Key has said a ‘National
Government’ wouldn’t be telling people they couldn’t smoke in
their own cars. His reasoning was that National is a party of ‘reasonable
choice’. He said that he wasn’t ‘opposed to banning smoking in
bars, because other New Zealanders are there and people work there’ and
that this issue would ‘distract the
parliament’.9
The implication is that ‘other’ New Zealanders
are not to be found in cars. Two years later, smokefree cars are still not in
the proposed new smokefree legislation as outlined in late 2010. Policymakers
appear to have little concern about the children who have no ‘reasonable
choice’ when they travel in cars with smokers, compared to their concern
for adult ‘rights’.10 This is
despite the survey evidence that indicates that over 95% of Kiwi smokers think
that smoking should not be allowed in cars with pre-school
children.11 It is also in contrast to a growing
number of North American and Australian jurisdictions that have banned smoking
in cars with children.12
What needs to be done
The Maori Affairs Select Committee (MASC) Inquiry report in
November provided much of the template for the future reduction of the tobacco
epidemic in this country.13 It provides a goal
(making New Zealand smokefree by 2025), a comprehensive programme of measures,
it recommends that an updated tobacco control strategy be developed, and it
addresses the issue of the structure of tobacco control management. It clearly
targets the tobacco industry.
Many of the MASC recommendations would be practical to
insert into the new Smoke-free Amendment
Bill.13 Health workers and concerned citizens
can all make submissions to the Health Select Committee suggesting these
insertions. But prompt action is needed since submissions close on 28 January
2011 – in only one week.
George Thomson, Nick Wilson
Department of Public Health University of Otago, Wellington References:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |