Welcome law will protect kids

We’ve all seen the public service TV adverts. The driver sitting in a parked car, drawing on a cigarette, exhaling, tendrils of smoke curling into the back seat, where a young child sits, inhaling who knows what.

Exactly how many chemicals are present in cigarette smoke seems to be difficult to establish precisely, but the estimates all sit in the thousands. What’s not in question is that it’s harmful, the damaging effects of secondhand smoke long established, and smoking is already banned in many public places, most not nearly as tightly enclosed as the interior of a vehicle.

According to Associate Health Minister Jenny Salesa, who announced on Sunday that smoking or vaping with people 18 or under in a vehicle, parked or moving, would be banned by the end of the year, the effect of education campaigns had slowed.

Perhaps that’s because the message hasn’t been as prominent as it was a couple of years ago, with the new fad of vaping drawing some focus. Out of sight, out of mind. Or maybe such messages simply run out of puff the longer they’ve been out there.

Either way, Salesa’s announcement is welcome, because it’s about protecting the health of children.

Children’s Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft delivered an unequivocal call to action three months ago, saying progress had stalled, four years after a 2000-signature petition calling for a ban was delivered to the health select committee and received strong cross-party support.

‘‘We seem to be beset by technicalities and possible objections by the police, who see it as ‘difficult to enforce’,’’ he told RNZ. ‘‘So we are in the position where we are ready to go, and no-one can give a good and compelling reason why we shouldn’t, but yet we’ve stalled.’’

Becroft is naturally pleased the legislation, an amendment to the Smoke-free Environments Act, is now in train, but his point about police objections is worth picking up. This legislation will, arguably, be difficult to put into action, in the same way as making it illegal to text or talk on a cellphone while driving. Police are unlikely to have the resources to actively enforce it.

It’s the kind of law that wouldn’t be expected to produce a slew of infringement notices, aside from police encountering it directly in the course of their normal duties, or perhaps during occasional operations targeting more serious offences, like drink-driving. And with the toughest penalty a $50 fine, it will probably be questioned how effective a deterrent it can be.

That’s not a reason for not introducing it. Even if police have limited opportunities to pull this particular piece of law out of the back pocket, they will still have it when they need it. It’s surely better for them to have the power to do something on the rare occasions it’s required, than to be powerless when they encounter a situation where harm to a child or young person is a clear possibility.

As for the inclusion of vaping in the legislation, that’s certainly welcome. While there is evidence it’s less damaging than cigarettes, vaping is still potentially harmful, but its sanitised image – including attractive vapour fragrances – has seen health authorities argue it’s more enticing to young people, and could prove to be their gateway to more harmful cigarettes.

It’s surely better for police to have the power to do something on the rare occasions it’s required, than to be powerless [in] a situation where harm to a child or young person is a clear possibility.