1

Protecting children or preserving smoker ‘privacy’? Policymaker attitudes to smokefree car laws June 2009

George Thomson,George Thomson,

Sheena Hudson

Department of Public Health, Department of Public Health,

University of Otago, WellingtonUniversity of Otago, Wellington

2

Acknowledgments

Kiri Parata, Linda Kiri Parata, Linda Tasi-Mulitalo, Tolotea Tasi-Mulitalo, Tolotea Lanumata Lanumata (interviewing and (interviewing and ideas)ideas)

Richard Edwards, Richard Edwards, Nick Wilson (ideas) Nick Wilson (ideas)

Health Research Health Research Council for fundingCouncil for funding

3

Introduction Dangers of smoking in cars – Dangers of smoking in cars –

similar/higher fine particulate levels similar/higher fine particulate levels compared to in smoky barscompared to in smoky bars

At least 11 US/Oz/Canada state/provinces At least 11 US/Oz/Canada state/provinces that ban smoking in private vehicles that ban smoking in private vehicles containing kidscontaining kids

Social marketing campaigns for Social marketing campaigns for smokefree cars: Canada, NZ, smokefree cars: Canada, NZ, NSW, Western AustraliaNSW, Western Australia

4

Need for and support for intervention

Exposure to SHS in carsExposure to SHS in cars

27% 27% of NZ Year 10 studentsof NZ Year 10 students exposed in the last exposed in the last seven days (43% seven days (43% MāMāori, 39% Pacific, 37% in ori, 39% Pacific, 37% in low decile schoolslow decile schools (McDuff 2006)(McDuff 2006)

NZ support for banning smoking in cars NZ support for banning smoking in cars with children under 14with children under 14

Unpublished HSC survey 2008 – 91% (82% Unpublished HSC survey 2008 – 91% (82% smokers)smokers)

5

Aim Aim

To investigate the views of NZ To investigate the views of NZ policymakers, on smoking around children policymakers, on smoking around children

MethodMethod Qualitative case study – 59 interviews in Qualitative case study – 59 interviews in

2008-9, plus documents2008-9, plus documents

‘‘Policymaker’ – defined as MPs, DHB Policymaker’ – defined as MPs, DHB board members, senior government and board members, senior government and NGO officialsNGO officials

16 Maori, 18 Pacific interviewees16 Maori, 18 Pacific interviewees

6

Results

For both politicians and officials, and For both politicians and officials, and across ideologies and ethnicities:across ideologies and ethnicities:

Strong themes of:Strong themes of: the vulnerability of children (& no choice) the vulnerability of children (& no choice) the need for child protection from SHSthe need for child protection from SHS

Very mixed reactions to smokefree car lawsVery mixed reactions to smokefree car laws

7

Vulnerability

‘‘Children ... often don’t even have enough Children ... often don’t even have enough information, or have not been encouraged to information, or have not been encouraged to think that they might have a choice, and can’t think that they might have a choice, and can’t influence the behaviour of people around them.’ influence the behaviour of people around them.’

‘‘Children don’t have the choice. … if adults Children don’t have the choice. … if adults decide to smoke, that’s the ultimatum. … decide to smoke, that’s the ultimatum. … children will just have to inhalechildren will just have to inhale’ ’

8

Child rights

‘‘Clearly adults have a right to smoke. Clearly adults have a right to smoke. But I don’t think they have a right to But I don’t think they have a right to impact on the health of [others].impact on the health of [others].’ ’

‘‘Children’s rights actually come before Children’s rights actually come before adults rights.adults rights.’ ’

‘‘[Smokers][Smokers] shouldn’t have the right to shouldn’t have the right to kill kids who don’t have a say.kill kids who don’t have a say.’ ’

9

Current government view

‘ ‘Banning smoking in cars …. that’s Banning smoking in cars …. that’s not gonna be happening, because not gonna be happening, because it will take years, it will distract it will take years, it will distract the parliament and in the end you the parliament and in the end you know we're a party of reasonable know we're a party of reasonable choice.choice.

I'm not opposed to banning I'm not opposed to banning smoking in bars, because other smoking in bars, because other New Zealanders are there and New Zealanders are there and people work there. people work there.

But if you want to smoke in your But if you want to smoke in your own car, don’t be looking for a own car, don’t be looking for a National government to pass a law National government to pass a law to tell you can’t do it in the next to tell you can’t do it in the next three yearsthree years.’ .’ John Key, John Key, December 2008December 2008

10

Reasons given for not supporting regulating smoking in cars

Lack of public acceptance for Lack of public acceptance for interventionsinterventions

Need for police timeNeed for police time

Perception of cars as ‘private’Perception of cars as ‘private’

Need for ‘choice’ Need for ‘choice’

Perceived political difficultiesPerceived political difficulties

11

Perceived political difficulties

Expected reaction of ‘too nanny state’,Expected reaction of ‘too nanny state’,

Fear of a ‘section 59’ type ‘backlash’Fear of a ‘section 59’ type ‘backlash’

‘ ‘As we’ve seen with the section fifty-As we’ve seen with the section fifty-nine legislation, one step too far into nine legislation, one step too far into family homes creates really outrageous family homes creates really outrageous

backlash.’ backlash.’

12

Assumptions

Assumption by some interviewees that cars Assumption by some interviewees that cars were an area for personal (smoker) choice. were an area for personal (smoker) choice. Eg:Eg:

‘‘That gets into that area of legislating for That gets into that area of legislating for people’s personal lives.’ people’s personal lives.’

‘‘Their car is their own property, their house Their car is their own property, their house is their own property. If they want to smoke is their own property. If they want to smoke in those things it’s up to the individual.in those things it’s up to the individual.’’

13

Perceived difficulties

‘‘Legislation isn’t always the right tool to do Legislation isn’t always the right tool to do the job, and when you have legislation, its the job, and when you have legislation, its how do you actually enforce it?’how do you actually enforce it?’

‘‘I’m happy for police time to be used on I’m happy for police time to be used on policing seatbelts. I’m less happy for police policing seatbelts. I’m less happy for police time to be used on policing smoking.’ time to be used on policing smoking.’

14

Smokefree car law supporters

‘‘Definitely cars…I think it is the absolute Definitely cars…I think it is the absolute number one priority at this point. … if you number one priority at this point. … if you take a risk approach, cars feature highly take a risk approach, cars feature highly because they’re a contained environment.’ because they’re a contained environment.’

‘ ‘I would probably support legislation. It I would probably support legislation. It isn’t always the best tool, but…’ isn’t always the best tool, but…’

15

Arguments generally missingArguments generally missing

Smokefree car laws elsewhere demonstrated Smokefree car laws elsewhere demonstrated to be feasible, practicalto be feasible, practical

Smoker and public support for lawSmoker and public support for law

International treaty obligation (International treaty obligation (Convention Convention on Rights of the Childon Rights of the Child))

Social marketing may not protect the most-Social marketing may not protect the most-in-needin-need

16

MP Hone Harawira: on smokefree car laws

‘ ‘I can hear all those smokers shouting out already: I can hear all those smokers shouting out already: ““How can they? This is my car; I can smoke in it if How can they? This is my car; I can smoke in it if I want to!I want to!” ”

Well, remember when the bikies kicked up a fuss Well, remember when the bikies kicked up a fuss about wearing helmets? Now they all wear them about wearing helmets? Now they all wear them and nobody blinks an eye. and nobody blinks an eye.

Remember what a fuss there was about us having Remember what a fuss there was about us having to wear seatbelts? Now the first thing we do when to wear seatbelts? Now the first thing we do when we get into a car is put one on. we get into a car is put one on.

And remember how we thought that kids' car seats And remember how we thought that kids' car seats were dumb? Now every parent’s car has one. were dumb? Now every parent’s car has one.

Sometimes we have to put personal choice aside for Sometimes we have to put personal choice aside for the greater good.the greater good.’ (Harawira 2006)’ (Harawira 2006)

17

Advocacy and policy implications

Concern re children can Concern re children can potentially potentially drive drive policy – policy – ifif intervention is framed as child intervention is framed as child protectionprotection

Counter-framing of ‘privacy’ needed – eg: Counter-framing of ‘privacy’ needed – eg: ‘privacy’ cannot be used to defend ‘‘privacy’ cannot be used to defend ‘the right to kill the right to kill kids who don’t have a saykids who don’t have a say..’’

Insufficient exposure of policy community Insufficient exposure of policy community to public support, and to overseas to public support, and to overseas smokefree car lawssmokefree car laws

18

Conclusion Smokefree car law for children barely on policy Smokefree car law for children barely on policy

agendaagenda

Challenge: Laws to protect adults in carsChallenge: Laws to protect adults in cars

19

Further informationFurther information

Thomson G, Wilson N. Public attitudes to laws for smokefree Thomson G, Wilson N. Public attitudes to laws for smokefree private vehicles: A brief review. private vehicles: A brief review. Tob ControlTob Control. 2008:Online . 2008:Online publication, December 2008.publication, December 2008.

george.thomson@otago.ac.nzgeorge.thomson@otago.ac.nz