The Smoke free Environments Amendment Act (2003)
The Smoke free Environments Amendment Act (2003)
The commitment of the New Zealand government in promoting health care came under scrutiny in the early 2000s when many people complained about the smoking environment in the country. However, the government reacted swiftly assuring the people that they were ready to take care of the health of all its citizens. Most of the health policies since then emanate from government regulations. The smoke free amendment act of 2003 is a public policy initiative supported by most of the people, which ensured that the health of New Zealand citizens remained paramount (Ashton, 2005). The paper analyzes the smoke free amendment act of 2003 focusing on the problems addressed, recommended solutions, implementation and the challenges faced during its implementation.
The government discovered a number of problems that enhanced adoption of the smoke free amendment act. Firstly, smoking in public institutions like schools and hospitals disrupted activities in the institutions and distorted their image. This angered the public, which called on the government to come up with a policy to curb this situation. Furthermore, medical research revealed that over 20 % of the lung cancer cases came from third parties who did not smoke directly (Ashton & Tenbensel, 2012). This was overwhelming; hence, the government had to get a solution to curb the menace. The amendment acts also sort to limit the hazard of people smoking in places that could cause massive damage and accidents such as petrol stations and the oil industries.
Various solutions were recommended to solve this problem. However, the solutions were alternative amendments that the government would choose from and implement one. One of the options was to ban smoking in the country. However, the government sort this inapplicable because some of the foreigners were addicted smokers hence it would create a legal ambiguity. The modest option was to create a smoke free environment. This was possible through the establishment of smoking areas where all people would smoke. This eased the environmental pressure and soon, smoking in public would be a problem of the past. At the same time, strict tobacco control rules were recommended in order to eliminate the hazard (Signal & Durham, 2000). This included a directive to the tobacco companies to indicate on their packages information prohibiting smoking in public areas. This meant that any person violating the rule was going against a directive by two independent organs.
In the implementation and adoption of the smoke free amendment, research played a major role in all decisions. Through research, the government realized that the people were willing to cooperate in order to have a good and clean environment to carry out their duties. The willingness of the people to support the government speeded up the actualization process hence the smoke free amendment act a reality faster. Research also exposed the dangers posed to the country by lacking legal infrastructure to control smoking especially in sensitive areas like petrol stations (Howell, 2010). This exposed the government to the losses that it risked through absence of the necessary regulations. Furthermore, the values of people helped in the actualization of the smoke free amendment act in the country. The belief of the people that living in a smoke free environment helped conserve the environment boosted the efforts of the government. Furthermore, the moral ground of the people to keep the environment clean gave the researchers an easy time.
The government faced a number of issues and challenges in the implementation of the act. Firstly, the infrastructure to support the act lacked in the country totally. There were no areas build in New Zealand that would facilitate the implementation of a smoke free amendment act (Hoek et al, 2010). There were no smoking zones while people did not have enough education on the importance of smoking zones in the country. Implementation of the smoke free amendment act also faced the financial barriers in its adoption. Although the government was safeguarding the health of the citizens, the costs that came with the legislation were immense.
Initially, the government would build the smoking zones throughout the country in order to eliminate smoking in public. The government later concentrated on sensitizing people on the importance of using the smoking areas and the dangers of smoking in public. The government then employed personnel to monitor and ensure that people did not smoke in public. The authority overcame these challenges, and the amendment act passed. The government set up seminars and clinics where the people were sensitized on the need to use the smoking zones and the harmful effects of smoking. The seminars lowered smoking statistics by 17% (Signal & Durham, 2000). The government also set up a budget provision to deal with the whole process, which eliminated the huddles considerably.
The smoke free amendment act came up because of research and values that emphasized the harmful effects of public tobacco smoking. The stakeholders pressured the government to establish control regulations especially after cases of lung cancer increased tremendously. In the implementation, the government faced educational and financial challenges; however, the the act was successfully adopted.
References
Ashton, T. (2005). Change through continuity: A quiet revolution in primary health care in New Zealand. Australian Health Review, 29(4), 380-2. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231740769?accountid=45049
Ashton, T., & Tenbensel, T. (2012). Health reform in New Zealand: Short-term gain but long-term pain? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 12(5), 579-88. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/erp.12.58
Hoek, J., Wilson, N., Allen, M., Edwards, R., Thomson, G., & Li, J. (2010). Lessons from New Zealand’s introduction of pictorial health warnings on tobacco packaging. World Health Organization. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88(11), 861-6. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/763170260?accountid=45049
Howell, B. E. (2010). Paying for the hospital waiting list cull at the GP's surgery: The changing locus of financial risk-bearing in New Zealand’s primary health care sector. Rochester: doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.913664
Signal, L., & Durham, G. (2000). A case study of health goals in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 24(2), 192-197. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215710151?accountid=45049
