Mr. Chairman, Dr. Nakajima, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is an honour to receive this WHO medal. And for it to be presented in Canada, a country which has led the way in so many non-smoking activities. "Tobacco or Health" medals are symbols of the priority which WHO has given to the tobacco epidemic and we should be grateful to WHO for ensuring that tobacco control has a high place in the health strategies of many countries. The only previous New Zealand medalist, was the Right Honourable Helen Clarke, who introduced our smoke-free environment's act in 1990. At the time I was unaware that nearly 90 years earlier in 1903, the New Zealand parliament had passed the Juvenile Smoking Suppression Act. Later to be incorporated into the Police Offenses Act. Canada was another country which early in the century legislated against juvenile smoking with it's act to restrain the use of tobacco in 1908. A New Zealand health worker and historian Sara Thompson, has written that these early laws were motivated by a philosophy of social sanitation, and were aimed against a delinquent behaviour by young boys.. Girls were rarely included in the debate, although the campaigns were led by strong women who were also active in the temperance movement and in winning the vote for women. And I'm glad to see women members so strongly represented on our panel today. We have come a long ways since then and not only has smoking become a health issue of the greatest importance, but also an environmental one.
The title of our legislation includes the words "Smoke-free Environments". A far more positive concept, than the wording juvenile smoking suppression of 1903. The act is unique in addressing in one statute, the provision of smoke-free environments, control of advertising and promotion. And the establishment of a health sponsorship council to replace previous tobacco industry sponsorship. The legislation has been well accepted by the New Zealand community, but it is premature to assess it's full impact. A number of amendments are currently before parliament, including raising the minimum age for the purchase of tobacco products from 16-18 years. To some interest, this was also debated in 1903, and that the tobacco interest of today has come out in favour, which raises some question as to it's likely efficacy. In a recent radio interview, an industry spokesman warmly endorsed the principle that young people should be of sufficient age and maturity to make sound judgments based on the health facts. When pressed to say what these facts were, he became increasingly uncomfortable and tried vainly to squirm out of the hole he had dug for himself. I cannot say whether our 1990 legislation has in itself reduced smoking. Undoubtedly it has changed smoking behaviour in the work-place and elsewhere and has further undermined the social acceptability of the habit.
Enforcement has suffered because of inadequate resources. And prosecutions have been fewer than following the 1903 Act. Tobacco consumption fell by 42% between 1984-1991, the fastest decline in any western country. The principle reason for this however was probably a huge tax increase in 1986, resulting in 53% rise in the price of cigarettes. Health education achieves it's best results when backed up by increased taxes on tobacco. What concerns us now is that since 1992, smoking prevalence has remained static at 27% for men and women. 38% of young people are smokers and half are all married. Including nearly two thirds of young married women. On a more optimistic note, Professor Jackson and his Oakland colleagues, are about to publish data from the WHO Monaco study showing that self-reported smoking in those age 35-64 years has fallen in men from 28.6% in 1982 to 16.9% in 1993. And in women from 24.5% to 14.8%. This 40% decline in smoking was the most significant change among various coronary risk factors.