Page 225 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to the implication by Mr Connolly earlier in the debate that members of this chamber considered their position on the basis of the Australian Hotels Association TV campaign. I would like to say to Assembly members that I had not even seen such advertisements before I came to my position on this legislation. I certainly resent the implication that my decision would be based on an advertising campaign that the Australian Hotels Association might have run on TV.
MR STEVENSON (5.41): It has been mentioned that the public may not be fully aware of the issue. That is always a situation that may occur. Of course, it is the responsibility of this Assembly, of this Government, to make sure that people are aware of all aspects of the issue - not just one side, which is all too often the case. I think many times members forget that they should present the full evidence, not just evidence that favours the particular viewpoints that they promote or support. That is something that we should keep in mind in future. I think a lot of people feel that there should be education before legislation; in other words, see what can be done by gaining agreement rather than by using a regulatory approach.
On the question of referring the Bill to a committee, I understand that my vote will probably make the difference. If I do not vote to refer the Bill to a committee, it will be passed. From that point of view, I will vote to refer it to a committee. I see some benefit in some of the points that Ms Szuty mentioned. However, speaking on behalf of a majority of Canberrans, I feel that the Bill should be defeated and that we should start again.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (5.43): I have to say that Ms Szuty's effort was one of her most feeble in relation to the public consultation issue.
Mr De Domenico: But that is what you say every time she disagrees with you.
MR BERRY: No. It was a feeble attempt on the issue of consultation. She referred to an advertisement in the paper this year, but Ms Szuty knows that it was an election commitment by Labor at the last election to ban smoking in enclosed public places. Such a ban has been the subject of much public interest by way of media comment on the issue over the last couple of years. There have been major articles in the Canberra Times, in particular in February 1993, indicating the Government's intention to commence action. There has also been a lot of activity in industry about the issue. Active consultation commenced from that date with meetings between me and various peak industry groups, including the Restaurant and Catering Association, the Australian Hotels Association, the shopping centre owners, the Licensed Clubs Association, tourism groups and peak business groups.
On 6 October 1993 the ACT Government released a discussion paper which elicited over 100 responses, many representing major groups within the community. There was overwhelming support for smoke-free environments, with submissions running over five to one in favour. The Smoke-free Areas (Enclosed Public Places) Bill was introduced into the Assembly in December 1993 and has continued community debate. There was no interest from any of you until this Bill was due on the notice paper. Where were you?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .