Page 1751 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have seen a massive campaign against the Government's move on this. It is fairly clear that certain industries are prepared to see the ACT as the test case for strong action on smoking. We, too, are happy to see the ACT as the test case, as is the Federal AMA, and members who think that what the committee suggests is some great improvement - indeed, I heard the words "a strengthening of the legislation" - should not expect to hear a lot more from me on this; they should expect to hear a lot more from the Federal AMA and some of the outstanding authorities on public health in Australia, giving you advice in the hope that you might, in an impartial, non-partisan political way, listen.
I have a horrible feeling, Madam Speaker, that the obsession members opposite have with Mr Berry is somehow clouding the issue here. Mrs Carnell in the past has taken a stance on public health issues that has generally been seen as progressive, as ours has been - a stance that has been supported by people like the AMA and others. I fear that, in their blinkered obsession that anything Mr Berry does is wrong, they are determined to find that Mr Berry's Bill is wrong. Do not accept my view that Mr Berry's Bill, which is now my Bill, is right; accept the views of Dr Brendan Nelson. The whole Assembly now needs to back this sensible, practical and crucial public health legislation.
Motion (by Mr Moore) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent the conclusion of the consideration of this report.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.11): Madam Speaker, I want to contribute briefly to this debate. I have not read the report in detail, obviously; but it is quite clear that the report is a significant attempt, at the very least, to deal with the extremely complex and difficult issues that this Bill has given rise to. I think Mr Berry, and to some extent Mr Connolly, have been rash to dismiss the work that has gone into the report. You would think from what they have said that the report was some sort of half-baked compromise which will produce no discernible change in our law in the ACT.
I think, with respect, that is quite wrong. What the Bill proposes would be considered extremely radical in any other context in Australia. The report recommends that within 30 months of its enactment the provisions of the Bill requiring minimum non-smoking areas be extended to bars, taverns, hotels, licensed clubs, the Canberra casino and similar places where the primary business is other than the sale of food to be consumed on the premises, and to separately enclosed areas of hotels, restaurants, clubs and similar premises; and an immediate application of the Bill to enclosed shopping malls; schools and educational facilities; health care facilities; retail shops and businesses; taxis, buses, and all forms of public transport; indoor sports and recreational facilities; exhibitions, displays and meeting areas; facilities used for exhibiting motion pictures, stage, drama, lecture, musical recital and other performances; parts of private residences when used for registered commercial child-care; indoor service queues, counters, waiting areas, foyers, hallways, rest rooms and toilets; lobbies, hallways, stairs, lifts, dining areas, et cetera.
It is hardly a piece of conservative law-making, hardly a case of "Let us keep the status quo". This is an extremely significant step. We are going further than any other law-makers in this country have attempted to go. That seems to me to be the case. I would like to have the Minister point out to me some jurisdiction - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .