Page 1755 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like, firstly, to go back to some of the comments made by the Minister for Health, which were all focused on the press release of the AMA. I saw it at about 10 o'clock yesterday morning and, having read it, I was delighted. Its headline reads, "AMA Urges Tough Stand on Smoking". Our committee has taken a much tougher stand on smoking than did the original legislation, so I was very pleased at that approach. This morning, having spoken to the media adviser to Dr Nelson, I feel quite comfortable about the AMA reading our report and about their likely response to it. We have taken a very sensible stance and, thanks to the willingness of Mr Lamont to provide us with a draft copy - it still is a draft copy - of the OH and S code of practice, I feel even more comfortable that we will have covered everything. It is that issue which more than anything demonstrates the inconsistent approach taken by Mr Berry.
We entitled this report Clearing the Air, and there is no doubt that that is its intention. Unfortunately, it would appear, with the intransigent attitude of somebody like Mr Berry, that we are not going to clear the political air; but I believe that that is just politicking. A really sensible approach to this would indicate that, with the occupational health and safety standards, we will be able to protect people in workplaces. Mr Berry stood up here only a few minutes ago and said, "Yes, we did take care of taverns and hotels and places like that because we are putting in place occupational health and safety standards and we are going to deal with it like that". Is there any reason why those standards will not apply to restaurants? None at all. So his approach is entirely inconsistent. Inasmuch as that will be a successful move for taverns, casinos and so forth, it will also provide a successful approach to restaurants, obviously.
Having read that report quite late in the deliberations of the committee, I felt even more comfortable that the occupational health and safety standards would also assist in developing community attitudes and a population and health approach. I find some irony in Mr Berry saying that I know nothing about a population and health approach. I have spent the last three years in postgraduate study on that very subject while he has been doing a very positive job on an issue like this. From his perspective, it probably appeared that the legislation would be adequate as a first step. We need to go much further, and that is what this legislation does.
When the AMA urges me and the members of the committee to take up this legislation, which we all passed in principle, and go with it, I feel very comfortable that I have gone even further than the AMA was recommending; but I have not proceeded with a simplistic approach. Mr Berry has suggested that we have been gutless and ignored health submissions, that it will be roundly condemned by all and that it will be an encouragement to smoke. These are the phrases that come from a reformed smoker. Mr Berry is a reformed smoker. I have never smoked. I would not have purchased two or three packets of cigarettes in my whole life.
Mr Lamont: That is cigarettes.
MR MOORE: To answer the interjection from Mr Lamont, I reiterate my statement. I have never been a smoker. The other point raised in the dissenting report and in Mr Berry's speech is that standard 1668 is not appropriate. Clearly it is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .