Page 3144 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
industry itself would have been reasonably relaxed about - save for the Australian Hotels Association, which echoes the views of the tobacco companies. What we had to understand at the same time was that, in our culture, we had a couple of hundred years of tobacco consumption behind us, particularly in licensed premises.
It is very interesting that in the course of the debate we have just heard from Mr Moore and the Leader of the Opposition, and not once did they mention workers in the industry. They chose to ignore the significant steps that have been taken by the Government, with its code of practice, to make sure that workplaces are safer. In their speeches here tonight they also chose to ignore the fact that that code of practice in the workplace has started to have effect. It is designed to affect not only hotels and clubs but all workplaces throughout the ACT. So it embraces all workplaces, not just a selected few.
That was a very definite step by the Government to look after the interests of workers. We have fought about occupational health and safety in this place before. We have had our Liberal conservative opponents opposite opposing moves to strengthen workplace safety arrangements. But it is notable that neither Mr Moore nor the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to recognise that most important step that has been taken by the Government out there in the workplace. That is ongoing. As far as this particular amendment is concerned, it will be of little consequence, because the occupational health and safety legislation will be ongoing in its effect in the workplace, and so it ought to be; but it ought to be in an environment where workers have some control over their future.
It also ought to be a gradual process because of the long-term impact of tobacco consumption in places like pubs and clubs. It is something that has to be worked out gradually with the industry. That is how the package was developed to make sure that the entertainment industry was with us in relation to workplace safety and that we would be able to implement a level playing field for the restaurant industry. There was no doubt that that was going to occur. But politics entered into it. Mrs Carnell, the most prominent health worker here in the ACT, could not stand the fact that the Labor Party was on the front foot, making an impact on this issue. So she had to manipulate it a bit to try to take a little bit of the gloss off it. Mr Moore, similarly, went along with the Liberals. Who knows why? You could ask all those sorts of questions. In this place the issue of whether Mr Moore was being looked after by the tobacco companies was raised. I do not think that the tobacco companies were looking after Mr Moore. I think that Mr Moore was just looking after his politics and trying to create a new place that was different from that of the Australian Labor Party.
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: We have constant carping from this member, who is imputing improper motives. He is constantly saying that I am acting on behalf of the tobacco companies, and I think that he should be asked to withdraw that.
MR BERRY: I say again that the only people who are going to be happy out of this are the tobacco companies.
Mrs Carnell: And the restaurateurs and the clubs.
Mr De Domenico: And the majority of the members of this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .