Page 3149 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (8.43): I will speak very briefly on the amendment proposed by Mr Moore. I am pleased to hear that the Government will support this amendment. The way Mr Berry was arguing earlier, it was difficult to know whether that was the Government's position. It was interesting to note Mr Stevenson's position. When we took the vote in principle on this Bill, Mr Stevenson was the only person who actually voted against the legislation. I would like to refer to a few of the comments that Mr De Domenico made, because I think that his comments with regard to this matter were very sensible. I perceived from the Government's position that it was inconsistent. The Government wanted to ban smoking totally in restaurants; but it did not really address pubs, clubs and taverns at all, and no target timeframe was identified for that process. Mr Moore's Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee actually put a timeframe on smoke-free areas being introduced into pubs, clubs and taverns. That timeframe is about 30 months, which, I think, is a reasonable timeframe within which those licensed premises can come to terms with this issue.
Ms Ellis mentioned the need for the Assembly to consider the immensity of social change. That is an issue to which we have all given close attention over the months that this debate has been going on. The committee certainly allowed for that process of social change in its consideration of the 30 months timeframe that it has allowed for pubs, clubs and taverns to come to terms with this issue. Indeed, the Government's approach to the whole issue of smoke-free enclosed public places seemed to be based on community attitudes and what the community will tolerate in terms of a total ban at particular times. I am afraid that I cannot quite marry that with the question of the health issue as it pertains to people who are exposed to those who smoke. Mrs Carnell mentioned, appropriately, that a harm minimisation approach is being taken to this issue. I totally agree with that. Harm is not restricted to restaurants; it is based on the quantity of smoke and the particular circumstances in which people are exposed to it.
Mr Moore, in his subsequent remarks, suggested that the legislation needed to address the areas most in need of being targeted. I do not think there is any question that those areas include pubs, clubs and taverns. As Mr Moore said earlier in his remarks, most smokers are to be found in that environment. They are not to be found chain-smoking in restaurants, as Mrs Carnell alluded to earlier. I have found it physically impossible to smoke and eat at the same time, and I am sure that that goes for a number of other people. Mr Berry talked about the significant issues for workers with regard to this legislation. I agree with him; there are significant issues for workers. But there are significant issues for all workers - not only workers in restaurants but workers in other places as well.
MR STEVENSON (8.46): I rise briefly, just to pick up the point that Ms Szuty quite rightly made, namely, that I was the only member that voted against the legislation in principle. As I mentioned at the time, that was because Mr Berry was going to ban smoking in restaurants totally. As that went against the survey results, I voted against the legislation, knowing full well that it was going to be put to a committee of inquiry. The committee looked at the same things as the majority of people in Canberra look at, to see what is a sensible situation. That is what the amendments before us tonight show.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .