Page 3168 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is not new. There is no commonsense in Mr Berry's argument. That is not new. That is the very reason that Mr Berry is against these amendments, for heaven's sake. We have to learn time and time again that, if Mr Berry is against something because he believes that it is not commonsense, it must be spot on.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (9.52): Madam Speaker, I would just like to correct something that I said before. I quoted from a letter which I inadvertently said was from ASH to the Minister, but unfortunately it was actually from the Minister to ASH. In it the Minister said that certain standards of ventilation, air-conditioning and exposure to airborne contaminants may form part of an overall approach to reducing workplace contaminants. It was the Minister who said that these ventilation systems may do that, not ASH.
MS SZUTY (9.53): I will speak very briefly, because I think other speakers have basically covered the major points of the debate. I think this issue is actually the major point of the debate, as several speakers, including Mr Moore, have already said. I believe that the structure which the committee which looked at this issue ultimately recommended was not one that Mr Moore would have foreseen in the initial stages. In fact, I do not believe that this issue has been an easy one for Mr Moore to come to terms with at all. I believe that Mr Moore is not in favour of cigarette smoke around his person. He has indicated to this Assembly that he has informed people who visit his home and who travel in his car that he would prefer it if they did not smoke. He has done that for something like 20 years now. That is a long period of time.
Most of the debate has centred on Australian Standard 1668.2 - the ventilation standard which has been talked about by a number of speakers in this Assembly today. My review of the evidence indicates that that standard is disputed. That is the way that I would prefer to refer to it. A number of bodies have commented that they do not believe that the ventilation standard is adequate. A number of other very eminent people believe that it is. The ventilation standard is a standard. It may not be the best standard, but it is a standard which I believe can be referred to on this issue.
Mr Moore: It is one that will change.
MS SZUTY: Mr Moore has just interjected that he believes that it is a standard that will change. That was the very point that I was going to make next. Australian standards, I believe, are there to be reviewed. This standard will be reviewed, if not in the long term then certainly in the short term. I believe that this debate has, in fact, brought forward a review of that Australian standard on ventilation.
I support Mr Moore's amendments at this stage of the debate. However, I indicate to the Assembly that, if it can be shown categorically to me at some stage in the future that that Australian ventilation standard is not satisfactory as a measure with regard to environmental tobacco smoke, then I will reconsider my position. I take on board the comment that Mr Moore made earlier that no sound epidemiological study to date provides categorical evidence in relation to the damage of environmental tobacco smoke. I think that is an important point.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .