Page 3172 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (10.08): Madam Speaker, I will respond very briefly to the issues that Mr Lamont has raised. I listened to Mr Berry when he quoted the study on exposure to carcinogens that people experience when they are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, but ultimately we do not know what the effects are. I do not think any epidemiological studies have been done which come to any sort of conclusive position on that particular matter.
As regards reconsidering my vote, if I were going to change my vote on any particular issue I would reconsider the issue as it was presented to me at the time. As far as I am concerned, those two things go together. If I am going to change my vote, then I am obviously going to reconsider the issue at the time. That, to me, is self-evident. I made my decision on Mr Moore's amendments on the basis of the recommendations that the Committee on Conservation, Heritage and Environment made on the evidence which was presented to the members of that committee. I have no difficulty with relying on that evidence.
Obviously, if the Assembly revisits the issue, it will be the Assembly which will be voting again on the issue and not only I. It would be up to every member of this Assembly to reconsider the issue. As far as the timeframe for any reconsideration of the issue goes, I take the point that Mr Kaine made in an interjection in response to Mr Lamont's remarks. Already Australian Standard 1668.2 could be under reconsideration in the light of the decisions that this Assembly is making. As far as the industry's needs and the industry's wish for certainty in the future are concerned, obviously any decisions that this Assembly makes are certain for a period of time until they are retested. There have been many occasions when issues have come before this Assembly to be reconsidered by the Assembly. In fact, the move-on powers are one such instance which comes to mind.
MR MOORE (10.10): Madam Speaker, a number of speakers, in particular the Minister and Mr Berry, have said that the crux of this matter is Australian Standard 1668.2. Madam Speaker, that is not how I presented my arguments, nor is it how the committee presented its argument. The crux of this matter is harm minimisation. It is developing a policy which encourages people not to smoke. It is developing a policy which protects some people from the harmful impact of cigarette smoke from others.
In attempting to knock off the argument about Australian Standard 1668.2, Mr Berry quoted a James Repace study which found that under Australian Standard 1668.2 there could be 226 times the safe level of carcinogens. This is an American study. An Australian standard is an Australian standard. Madam Speaker, the two are different. I presume that what Mr Berry was talking about was 226 times the level set down in the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 62 - ASHRAE Standard 62. I presume that that is what the James Repace study was based on. Some extrapolation could be drawn from that standard because the Australian standard, as was identified in our committee report, took as its starting point ASHRAE Standard 62. But to say that you can just draw directly from that is ridiculous.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .