Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 4341 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

to cater for smokers would appear to have an unfair economic advantage and unfairly damage the health of their employees.

So the next question is one of timeframes. I understand the government has explained it has not yet completed its consultations and a regulatory impact statement that would, if it had the choice, inform its view on how and when the ban would be introduced. But given that the Assembly has indicated it was likely to proceed with the bill today, the minister has felt compelled to introduce an amendment that would result in a ban at the earliest possible date when the existing exemptions expire in three years.

I listened to the argument from the minister. I must say that that argument is slightly curious because we seem to be being told-I do not want to misrepresent the Minister; obviously he is able to clarify his position if I have misunderstood-that, firstly, he supports the fact that we must have smoke-free workplaces; secondly, it must happen as quickly as possible; thirdly, he is undertaking a process which he says requires that we therefore do not support Mrs Cross's legislation that is before us today; but, fourthly, he would have an earlier timeframe if we supported the legislation.

The logical response to that is we have agreement that we want to ban smoking in workplaces and we all want it to happen as quickly as possible. The minister is undertaking a process which will apparently help inform how the phasing out or the banning should occur. He apparently is saying, if I have understood correctly, that he may be able to bring this ban into place earlier than Mrs Cross's current legislation provides for.

Mrs Cross: By one month.

MS TUCKER: No, December 2006. But I thought Mr Corbell was also saying he may be even able to do it earlier, depending on the results of the consultation or the RIS. If my understanding is correct that that is the case, there is absolutely no reason that the minister cannot come back to this place if he wants to and put up a proposal to bring the ban back even more.

Mr Corbell: No, you misunderstand.

MS TUCKER: I have misunderstood. Okay, the minister can clear that up. So what we seem to have arrived at today is that we now have December 2006, which is earlier than we thought we would get. Exemptions were given out yesterday. In a practical sense, I really do not understand why the minister would have done that if he has had the understanding for so long that in fact we have to phase-out smoking.

Mr Corbell: I've got no choice Kerrie. The existing legislation requires it.

MS TUCKER: The minister says he has no choice. There is a three-year timeframe, as I understand it, and that means December is the time. So that is what we are achieving today. This is what the minister wants and it is what we all want, so I do not know what the problem is, except it appears to be potentially an ownership issue, and that is unfortunate.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .