Page 773 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to ban smoking in outdoor areas. It specifically did not address that question. That is why we are debating this issue today.
I want to refer quickly to the heart foundation’s survey. The heart foundation surveyed around 300 people: 80 per cent of those people were non-smokers and 20 per cent of them were smokers. Not surprisingly, it found that 80 per cent of the people supported a ban on smoking outdoors. That is not particularly surprising, Mr Speaker, if you are a non-smoker. But the issue at hand is: how do you manage the interface between smoking which is not indoors, which is not affecting areas indoors which are smoke free but which are not outdoors either, such as a veranda or a pergola? How do you manage that? How do you define that? That is what the government is seeking to do through its regulations.
Dr Foskey made a point about workers’ health. The government takes workers’ health, particularly in the workplace, extremely seriously. The smoke-free public places legislation does not replace or supersede an employer’s occupational health and safety obligations. Any employers who allows smoking to occur in a non-enclosed area will need to consider very carefully how their obligations for employee health will be met. Proprietors of exempt premises are advised that they still need to consider their statutory and common law obligations, including obligations under relevant occupational health and safety legislation.
The government has a longstanding commitment to a comprehensive tobacco control strategy and I am sure that, following my comments today, it could not be suggested otherwise. We are also proud to have played a national leadership role with a number of our legislative measures. The definition of “enclosed” looks like being no exception. It is perhaps for that reason that it has attracted a lot of attention from national bodies as well as local organisations. In less than two years, people will be able to go anywhere in Canberra and enjoy a meal, a drink with friends or a visit to a club without having to breath other people’s tobacco smoke. I think that most people would consider that to be a major public health advance.
I would like to conclude by addressing Dr Foskey’s assertion that we are somehow in league with the clubs on this issue and we are providing some sort of sop to the clubs. If that were the case, Mr Speaker, the government would not have brought in a complete ban in all enclosed areas. We know that the club industry asserted that there would be a significant reduction in gaming revenue and patronage as a result of these measures, but we have done it anyway, and we disagree with the clubs’ assertion as to the extent of any downturn, both in the short and the medium term, of gaming machine revenue.
Mr Speaker, the government cannot support the motion as moved by Dr Foskey today. I have circulated an amendment. I would now like to move the amendment circulated in my name to Dr Foskey’s motion. I move:
Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) further recognises that:
(a) the ACT will become the third jurisdiction in Australia to implement a complete prohibition on smoking in all indoor areas when the Smoking
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .