Page 259 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 12 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: I am not being churlish. Frankly, the Government is puffing itself up a bit about this matter. We have this press release: "Winfield Signs Come Down at Bruce proclaims the Minister for Sport". What he does not mention is that Winfield signs are also going up at Bruce, particularly on days when they are most effective, days when there are fully telecast matches on. Big A-frames are going in around the perimeter, telling people about Winfield cigarettes. That is happening on particular days. There are signs going up, not coming down.
Madam Speaker, the fact of life is that we have not a great deal to crow about here, as I said before in another context earlier today. I am referring to the Assembly, frankly, Madam Speaker. I am not saying that the Government has not achieved something here; it has. I would have been happier had they set out quite honestly, at the beginning, to indicate that we cannot achieve the world, but we are going to try to do something about tobacco advertising; we cannot seriously put at risk the televising of matches by the broadcasters, by Channel 9; we realise that we cannot achieve as much as that. The Deputy Chief Minister did not indicate that when he started; so we are going for something which will compromise the situation that exists at Bruce Stadium, and we will see how we go. Instead, we had far more promised and nothing like that delivered at the end of the day. I hope that we have a little bit more honesty in the way that this matter is approached in the future when the Government takes on other easy targets such as tobacco companies.
MR MOORE (4.51): The issue of exemptions from tobacco legislation was debated at length last year. At that time I indicated that, as far as I was concerned, there should be a tougher stance on exemptions to tobacco advertising and that exemptions under that legislation should be fewer. I welcome the statement by Mr Berry that the Government is taking a tougher line on this.
I find ironic, in many ways, the Liberal stance on tobacco advertising. It is interesting that staff of Liberal members in the previous Assembly are now very prominent in the tobacco lobby. I accept that they are not on the staff of members in this Assembly. Nevertheless, there seems to be a close relationship there in many ways.
Mr Humphries: Come on; that is a somewhat exaggerated statement.
MR MOORE: Allow me to accept the interjection, Madam Speaker, and say that there has been a close relationship, rather than reflecting on members who are currently in this Assembly, which I have no intention of doing. I am quite happy to correct that and to make sure that no imputation is intended on members. There are well-known members of the sporting community who are prepared to take on that sort of role in promoting the death drug that we deal with as far as tobacco is concerned, because that is exactly what this drug is.
It seems to me that one of the most important lessons to learn from our approach in dealing with tobacco is that a harm minimisation approach, rather than a prohibition approach, seems to be having some impact and some effect. I think that is a very important thing. What I would like to see, as I mentioned last year and would still like to see, is a specific time goal set for when we will see no more exemptions from the tobacco legislation.
Mr Berry: Ninety-five.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .