Page 3313 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 12 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This was well before Liesel Scholem's victory in the New South Wales courts which signalled to workplaces that passive smoking exposure must be taken seriously, and it was well before the US Environmental Protection Agency named environmental tobacco smoke as a recognised carcinogen with no known safe level for human exposure. It is undeniable that, over the past few years, scientific opinion and legal opinion have strengthened and have moved in the same direction, that is, towards supporting the need to protect non-smokers from other people's smoke. There is no question that public opinion also has gathered strength and moved in the same direction.
It is the Government's responsibility to take initiatives where public health is concerned and also to take account of the views of the community in implementing these initiatives. It is for this reason that we have issued two discussion papers. One concerns proposed legislation for smoke-free enclosed public places. The other contains a draft code of practice for workplaces, under occupational health and safety legislation. The intention of the public health legislation is to extend protection to all members of the community by establishing non-smoking as normal practice in a range of enclosed public places. The proposals, as outlined in the discussion paper, have been developed following intensive research into similar legislation which has been in effect elsewhere for up to 20 years. The proposals also follow informal consultation with a wide range of community and business groups, nearly all of whom understand and welcome the idea of government action and the creation of a level playing field on this issue.
The legislative proposals provide for the fair, equitable and predictable introduction of non-smoking arrangements. Many of the places on the list of those which may go smoke-free first are already smoke-free as a result of management policies. The Government is confident that there is strong popular support for these policies. I might just interject there, Madam Speaker, in relation to a document that I tabled earlier - a petition which was organised by the Australian Hotels Association - and be critical of the association in relation to its involvement in that matter. The Hotels Association made no attempt to properly inform the petitioners of exactly what was going on.
Mr Cornwell: How do you know?
MR BERRY: You only have to read the top of the petition to see that. They said that there were going to be laws introduced - - -
Mr Cornwell: Not necessarily.
Mr Humphries: What does it say?
MR BERRY: We have circulated discussion papers, certainly, as a precursor to smoking in public places legislation. What the AHA failed to tell patrons of the establishments where they had the petition tucked away was that laws already are in place which protect people who serve behind the counters and who pick up glasses in order that they be provided with a safe workplace. The employers in those establishments are obliged to provide a safe working place for their workers, and the evidence demonstrates fairly clearly that in most cases they are not - in fact, in all cases where they allow smoking around their employees.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .