Page 4585 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It would seem quite simple to extend the Bill to cover that sort of concern. Again I say that if the Government had bothered to ask Canberra ASH what their concerns were or what they thought of this particular legislation they could have improved the Bill by including these sorts of things. I think this shows you how important it is to consult with relevant groups that spend all day or a large amount of their time concerned with these particular areas. We support the Bill, but the shortcomings that we see in it could have been overcome if the Government had bothered to ask anybody.
MR MOORE (9.40): There is some public debate over this issue following agreement between States and then the reaction of Mr Kennett.
Mr Berry: Not this one.
MR MOORE: The response of Mr Kennett in a similar area to this. Mr Berry corrects me that it was not this specific one. It was a similar issue to do with tobacco. I think I am correct in saying that this Bill is a result of discussions between States, and it is an important issue in terms of advertising. Interestingly enough, the first time the removal of tobacco advertising was suggested in parliamentary circles, that I am aware of, was in a report by a Senate standing committee that was under the chairmanship of the then Senator Peter Baume. They reported that this drug, tobacco, was the one that was doing the most damage in Australia. Their recommendation was for the removal of all advertising of tobacco. Having the opportunity to support legislation that provides for that is, I feel, an honour. I thank Mr Berry for giving us the opportunity to do so and for restricting even further the advertising and the association between tobacco smoking and sporting and social glamour and success.
I think it is important for Mr Berry, in removing that allowance of the 30-day period, to explain how he intends to handle the Prime Minister's XI match when it comes to Canberra at about this time next year. What does he intend to do and how does he intend to handle the exemption that has been granted? It has been granted in the last couple of years in order to allow that cricket match to go ahead, in spite of the fact that it is held with the support of the tobacco advertisers. We have seen the good intention, but if we were now to warn that there is not going to be an exemption it might provide a very strong statement from this community about tobacco advertising in association with sports. I would be very interested to see what Mr Berry's attitude is, now that we have time to stand back and think about it rather than deal with this issue in the short term, as would have been the case had we been dealing with the possible disallowance of that exemption. A response to that situation would be very helpful in the light of this piece of legislation, which I am supporting.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (9.44), in reply: I thank members for their support for this Bill. Mr Moore raised an unrelated issue about the Prime Minister's XI cricket match which is held here each year. I expect that it will be held here again next year. My position in relation to those exemptions has been on the basis of the national position which has been taken by the Federal Government in relation to tobacco advertising. I have taken a similar position with the New South Wales Rugby League. The New South Wales Rugby League tobacco sponsorship will expire, from my recollection, at some time in 1995. In relation to the Australian Cricket Board sponsorship, I think it will be ruled out by the Federal legislation at
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .