Page 4692 - Week 15 - Thursday, 16 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Indeed, this allegation surfaced again in the local press last month, specifically with reference to the Beverly Hills Restaurant Association's claim of major losses resulting from the introduction of a law prohibiting smoking in restaurants. The incident is worthy of comment because, when the dust had settled, two facts became very clear. The tobacco industry had arranged a consultant to set up the Beverly Hills Restaurant Association to fight the law. More importantly, when sales tax receipts were examined at a later date, there was no change in the trend of restaurant sales during the period the 100 per cent smoke-free environment law was in place. I can only assume that the association was mistaken in its claims. I have yet to be presented with any solid evidence of economic disaster resulting from this or any other smoke-free law.
I have been provided with claims which predict disaster based on the perceptions and predictions of business owners. I have also been provided with hard evidence of sales figures and trends which show that smoke-free laws have an overall neutral economic effect and may even present an advantage to some businesses. Over the years measures to protect and preserve public health may not have been welcomed from a business standpoint. For example, some people in the liquor industry have said that some businesses have never recovered from the drop in sales as a result of random breath testing. However, I do not think any sensible business owner would argue that profit should take priority over protecting lives.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to lay two other myths to rest - that ventilation will fix the problem and that we are denying freedom of choice. It is true that a high standard of ventilation and air-conditioning can reduce the problem, but it will not eliminate it. Even rigorous standards still leave people exposed to carcinogens, sometimes over 200 times the acceptable level. I would also be reluctant for ACT businesses to have to invest in expensive air-conditioning and then to run it at a high rate in a futile attempt to remove the many small particles which comprise tobacco smoke. The bottom line is that while people are smoking in an enclosed area the air will still have poisonous gases and carcinogens, and the energy bill goes through the roof. This is all unnecessary.
Mrs Carnell: There goes the casino.
MR BERRY: No, it does not mean that, Mrs Carnell, so do not interject. Do not interject untruthfully. You just cannot say those sorts of things. You have to wait until the end of the speech.
Mr De Domenico: I think you should withdraw that.
MR BERRY: I withdraw that. Do not interject without the full facts behind your interjection, and you will get them if you wait and listen to the speech. All the experience in Australian and overseas workplaces and public places points to this fact: It is relatively simple to introduce smoke-free environments which people, including smokers, accept and respect.
Secondly, there is the question of free choice. Madam Speaker, a person who smokes has the freedom of choice to smoke. A person who chooses not to smoke can hold his or her breath for only so long in the presence of smoke. As Dr Koop, the then US surgeon-general, said when issuing his 1986 report on involuntary smoking, "Your right to smoke stops where my nose begins".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .