Page 188 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Members interjected.
Mr Kaine: How about keeping the noise down on the other side of the house, Madam Speaker?
MRS CARNELL: No, it is all right when they do it; but not when we do it. In the Minister's presentation speech he indicated that the ban, in the first instance, would relate to smoking in restaurants, dining areas and eating places. At the same time the Minister indicated that he is not intending to ban smoking in establishments where the predominant activity is the sale or drinking of alcohol. Where does that leave bistros in bars and service clubs, where the bar and the restaurant are in the same room? They represent a very large number of the establishments in this city. You have the bar, often in the middle of the room, and the restaurant to one side.
I will give some examples; say, Sails at Belconnen and La Grange at Manuka. They are good examples and they are on both sides of town. Both of those establishments have a split income. I think one of them told me - I will not say which one - that 60 per cent of their income comes from the bar and 40 per cent from the restaurant. That means that they are not in a position to close down their restaurant and stay viable. They would not have to close down their bar; but, if they want to allow smoking, under this legislation they will be faced with the proposition that they may have to close down their restaurant. If that is not the case, is Mr Berry suggesting that some restaurants will still be able to have smoking and some will not? Will the restaurant at La Grange or Sails still be able to have smoking, but a restaurant next-door, that does not happen to have a bar that is the predominant part of their business, not be able to have smoking? If this is not an unlevel playing field, I certainly do not know what is.
Take the situation of the premises I have spoken about. If they do become smoke free, that means that they are likely to lose trade from the smokers who want to have a drink and have a smoke at the same time. So what do those smokers do? They go across the road to the club where you can still smoke in the bar and possibly have a meal at the restaurant, or alternatively go next-door to the restaurant. That means that those establishments will lose trade. They will lose trade because the way that this legislation is put together is simply not fair to all establishments.
Mr Berry: Rubbish!
MRS CARNELL: I will be very interested, Mr Berry, to hear how you are going to overcome these sorts of problems, these sorts of inequities, in the way that the Bill has been put together. We also have somewhat of a difficulty with the Liquor Act of 1975, which states that all licensed premises are required to sell food of an adequate quality and variety. Does that mean that it is all right if you sell pies over the bar, but it is not all right if you put a restaurant in the same room as your bar? If you do that you are going to end up smoke free, but if you sell only some pies and chips you are okay. Again, that is not something that I would assume we would support. When the Drugs Committee was looking at the problem of alcohol and youth, one of the things that became very obvious was the need to encourage young people, when they go out drinking, to have a decent meal. Food does slow down the absorption of alcohol, so we should be encouraging people who are in bars to eat a proper meal rather than discouraging them from doing so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .