Page 193 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He interjected when Mrs Carnell was talking about Australian standards on air quality and said, "Yes, but there is no air standard as far as cigarette smoking goes". Mr Berry, you are wrong; there is. You will find it in Australian Standard 1668.2 of 1991. I asked Mrs Carnell for a copy of it when I saw her amendments. In Appendix A of that, in table A1, you will find a reference to food and drink services. I am happy to make it available for you. About three-quarters of the way down the page it says, "For occupancies where smoking is not permitted 10 litres may be approved". It refers to an area where smoking is permitted and where smoking is not permitted, and it distinguishes between the two. So the reality is that some people have already thought about air standards.
There are two issues, I think, that fit under the category of population health in these areas. One is the notion of passive smoking, and what is our level of concern in terms of passive smoking - the sorts of issues that primarily have been discussed here; but there is another issue about active smoking. Where legislation, no matter what its final form, is implemented to prohibit or restrict tobacco smoking in certain enclosed public places, clearly the community is making it very clear that smoking is unacceptable, dirty, grotty, revolting behaviour. That is how I have considered it since 1972, over 22 years ago, when I started to ask people not to smoke in my car, and six months later when I asked them not to smoke in my house.
You have come onto the band wagon very late, I would say, Mr Berry; but we are delighted that you are here. I must say that I am delighted about how well you pursue this issue in the vast majority of cases. In the case of active smoking, it is a question of using community attitudes to reduce the number of people who are smoking. With this will come reduced morbidity and reduced mortality, which, of course, are significant issues not only in terms of public health but also financially. A reduction in morbidity and mortality will reduce our hospital fees and the amount we spend on fixing up people who choose to damage themselves in this way.
I would like to comment at this point on the reaction since Ms Szuty and I pointed out what we believe to be the appropriate way to deal with these issues that have been raised. Since that time we have had Dr Alan Shroot of ASH coming out and saying that it is an absolute sell-out to the tobacco industry; that Moore and Szuty have sold out to the tobacco industry.
Mr Berry: It is. You have sold out. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
MR MOORE: Mr Berry is saying exactly the same thing. All that reflects is his own zealotry and extremism. The implication of that is that in some way the tobacco industry has had some financial or other influence on us. Such statements about somebody who has been fighting this issue for much longer than you, a reformed smoker, are ridiculous and hardly enhance your cause.
What we really have here is a question of priorities. If you had your priorities set correctly, when you had the opportunity in 1991 you would have knocked off the Prime Minister's XI match when I moved for disallowance. You would not do it because your mate Bob Hawke happened to like the Prime Minister's XI match. You were not prepared to use it as an issue when you could have done a tremendous amount of good right across the country. What would have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .