Page 197 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What we are concerned about is the objectives of this legislation being pursued at such a high price and in such an unfair fashion that they are either undermined or unachievable and, indeed, at the end of the day lose public support. There is clearly an economic cost in outlawing all smoking in ACT restaurants. There is arguably an economic cost for every decision the Government takes, but let us focus on this question by itself for one minute. Let me illustrate the fact that there is an economic cost by reference to the Minister's own remarks. He has said, not just here but in many other places, that it is quite unfair - you would describe this as an unlevel playing field, I think - for some restaurants with certain high-powered air ventilation equipment to be allowed to accommodate smoking patrons. Why has he said that? Why is it unfair for some restaurants to have that and others not? The reason clearly is that he believes - I think there is some argument for this - that the smokers will patronise those establishments which allow them to smoke and that those without that equipment will be disadvantaged when it comes to patronage.
Mr Berry: Who said that?
MR HUMPHRIES: You have not said that, but by implication that must be what you are saying. There is no other logical reason for saying - - -
Mr Berry: Gary, we do not think the same way.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is pretty clear, and I am bloody glad of that. Madam Speaker, the reason that you would have to say that you are creating an unlevel playing field is that presumably smokers would move to other restaurants. That is the only logical reason for it. If there is another reason, Mr Berry can tell us what it is; but I do not think there is another reason. Clearly, smokers are going to move if they are forced out of restaurants which have no smoking. If they can go to other restaurants where there is smoking allowed, presumably they will go there. That seems logical to me.
This is a major contradiction in the Government's case, of course, because the Minister says very clearly in his presentation speech, which I have read, that the restaurant industry as a whole will not be disadvantaged by the passage of this legislation, that it will not lose patrons, that it will not suffer an economic loss; but he also admits, in making that assertion about an unlevel playing field, that smokers will try to escape those restrictions if they can. Is there a way for smokers to escape the restriction of a blanket ban on smoking in restaurants? I would argue that, yes, there is a clear way of escaping; there are a number of ways, in fact.
They are able to go to taverns, pubs and clubs in the ACT where they can still socialise and consume alcohol and perhaps small amounts of food, like chips and things, without being affected by this ban, at least in the short term. There is the provision in many places in the ACT - a short five-minute walk from here is ample evidence of that - of outdoor eating establishments. Alfresco eating is going to become extremely popular in circumstances where smoking in enclosed public eating places is banned. There is also the simple fact that today people can buy most foods they eat in restaurants in takeaway form and can consume them in their homes at perhaps somewhat less cost. It will result in considerable loss of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .