Page 200 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: Why have they been overlooked? There is no timeframe. You are not moving on that area at all at the moment. You are looking only at restaurants at this stage. Madam Speaker, the question has to be asked: Why this focus on that? Is it because it was easy to make a nice grandstand on that point, on that area of public health, and not tackle the really hard issues? I prefer to see an approach which sets out clearly to the community that this is a first step which will be followed up by legislation dealing with all enclosed public places within a definite specified and public period. That is what I look forward to as a result of the referral of this matter to a standing committee of this Assembly.
Mr Berry has attacked the motives of my colleagues, particularly Mrs Carnell, on this matter, in the media and here. We are in the pay, according to Mr Berry, of the tobacco companies; we speak tobacco-speak; we have been turned around; we have been bought off on the question of tobacco. Let me reciprocate by making some speculation about Mr Berry's motives in pursuing this issue. Mr Berry's position on tobacco, I suspect, is very much part of his personal re-election strategy. He does not care how unfair this regime might be to the industry it directly affects. He does not care whether at the end of the day a few jobs might be lost out of this procedure. He does not care what is said about him by people like the tobacco companies, because in some ways it is almost a good thing to have someone in the tobacco industry attack you. He is interested only in looking like a man who can be trusted on public health, a man who is zealous enough to knock down all obstacles in the path of getting this in place.
You might think in an election year that that is worth doing, at whatever cost it is to the community and to individuals. I do not take that view. I have a broader responsibility as a member of this place, to ensure that the decisions we make are responsible and sustainable. I want to see a long-term, viable plan to make smoking a thing of the past, and I do not think that Mr Berry's plans are going to do that in any way or form as they presently stand.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.13): Madam Speaker, Mr Humphries was quite correct when he said at one point in his speech that this Bill, if passed, would be a momentous and courageous decision for this Assembly. That is why I am pleased to be supporting Mr Berry's courageous and momentous landmark piece of legislation which will present a framework for progressively introducing anti-smoking areas in the ACT. Mr Humphries was also correct in saying that this Assembly has a good record on anti-smoking issues. We have introduced a number of measures, and that was done in a bipartisan manner. It is significant that some of the people who are now seeking to slow down this process, who are opposing the Bill or wanting to send it off to a committee, have been very keen in the past to be the great champions of anti-smoking. Mr Moore has been jumping on the issue of the cricket game.
Members interjected.
Mrs Grassby: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the last speaker was heard in reasonable silence. I would like to hear what this speaker has to say.
MADAM SPEAKER: Let us try one at a time for interjections.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .