Page 201 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, I recall that last year, around January, Mr Berry had a well-earned break for a week or two and I happened to be acting as Health Minister. Mrs Carnell was out there putting out press releases, demanding that we take firm action to protect people from passive smoking in the casino; saying that it was outrageous that people were smoking in the casino and we had to take some strong public health measures. Mrs Carnell has been strong on this, and Mr Humphries has been strong on this; but when push comes to shove, Madam Speaker, when vast sums of money flow into this Territory to run glossy television advertising campaigns, political leadership and backbone evaporate on the other side and they will not stand up and support this "courageous and momentous legislation", to quote Mr Humphries. So they have to justify a retreat.

We have two propositions advanced by the Opposition to justify the retreat. The first, and this was the strongest point, is that it is a blank cheque. Mrs Carnell, in her first point of attack, says, "This is outrageous because we are allowing Mr Berry, the Minister, to implement this strategy. It is a framework that allows the Minister to declare areas to be smoke-free". "What is more," she says, "he can impose conditions". That argument is fatuous because, as Mrs Carnell acknowledged about two minutes after making it as her lead point, the Assembly can disallow such an action by Mr Berry. Moreover, Madam Speaker, as a result of the unanimity of this Assembly, it is clear that from next week - we assume that we will debate it next week - this Assembly can not only disallow a declaration by the Health Minister but also modify or change it. So this blank cheque argument is just so much stuff and nonsense. Proposals to ban, as they are progressively introduced by Mr Berry, will be fully amenable to debate and to amendment in this Assembly. So that is a facile argument. They seem to suggest that this would be all right if it were in the legislation. It matters not whether it is in the legislation or in a subordinate instrument, because this Assembly, as of next week, will have power to deal with a subordinate instrument just as it does with a Bill. That is a fairly hollow argument.

The next point, and this is one that Liberals are always fond of when they are in a bit of a bind, is a level playing field. They say that we cannot have a level playing field.

Mr Humphries: Yes, we can. We must have a level playing field.

MR CONNOLLY: We must have a level playing field, and they say that this will create an unlevel playing field. Madam Speaker, that argument could have been used, and I seem to recall was used, at every point in the advance of anti-smoking moves in Australia. We were also told that it would be unworkable; but, again, we have always been told that.

When the Federal Government some years ago banned smoking in domestic aviation we were told that it would be unworkable. We were told that people would not fly; that they would use other means of transport. What happened, Madam Speaker? Absolutely nothing. People still fly. The industry always wants to blame the government. When you get on a plane they say, "Australian regulations prohibit smoking". They do not say, "Qantas or Ansett prohibit smoking". The industry likes the position that the government has acted to ban smoking. They can say to their would-be smoking clients,


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .