Page 202 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
"Do not blame us; blame the government". The point is that there still would be smoking clients on those aeroplanes. There was no shift away from aviation when those bans were introduced. Indeed, so successful was it that within a fairly short period we saw similar bans on other forms of public transport.
What is more, Madam Speaker, not that long ago the decision was taken in respect of Qantas to ban smoking throughout the Qantas network; that is, overseas. There had been a position where non-smoking was enforceable and was enforced for international airlines in Australian air space. My understanding is that that remains the position for all airlines, but Qantas has gone one step further and has had smoking banned throughout the network. It has banned it internationally. If there was a non-level playing field argument, there it was. If there were going to be vast economic consequences because people would express their choice by going where they could smoke, not where they could not smoke, Qantas would be in trouble on their international network, and, of course, they are not. So, to say that you cannot have a playing field that is not level is nonsense.
The history of movements to prevent smoking in Australia has been one of sequential movement to different industries and, what is more, to different sectors within different industries. In respect of transport, it was first domestic aviation; then it was international aviation within Australia; and now, for the Australian carrier, it is throughout the network. Never at any point was there a level playing field, because when it was first banned in planes it was not banned in trains. We did not have a level playing field, but it worked. It worked very successfully, with no adverse economic impact. Equally, Madam Speaker, the decision to ban smoking in public sector employment places was going to be unworkable and could equally be argued to be not a level playing field; but, Madam Speaker, it has worked extraordinarily well.
Madam Speaker, there is hollowness to the Opposition's arguments. The point is that Mr Berry has put them on the spot. There has been lots of rhetoric from Opposition and Independent members that we should take the anti-smoking position in the ACT further. Since Mr Berry put the legislation on the table we have seen a massive campaign in this Territory, with a lot of money spent, to prevent this legislation getting up. Members should be concerned at the vast sums that obviously were required to run a television advertising campaign. Nationally the eyes of people who are concerned about anti-smoking issues are on the Territory. That is why, presumably, there was plenty of money to run television terror campaigns, such as, "Are you going to lose your freedoms?" - all of the stuff that is usual when there is an anti-smoking message.
There is still overwhelming support for anti-smoking. I do not want to anticipate Mr Stevenson's remarks, but I see that in his surveys the majority always favour a smoke-free option. The question is: Is it a hollow option when you have smoking and smoke-free areas? People who say, "Yes, have that", want it because they want to be freed from smoke, and it is very debatable whether that would work. Really, Mr Stevenson's conclusions are very similar to Mr Berry's conclusions which talk about 70 per cent of people wanting a smoke-free environment when they go to a restaurant. Mr Humphries says that the non-smokers who would otherwise have gone to the Oak Room will now go to Macca's and get a hamburger instead, because they cannot have a cigarette in the Oak Room, and so we will lose employment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .