Page 223 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
unenviable position of having to proceed with change, if that was considered necessary, by overturning the Minister's decisions. Such overturning of decisions causes confusion and chaos in the community and, I believe, would do nothing to enhance the Minister's objectives of creating smoke-free environments in enclosed public places.
My preferred approach to this issue, Madam Speaker, is to refer this Bill to the Assembly's Standing Committee on Conservation, Heritage and Environment, chaired by my colleague Mr Moore. This approach, to me, has many advantages. The inquiry process will enable all views on this issue to be heard - not only those of non-smokers and smokers passionate about the issue and the Australian Hotels Association, which is fearful of ramifications further down the line, but all views, including those of representatives from the Restaurant and Catering Association, the tourism industry and health groups and professionals, including the ACT Cancer Society and the Australian Medical Association.
Members of the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee will be able to thoroughly assess the effectiveness or otherwise of air-conditioning and ventilation systems, the desirability or otherwise of a phased-in approach to this legislation affecting all enclosed public places, as advocated by Mrs Carnell, and the most effective methods and means of implementing the Government's objectives. They will be able to address the civil liberties arguments advocated by smokers and the predictions of poor and improved trading outcomes by various sectors of the hospitality industry. They will be able to adequately assess the overseas evidence of the impact of smoke-free enclosed public places and report back to this Assembly on their findings.
I have a number of questions as to how this legislation would be implemented in its current form. How is it decided whether an enclosed public place is substantially enclosed? What role do windows which can be opened and roofs which can be opened have? What do restaurant proprietors do in the middle of the afternoon or late at night when their only two remaining customers wish to have a cigarette? How will the Government make clear its expectations with regard to smoke-free restaurants when the proprietors and staff are unable to speak English? How will officers of ACT Health go about promoting compliance with the proposed legislation? I am sure that the Minister for Health will have answers ready in response to these and other questions which may be asked, but that is not really the point.
The point is that I believe that the Assembly wants to ensure that the general community understands these issues, can accept and respect the concept of smoke-free enclosed public places and feels comfortable about the changes which are likely to occur. It is my assessment at the moment that the general community does not fully understand the issues and the consequences of this legislation. On Saturday, 29 January, in the Canberra Times public notices section ACT Health made the following request:
Comments are now sought concerning the declarations and regulations to be issued pursuant to sections 5 and 12 of the Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .