Page 1739 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
now, over the introduction of seat belts. That is a reminder to members of the sort of public health debate that can occur. That is just one example. The furore at the time was enormous. The vested interests at the time put forward a very strong argument, but the people who had the responsibility made a hard but necessary decision which has been proven to be to everybody's benefit.
In considering the Smoke-free Areas (Enclosed Public Places) Bill - I remind members, as did Mr Moore, that the Bill has been agreed to in principle - I believe that we were looking at a very clear public health issue. I included dissenting comments in the committee's report only after what can be described as very long and very hard consideration of the evidence in front of us. I do not believe in this case that the broad public health can be protected by allowing smoking in some - I emphasise some - enclosed public places on the basis of exemptions as outlined in the report. I acknowledge that the application of Australian Standard 1668.2 of 1991, which is commonly referred to as 1668, for ease, as a means of exempting some places will, without any doubt, reduce the public health hazard; but I believe that, if we have the opportunity to remove the hazard rather than merely reduce it, it is our responsibility to take that decision. My comments in the report outline in detail my other concerns, including the questions of equity and fairness when it comes to the application of that exemption.
The committee's report places much emphasis on the application of 1668 relative to air-conditioning and ventilation systems. The evidence before the committee was divided on this issue. I do not agree with Mr Moore that there was an unequivocal piece of evidence in front of us that said that it was or was not one thing or the other. On the one hand it was claimed that this standard was designed primarily as an amenity issue, with a reduction in health hazard. On the other hand, as quoted from one of the sources by Mr Moore, it was claimed to be a health measure. It is, if reduction of hazard is the aim. It is not, on the evidence before us, if removal of the hazard is the aim. I believe that removal should be the aim.
The other aspect of the report relates to harm minimisation and dose related harm - two comments which Mr Moore has referred to this morning. While not pretending to be an expert in any way on medical matters, or on matters relating to harm minimisation and dose related harm in connection with the use of drugs, I question the application of this theory in this case. Harm minimisation and dose relatives in the area of drug use, for example, I endorse and support; but, in my view, in that sort of instance we are talking about the user. I do not believe that non-smokers who find themselves affected by passive smoking should be made to feel better about that circumstance by reduced levels or harm minimisation. I believe that they need, and want, removal of the substance. We are not talking about whether or not people smoke but where they smoke.
My opportunity recently to discuss this matter with officials in New Zealand gave me the chance to carefully consider the options. They have in place in New Zealand a regime where establishments such as restaurants can offer non-smoking and smoking areas. That is their version of what we are attempting here. Their Act, which is called the Smoke-free Environments Act, sets out a minimum requirement of smoke-free space in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .