Page 1741 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WESTENDE (11.29): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very difficult to follow the two previous speakers as they have discussed what happened in the committee meetings. I will try not to be repetitive in covering some areas that may or may not have been explained sufficiently. In my opinion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this report has all to do with educating people about the effect that smoking can have on their health. Having said that, we should be cognisant of the fact that smoking is not the only thing that affects people's health. We should also be aware that, whilst the AMA advocates the right of the people not to have to inhale smoke, the smoker, who contributes substantially through taxes on cigarettes, also has rights. We have to consider rights - the rights of the individual, the rights of the business community, the rights of the landlord, the rights of the tenants, and so on.
We are told about choice. Most people who frequent restaurants already have choice. The committee was given a list of some 100 eating places that already are entirely smoke free; so people do have choice. As well, when booking into a restaurant, one is invariably asked, "Smoking or non-smoking?". The people in restaurants are segregated already. As a result of my wartime experience I know that it is far better not to force people. It is better to educate people about rights and wrongs, and it is better to educate people about the effect of smoking on health. The committee was provided with much conflicting evidence, which proves only one thing - that, if one side can bring up five arguments for, the other side can bring up 10 arguments against. Ultimately the committee had to choose the policy that best reflected where we are at.
In coming to some of our conclusions we had to weigh up the commercial correctness or otherwise of disadvantaging one type of business against another. The committee had to weigh up other commercial realities, such as what would happen to the small restaurants and taverns that Ms Ellis referred to where the operator is not the owner, and who should bear the cost of the extraction equipment. For instance, in the case of restaurants, the committee recommended a 75 per cent no-smoking area and a 25 per cent smoking area. Ultimately, the restaurateur will have to make a commercial decision as to whether extraction equipment is worth the custom of the 25 per cent who would utilise this area. It is probably not for the committee to say whether this is 100 per cent correct or 100 per cent wrong. Ultimately, the restaurateur will make a commercial decision. The negotiations between landlords and tenants can take time. To obtain a building permit takes time, and therefore it was correct to recommend a phase-in period. The committee, as you heard, was made up of different people with different attitudes, and in my opinion it was remarkable that we achieved as much consensus as we did, especially having regard to the mass of information we had to contend with.
Reverting to health, the fact that the committee recommended AS1668.2 of 1991 as the minimum air quality standard had much to do with the fact that these standards are reviewed every four years. These are living standards which change with the times and with the technical expertise that is available. As well, it was pointed out to the committee that there are many other substances in the air. In fact, there are hundreds of other substances which can contaminate the air and which can be far more injurious to health than ETS, environmental tobacco smoke. Evidence was given by various people in the mechanical heating and ventilation equipment area that much of the ETS can be removed,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .