Page 1742 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
but it is far more difficult to remove indoor pollutants such as allergenic fungi, airborne dust and formaldehyde gas. Allergenic fungi are most often cited as the carrier of legionnaires disease. All of these items occur in commercial buildings far in excess of ETS. In fact, the findings were that ETS occurs in only 2.8 per cent of the commercial buildings, while allergenic fungi occur in 33 per cent of all buildings, airborne dust in 26 per cent of all buildings, and formaldehyde gas, which is nearly undetectable, in 8.5 per cent of all buildings. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my opinion - - -
Mr Berry: What about carbon monoxide? You have not mentioned that yet.
Mr De Domenico: You are going to blame cars and buses, are you?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hot air may turn out to be quite lethal for people in this place if they keep this up. Please continue, Mr Westende.
MR WESTENDE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my opinion that the committee has come up with a commendable report, considering the many different aspects it had to sift. I am extremely happy with the general spirit of cooperation that existed in the committee, and I can understand some of the reasons why Ms Ellis could not entirely agree with us. I would like to add my voice to the thanks that the chair has extended to the committee members and to all who contributed, including the many people who rang or who wrote to give advice or otherwise on this subject. It gives me great pleasure to commend the report to the Assembly.
MR BERRY (11.37): It is regrettable that one has to see this sort of information put before the Assembly, given the modern knowledge about these issues which is available. In the first place the Liberals took a particular view, that mechanical ventilation was okay; and Mr Moore took a particular view, that mechanical ventilation was okay. This report is merely a justification of their original views. They shoved aside all the health information that was put before that committee. The report does recommend the introduction of smoke-free public places in many parts of the environment, in accordance with Labor Party policy. What has been ignored is the commitment by Labor to introduce safeguards out there in the workplace. I saw in the Canberra Times this morning a report in relation to that matter. That is something that Labor has been committed to for a long time and it will be dealt with in the ordinary course of occupational health and safety operations of the Government.
I have to comment on the actions of the Independent, the chairman of this committee, and the Liberal member. It was a particularly gutless effort and it demonstrates that they are really apologists for the tobacco companies. They set out to provide loopholes and encouragement for people to consume tobacco at the expense of other people. There is no question about that. These recommendations will be roundly condemned across this country by a whole range of campaigners for public health who expected better than this from the ACT. The people that Mr Moore is supported by out there in the community also will be puzzled by his approach on this matter because, as I said a little while ago, this is an encouragement for people to consume tobacco. It is a known health risk. It is also well known that other people's tobacco smoke causes illness.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .