Page 1743 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have to point to the comments in the dissenting report which make it very clear that the use of Australian Standard 1668 is not appropriate in these circumstances. Of course, people hang on it. Those people who hang on it to encourage the consumption of tobacco and to play up to the tobacco companies ought to be ashamed of themselves. They will be remembered by many people, not only in the ACT but across Australia, for abandoning the obligation to protect public health.
Looking at some of the other recommendations in relation to other places, they will happen, thankfully. Apparently it was unnecessary for the majority of members on the committee to try to take a political point out of those two. It is at least a little warming to see that there will be some support - I expect overwhelming support - for the Labor Party's policy in respect of those matters. That is to be welcomed. In relation to restaurants, they were not game to bite the bullet. They were not game to create the level playing field. They chose to grandstand on the issue of mechanical ventilation, which I think has been proven not to provide the sort of protection which is required from ETS, environmental tobacco smoke.
I do not see in here a lot of interest for employees who work in those places. I do not see any mention, for example, of the circumstance where a patron may blow smoke in the face of a worker. What would the mechanical ventilation do for those workers? Nothing. Not a thing. It seems to me that the rights and the safety of workers have been ignored in many respects. I know that the occupational health and safety code of practice will protect the interests of workers and that this has to be done in a consultative environment. That has always been promised, and it will be delivered. The operation of the OH and S Office demonstrates their commitment to consult with business on these issues, and it will apply. It will apply right across the workplace.
The shabby weakness of Mr Moore and Mr Westende on the issue of restaurants will be long remembered. They lacked courage. It was an easy way to demonstrate out there in the community that you really care about the comfort and health of workers and people who patronise restaurants in the ACT. You failed miserably. You have taken a stupid and confusing approach. All it will do is confuse patrons. It will also impose a playing field which is not level. That also will cause a great deal of concern out there in the community. For example, those who are able to afford this expensive air handling equipment will be able to provide encouragement for people to smoke; they will also be able to provide an environment which endangers others. There is no question about that because there is no protection for the worker or the patron when another patron or another worker blows smoke in the face of one or the other.
Mr Moore: You were not worried about it in the casino. You were not worried about it in bars. You were not worried about it in taverns. The duplicity is extraordinary.
MR BERRY: I hear Mr Moore yell, "Duplicity". He did not look in the mirror this morning. That is obvious. The double-dealing and weakness on this issue from this man has been demonstrated. You know, Mr Moore, that the occupational health and safety guidelines were going to deal with all of those workplaces. You have chosen to ignore that.
Mr Moore: Why do they not deal with restaurants? You have dug yourself a hole.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .