Page 1752 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: "All the way with the AMA" is our view on this one, Mr Humphries.
MR HUMPHRIES: We certainly have changed our tune about the AMA - "our friends, the AMA". Mr Connolly has come a long way. By the way, just for the sake of public information, Mr Connolly said that Dr Brendan Nelson had no association with the ALP. I think even he readily admits that he has been for many years a member of the Australian Labor Party. He may not be right at the moment, but certainly he was for many years a member of the Australian Labor Party - not that that is of any relevance to his point of view on this matter.
Mr Connolly: And the other name on the press release?
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Greenland's views on matters of smoking are very close to mine. I share his view that there is a great need for this community to tackle head-on the question of reducing the incidence of environmental tobacco smoke in our community, and that is why I see great benefit in the approach this report has taken. It is looking squarely at how we can greatly augment the facilitation of non-smoking areas in public places - all public places - in this Territory, but in such a way that we do not make the provisions unworkable and that we do not reduce this whole package of legislation to a laughing-stock.
With respect, the great fear I saw when looking at Mr Berry's original Bill - it is nothing to do with Mr Berry having put it forward; it is a question of what the Bill says - was that it simply would not be enforceable or enforced. I note that Mr Berry in the past, when supporting measures cracking down on some aspects of smoking, for example, the sale of tobacco products to minors, has not been prepared to back up his very strident rhetoric with resources to make it happen. In respect of this matter, I saw the great danger, and still see the danger, that if the provisions are unworkable, particularly in the lead-up to an ACT election, they simply would not be enforced. I wonder even now whether the present Minister will be prepared to go into public places such as restaurants and say, "Whatever the shape of this legislation at the end of the day, you must respect these rules about providing non-smoking areas".
Mr Connolly does not take a point of order or interject about what he will do; but I hope that, even if he does see this as a watered down version of the original legislation, he will be prepared to enforce the provisions of the legislation. That is essential if it is going to have any impact at all.
Mr Connolly: We hope that we can persuade you not to water it down.
MR HUMPHRIES: You may have to commit yourself, first of all, to making it workable. If you cannot make this Bill as amended workable, you certainly could not get a more radical Bill of the kind you are talking about enforced. It is a fairly extensive Bill and, whether or not there is a watering down of the original proposals, I must say that recommendation 6 is pretty clearly, in my view, a strengthening of the provisions of Mr Berry's original Bill. It is not a watering down at all; it is a strengthening of the provisions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .