Page 1753 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My other concern about his proposals was that there was no clear and definitive timetable for when we would see these provisions applied to the places where environmental tobacco smoke is a bigger problem. I go to lots of restaurants - I enjoy eating out, or I did before I had a baby - and I know that these days there is a very different environment operating in most restaurants than there was even 10 years ago. These days it is not common at all to encounter people smoking in restaurants. It is a practice that has declined dramatically in occurrence in the last few years. But I do know that, if I want to get a great lungful of somebody else's passive sidestream smoke, all I have to do is go to one of the Territory's bars or taverns, where the incidence of this problem is enormous.
Mr Moore: Or young people in nightclubs.
MR HUMPHRIES: Or young people in nightclubs - a tremendous problem. I would have thought we were looking particularly at protecting the younger members of our community, whose exposure to this problem is a matter of great concern. It must be acknowledged that what the committee recommends in this respect is a major improvement on what was originally contained in the smoke-free areas Bill, and it should be supported by all members of the Assembly, even members of the Government.
I hope that you will accept that a definite timetable not only puts a more positive face on what has to be a difficult task of confronting the areas where these sorts of things occur, but also gives businesses in this Territory the chance to operate within a set and understandable timetable. The thing my party is most concerned about in approaches such as this is the general uncertainty that would be created by rules that do not give any timetable for when they will be affecting particular areas of the industry. In my discussions with people from parts of the ACT hospitality industry, what clearly disturbed them most of all was not knowing when and how they would become subject to the provisions of this Bill. I therefore welcome and support those aspects of the Bill that provide for clearness and certainty for members of the community.
I should also comment briefly on the question of what Australian Standard 1668.2 is all about and whether it does make it clear that it is possible to provide a considerably ameliorated level of comfort and health by the use of extractor systems in enclosed public places. I read with care Ms Ellis's comments in a dissenting report. I note that she does not accept that the committee has been provided with sufficient evidence for it to conclude that this standard was intended for or can be reasonably used for the public health regulation of environmental tobacco smoke exposure in indoor environments. I was provided with a copy of the standard concerned - Revised Australian Standard AS1668.2, mechanical ventilation of acceptable indoor air quality. I note also that on the second page of that report it says:
It was established at the outset that, unlike some other council codes, this standard would not address comfort but confine itself to health.
This is, therefore, a report which at least purports to address itself entirely to the health issues arising from air ventilation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .