Page 2300 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
4
The facts are these:
- there is no evidence to indicate that the adoption of AS 1668.2 for the purposes proposed by the Committee will result in air quality which approximates air where no smoking occurs;
- it would be costly for premises to install and operate equipment to meet the standard, especially where systems were installed prior to 1991;
- there would be substantial environmental costs due not only to the direct operation of the equipment, but to vastly increased heating and cooling costs;
- for some premises, occupiers may have limited, or no, control over the level of equipment and the rate at which it operates; and
- quite simply, adoption of the standard, as recommended by the Committee, will not remove the risk of litigation for passive smoking-related illness and conditions.
For the ACT to adopt this standard would set an improper precedent for the Nation and perpetrate the health risks for people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
Before moving on, to the second major area of Government concern, I would like to draw to the Assembly's attention to a remarkable coincidence.
As I was reading the Committee's ideas about what the ACT legislation should look like, I realised where I had seen this particular formula before: the majority report by the ACT Standing Committee on the Environment is identical to legislation being proposed in the US State of California by none other than Phillip Morris.
According to published media reports, Phillip Morris, using an in-state consultant, is proposing a law which prohibits smoking in restaurants and workplaces unless 'rigorous ventilation standards' are met. Only then could a restaurant owner designate a maximum of 25% of seating for smoking.
What are these'rigorous ventilation standards'? They are the U.S. ventilation standard 'ASHRAE 62' -- the standard on which AS 1668.2 is based.
A remarkable coincidence?
The second major concern the Government has with the Committee's report is the decision to bring all remaining enclosed public places under the smoke-free regime within 30 months of gazettal of the legislation.
In itself, this is a commendable goal.
2300
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .