Page 3142 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
need to consider very carefully the immensity of the social change that we are attempting to bring about by this sort of legislation. I do not say that lightly. I also say that, mindful of the fact that I am in favour of that type of social change. That is why I joined with every other member here in voting in favour of this Bill in principle.
What we are really talking about here is two different grounds altogether. The community out there, by its very actions, is asking us to do something in relation to restaurants. Some restaurants are already doing it. That is what I call "fertile ground". I do not see, in any newspaper or in any advertisement for a tavern, pub or club, that it has a smoke-free bar. There may be one around. The difference in this fertile ground for social change between restaurants and eating places and drinking establishments is quite marked. What I said at the time of the tabling of the report was that you bring social change ahead of the community as far as you perceive they want, but not so far ahead that it may not work.
I refer again to what I said at the time of the tabling of the report. I want to contest very strongly Mr Moore's imputation that maybe the Government - I interpret that to mean me in this instance because of my dissenting report - had some other consideration. There was no other consideration on my part. I was attempting to make a very constructive and positive contribution to the debate. I still believe very strongly, as I did on the day that we tabled the report, that the comments that I was making in regard to this sort of social change are very legitimate comments. They are worthy of serious consideration. When people in this place consider these points, they should think along those lines as well.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (8.16): We will be supporting Mr Moore's amendment, because the approach that the Opposition has taken has been one of harm minimisation, not of social change. We on this side of the house believe very strongly that the role of the Assembly is not to bring about legislation to achieve social change but more to minimise the harm to the community of passive smoking. We believe strongly that the harm associated with smoking is very real. We believe that the harm is not necessarily caused in restaurants. We know, from all the information that we have, that the committee had, that this Assembly has and that society has, that the harm associated with passive smoking, to start with, is somewhat open to debate; but one thing that we know about it is that it is based upon the quantity of smoke. We know that definitely. Therefore, the amount of harm done is directly proportional to the level of smoke and the length of time that people are actually exposed to smoke.
In restaurants, what happens? People eat. They occasionally smoke between courses - something that I personally do not like - which is the reason why we totally support having smoke-free areas within restaurants. People who smoke can go into their own areas, as long as there are proper extraction systems. So the level and the length of exposure in restaurants to which people who do not smoke are subjected are actually very low, even for people who work in restaurants. For waitresses, people who work behind the bars and food service people generally, the level of exposure and the length of that exposure are actually quite low. Therefore, in restaurants, the harm caused to those who do not smoke is actually quite low.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .