Page 3151 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and, at the end of the 12 months phase-in period, all restaurants will be non-smoking unless they apply for an exemption which will allow for a minimum of 75 per cent to be non-smoking". So the most area for smoking that restaurants will be able to apply for is 25 per cent.
In order to apply for that, they are going to have to reach ventilation standard AS1668.2 - a ventilation standard that is not, by any stretch of the imagination, easily reached. There will be some restaurants in Canberra where the air-conditioning is of such a high standard that they already meet that. I cite, as an example of hotels that have such restaurants, the Hyatt and the Parkroyal. I suspect, although I do not know, that they will reach those standards and will be able to provide for smoking patrons up to 25 per cent - and no more - of their restaurant. But, Madam Speaker, 90 per cent of restaurants will be smoke free because, owing to the financial imperatives under which they operate, they will say, "Will we spend, as evidence before the committee suggests, $10,000 or more to reach this ventilation standard?". Will they spend $10,000 or more in order to provide for 25 per cent of their tables to be smoke free? I argue that very few restaurants will take that option.
But for those people who insist on smoking at dinner there will be some choices. Madam Speaker, when I seek to provide a circumstance in which people who want to smoke at dinner should be able to, I should point out to members that it was in the early 1970s that I first asked people not to smoke in my car and it was in 1973 that I asked people not to smoke in my house. So that has been my attitude for a long time, for over 20 years, at a time when Mr Berry himself was a heavy smoker, as I think he will agree. I have never been in that circumstance myself, so I do not know how hard it is to give it up; but I admire people who have smoked and have given it up, because I understand that it is very difficult to do so. I object to having smoke around me; but I seek to find a way to recognise people's right to choose what they can do, as long as it is not interfering with somebody else.
Madam Speaker, if you are in a restaurant which is 25 per cent smoke free and you believe that the ventilation is not good enough - I suggest to you that, from the evidence presented to the committee, it will be - because people at a table near you are smoking and there is some impact on you of the smoke, you have the choice of seats in 75 per cent of the restaurant and, clearly, you would ask whether you can change your seating. That is the first point.
The second point is that there is a dose related impact. All of the conclusive evidence, in epidemiological terms, on the danger of passive smoking has been constructed - - -
Mr Berry: Rubbish!
MR MOORE: I hear an interjection of "Rubbish!", Madam Speaker, and I have not even got to the point I am making. Clearly, Mr Berry's neurones are not firing, because he displays such tunnel vision here. Let me finish, Mr Berry, and then see whether you still want to say, "Rubbish!".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .