Page 3152 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The only epidemiological studies that have come to any conclusive evidence about passive smoking have been conducted on spouses of smokers. It is the only conclusive epidemiological evidence that we have of the dangers of passive smoking. No epidemiological study has been conducted that provides strong enough evidence of the dangers. In fact, there is none that I am aware of that has even been conducted that provides any such evidence. If you can provide it to us, that will be great.
Mr Berry: Oh, yes; the big cop-out!
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, Mr Berry is saying, "That is a big cop-out". When, on a health issue, I rely on epidemiological evidence - the only evidence we could possibly rely on to make this sort of decision - Mr Berry says, "It is a cop-out", and then he probably wonders why he is not going to be voted the world's best Minister for Health. The only epidemiological evidence that has provided any conclusive evidence of harm from passive smoking and of its impact has been carried out on spouses or people living with somebody who smokes. That is, indeed, a concern; but what it indicates to us is that there is a dose related response, and that is of particular significance to the issues that we are dealing with. If we are dealing with a population health issue and we are dealing with a dose related response, then we ought to be looking not at restaurants but at where the public is exposed to the greatest amount of cigarette smoke. That is in the casino, the pubs and the clubs.
Madam Speaker, there is a third issue, and that is the issue of getting a message across to the general public. Here is the strongest argument of those who advocate no smoking in restaurants, as the Government advocates. This is the strongest part of their stance. If they can say, "We have a blanket ban on smoking in restaurants", it sends a very loud message to the community that smoking is bad for you. But it misses the most important part of the community that we are trying to reach. That part of the community that smokes quite heavily is found not so much in restaurants as in pubs, clubs, taverns and the casino.
Madam Speaker, those are the real issues that we are dealing with and that is why I would urge the Government to change its mind. It needs to realise that a very loud message has to go out to the public, targeted at where it ought to be targeted. It will be a loud message in restaurants anyway, because smokers are going to have to search out a restaurant in which they can smoke. That is the reverse to the current situation. At the moment, those of us who are non-smokers who enjoy non-smoking restaurants have to search out the non-smoking restaurants. There are a hundred or so of them in Canberra, according to the evidence presented to the committee by ASH. Madam Speaker, that is the wrong way around. When smokers are saying, "We have to go and find a restaurant where we can smoke", then clearly the message is getting through to them that this community does not condone smoking, that we see it as a dangerous pastime and that we need to send a stronger message than that on cigarette packets.
Madam Speaker, there is something else that ties in with that, and that is the amount of time that people spend in restaurants or in pubs, clubs, taverns and so forth. We had evidence presented to us by the department that, if my memory serves correctly, the minimum amount of time that people spend in restaurants is about 1.5 or 2 per cent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .