Page 3153 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of their time. The time that people spend in pubs and clubs is much higher. Therefore, to go back to my previous argument about dose related effect, that needs to be taken into account. Madam Speaker, they are the sorts of issues that influenced my decision to take the stance that I have taken.
I would like to raise another issue, and that is the issue that I am sure will be raised, of Australian Standard 1668.2. (Extension of time granted) Australian Standard 1668.2 has been the subject of a great deal of debate. Let me say to those who argue that it is not a health standard that there was evidence presented to the committee by one of the people who put the standard together, that they set out to make this a health standard. We were warned by quite prominent bodies, including the AMA, that we may well have a de facto health standard if we adopt AS1668.2.
At this juncture I would digress to say that, in the original set of amendments that I had circulated and in the committee's report, we referred to it as AS1668.2 of 1991. The amendments that I have moved refer to it just as AS1668.2. The reason for that, Madam Speaker, is that it is a living standard. The standard will change constantly to improve the ventilation ability and the requirements as our technology improves. I think that, as that does improve, we should demand the highest possible standards. Therefore, it is appropriate that we do not set the standard as it was in 1991, but that we allow it to improve. Attached to that, of course, is the risk that the standard may lower. Should the standard lower, I will be happy to come back into this house and seek a harsher approach. But I do not see that happening. It has not been the practice that standards such as that diminish. It is, rather, the practice that we get higher standards.
As I see it, AS1668.2 is not necessarily a health standard; nor does it have to be a health standard. It is a standard of ventilation that will be equivalent to outside air. That is how it was set up. The question is: Are we prepared to say that this standard is not good enough? Are we prepared to say that the prohibition on tobacco should take place outside as well, as has happened in one American town? Just after Mr Berry introduced this Bill, a letter to the editor indicated that in one American town, where they have gone much further than we have, the only way you are allowed to smoke is if you are on the move. You cannot stand still to have a cigarette with somebody; you actually have to be walking. I think that is a ridiculous infringement of people's civil liberties, although I disagree with the way they are endangering their health.
Madam Speaker, AS1668.2 does not have to form a de facto health standard. It is a great argument; but it is just that. It is simply an argument that is baseless. It is an important issue that needs to be dealt with in this debate, and I may well come back to it if I speak a second time. The standard does provide for air to be the equivalent of that outside. That is what it was set up to do. The evidence presented to the committee by Mr West, as the committee's report indicated quite clearly, was that, when it started out, it was intended to recognise health implications.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .