Page 3156 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Again, we are being told by a range of independent and highly reputable bodies, who are not normally involved in the political process, "Do not do it, because you will be taking a flawed standard that is not designed to provide a level of safe exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, de facto, establishing it as a safe level".
Mrs Carnell: But we simply do not know.
MR CONNOLLY: "We simply do not know", says Mrs Carnell. A safe approach to scientific method, if you are premising it on public safety, would seem to be that, unless you know of a safe level, you do not allow it. Again, you are being told by medical experts and bodies such as the Cancer Society and the Heart Foundation, "Do not do it"; but you persist. Let me remind members - again, without imputing improper motive - that Philip Morris, that well-known guardian of public health, has been urging authorities in the United States, through citizen-initiated referendums that Philip Morris have been paying for, to put on the ballot paper in California precisely this law. Philip Morris uses this standard, or the American equivalent, as the basis for safe tobacco exposure.
Here are Mr Moore and Mrs Carnell coming along and saying, "We are all about public health, and we are deeply committed to the fight against tobacco". I will be charitable and say that you have been duped. What you are doing is backing a standard that is being pushed by the tobacco lobby in the United States. They are pushing it in order to get a State based referendum in California to stop local authority areas imposing exactly the sort of law that Wayne Berry proposed some 12 months ago. The tobacco lobby in the United States is seeking to establish a so-called air-conditioning safe standard of exposure to tobacco smoke and to entrench it, through a referendum, in Californian State law in order to defeat anti-smoking moves by counties and municipalities in the United States. So you are backing the proposal that the tobacco lobby backs and we are backing the proposal that the AMA, the Cancer Society, the National Heart Foundation and other impartial, independent, very non-political and certainly non-Labor Party political bodies are urging you to adopt. Let us not muck around with this. The crux of the matter is that you are proposing a standard that - - -
Mr Moore: The trouble is that they do not understand it fully.
MR CONNOLLY: No doubt Dr Nelson does not understand this issue, the Cancer Society does not understand this issue, and the National Heart Foundation does not understand this issue; but Mr Moore understands the issue! This is a dangerous policy that you are adopting here. This Assembly has had the opportunity to endorse the legislation that Mr Berry put forward last year - legislation that was endorsed by many health authorities as leading the field in Australia. The AMA - it is no secret that Mr Berry and the AMA were not the best of friends for an extended period last year - in the heat of that dispute, when all the harsh words were being spoken, said, "We are suspending hostilities and we are saying that, on this issue, Wayne Berry is dead right and deserves support. He deserves to be commended for taking a courageous step
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .