Page 3157 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
forward for public health and leading the way in Australia". When your friends praise you, it may not mean something; but, when your opponents praise you, it suggests that you are on to something significant. That has been the view of the AMA on this. They have, with great concern for the public welfare, been urging members to think long and hard before they endorse what will become a de facto standard for safe exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. They have been saying, "Do not do it".
Madam Speaker, that is the issue of principle and that is why, in principle, we say that this is wrong - and, more than wrong, dangerous. We say that this is dangerous because, as the Cancer Society says, it may set a standard for similar legislation in other States and we may be creating a de facto standard for safe environmental tobacco smoke standard, which we know is not designed for safe exposure to tobacco smoke.
Mr Moore: No; you think that you know.
MR CONNOLLY: Every expert says that. But Mr Moore knows better! Madam Speaker, that is the issue of principle. There are some substantial practical aspects that I wanted to - - -
Mr Moore: Get back to your primary sources.
MR CONNOLLY: We have shown you the letters from the Standards Association, the Cancer Society and all the rest of them.
Mr Moore: Did you read them?
MR CONNOLLY: Of course we read them. We showed them to you people. Mr Moore, once you get an idea, you chisel it in stone. You have gone down the wrong path on this. We have tried to urge you to come back to the sensible course of action. You have had plenty of opportunities, but you have declined to do so. That is an issue that, no doubt, we will all have to account for; but the fact is that the people who should know - the people who are not part of the Australian Labor Party and who are not general supporters of this Government - have said very publicly, "You are going down a dangerous path here, Assembly members. Please do not do it". But, in your wisdom, you believe that they are wrong and you are right. So be it.
Madam Speaker, let me turn to the practical issues. By adopting this Australian standard as the trigger for getting an exemption, the Government will have to employ very substantial resources to monitor and assess. It will require inspection of the air-conditioning equipment and it will require air monitoring. This will have to occur after hours and on weekends, when most people are at restaurants, clubs and hotels. We will have to invest in quite considerable and expensive analytical equipment. The rough calculations that the department has done, based on two inspectors working shift work, plus transport and equipment, work out at about $150,000 per year. Mr Moore proposes that we set a fee for exemptions to cover the costs. That could well work out to a fee approaching $1,000. It is a very expensive imposition on business. I can imagine what business people will say about that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .