Page 3162 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
SMOKE-FREE AREAS (ENCLOSED PUBLIC PLACES) BILL 1993
Debate resumed.
MR BERRY: The FLAIEU went on to say:
The increased ventilation and filtration requirements of the 1991 issue of AS1668, part 2, must be considered for existing buildings in order to aid in effectively controlling ETS.
What sort of scientific evidence is that? Without the backing of any scientific input, the committee then went on to adopt that particular approach. The approach is not good enough because, as I said to you a moment ago, there have been measurements of 226 times the accepted level of carcinogens in places ventilated at the equivalent of Australian Standard 1668.
Mr Kaine: Where and how often?
MR BERRY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency, I think, is renowned for its accuracy on these sorts of matters. So, Madam Speaker, we have a situation where the committee has adopted a quality standard related to health which is not applicable. That is clearly the case because Standards Australia said, "We suspect that the risk that environmental tobacco smoke presents may not be eliminated by adherence to 1668 of 1991". That is not mentioned anywhere in the committee's report; yet they immediately seize upon that which was dealt with in Australian Standard 1668. The New South Wales Workcover Authority said that it should be noted that, because of the large number of chemicals in tobacco smoke, there is no internationally acceptable standard which provides specific guidance on passive smoking. But there is one that says that if you ventilate to this standard there will be 226 times the accepted level of carcinogens. I think that is pretty clear.
Mr Stevenson conducted a poll out there in the community. That poll was aimed at those people who might be interested in this matter. He showed me some results of that poll, which I do not recall accurately, but there was a certain percentage of people who wanted a choice. They wanted some smoke-free and smoking areas. From the evidence that I have just put to you, those people who went into a so-called smoke-free area ventilated to Australian Standard 1668 would not be guaranteed to be safe from the effects of those carcinogens which are carried in environmental tobacco smoke.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .