Page 3293 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are real questions over the political correctness of what we do and what we do not report on this. It is easy to report that somebody is going for a prohibition approach and that is what we all should do; but a harm minimisation approach is one that requires greater understanding and greater thinking. It would seem that the ex-Minister, the least popular member of the Labor Party - he probably is amongst the least popular members of this Assembly - would not understand. His success in his ministerial portfolio is also reflected in his success in dealing with this issue. He failed to realise what the real issues are, and he failed to attack those real issues. That, fortunately, was what the Assembly was able to do.
Another part of his lack of understanding, Madam Speaker, has to do with understanding that Australian Standard 1668.2 is a living standard. It changes. At the moment the standard is as set in 1991. Already the process is under way for a review of that standard. One of the positive things that I think will come out is that people will realise that when dealing with the standard of ventilation in buildings they will have to take into account the issue of environmental tobacco smoke.
Madam Speaker, in spite of all the arguments, we do know that the only epidemiological evidence that carries any weight at all about the problems of passive smoking is associated with that 68 per cent of time that is spent in the home. People living with their spouse who were exposed constantly to passive tobacco smoke were indeed at some health risk. We can extrapolate from that, and it is appropriate that we do extrapolate from it and say that there are dangers associated with passive smoking. But there is no epidemiological evidence yet to suggest that there is a problem with passive smoking in restaurants; that it can be shown to be a direct cause. However, it is appropriate that we do extrapolate. But if we are really going to be genuine and extrapolate to restaurants, how much more important is it to extrapolate to the casino?
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Moore, it is 11.22 am and it is 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business. I will have to interrupt. In accordance with standing order 77 as amended by temporary order, the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr Moore: Madam Speaker, I wish to move to suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent us from drawing this debate to a conclusion.
MADAM SPEAKER: You do not need to suspend standing orders. Thirty minutes is the - - -
Mr Moore: No; I specifically want to suspend standing orders, Madam Speaker, not for 30 minutes but to allow this debate to be drawn to a conclusion.
MADAM SPEAKER: If members want to suspend standing orders we will proceed in that way. There is no need to. We have a provision to deal with this.
Mr Berry: Madam Speaker, I would oppose the motion to suspend standing orders. Once you finish this, and if it takes you less than 30 minutes, we would go straight on to the - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .