Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 968 ..

Mr Speaker, the safety of staff and the occupational health and safety responsibilities of employers have been raised a number of times. Members may be aware that from 25 May 1997 a Code of Practice for Smoke-free Workplaces applies in the ACT. That code is part of the occupational health and safety legislation which requires employers to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the health and safety of their employees. Responsible employers are seeking to implement measures which will help them to meet their occupational health and safety requirements. Prohibiting smoking within 1.5 metres of staffed serving areas, and taking reasonable steps to prevent smoke from penetrating non-smoking areas, especially when taken together with other sensible initiatives, are intended to help protect staff from tobacco smoke exposure.

It is important to understand that airconditioning and ventilation standards have not been designed to completely eliminate the risks to health from environmental tobacco smoke. Health authorities, as well as senior engineers, have concluded that the use of mechanical airconditioning, ventilation and associated filtration systems may reduce but not eliminate the health risks. The department has always indicated, in its communications with business and organisations, that there is a risk of legal liability for any premises in which smoking occurs. This has caused some uncertainty for premises which want to permit smoking and eliminate environmental tobacco smoke health risks.

Mr Berry: You are almost choking on those words.

MRS CARNELL: No; I have a sore throat.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MRS CARNELL: On advice from Standards Australia, the current Australian airconditioning standard will not achieve that. Most public health legislation is, however, a compromise between the absolute requirement to protect people's health and the desire to meet community standards and expectations.

Mr Speaker, I believe that the arrangements proposed in this Bill represent a reasonable compromise. They certainly echo the emphasis of the original legislation, which sought to encourage the transition to non-smoking as the norm in enclosed public places. I believe that the Bill represents a sensible compromise which will permit limited smoking in certain licensed premises for a defined period of time; achieve significant movement in initiating change in smoking behaviour in these premises; and honour the investment of licensed premises which have installed superior air handling equipment in order to gain an exemption. Compared to transitional premises, exempt premises will have twice the floor area where smoking is not prohibited - 50 per cent instead of 25 per cent - and will receive an exemption for a much longer period - three years instead of 17 months.

I thank members for their input into developing this legislation and also acknowledge the cooperation and support of the many industry, health and business groups that we have consulted on this matter. Mr Speaker, it has been very gratifying to note that members of the health fraternity as well, who are very definitely anti-smoking, have understood very definitely that we must have legislation that can be implemented, that will work, and that will achieve the end that we all want, and that is a healthier society. Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .