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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1550 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

well be unworkable. Obviously, there is no point in having law that does not work. I have also listened to the Hotels Association speaking about the difficulties they have experienced. I am not totally sure that their arguments alone would have made me support this Government's proposal. What has swung the Greens is the fact that, if we are to successfully make public areas smoke free, it is quite possibly necessary to grant a longer period of time for particular businesses to become smoke free. I also understand from the Government that within this extension there will be a planned progression of how hotels or clubs will become smoke free, so that at the end of the 17 months we will not get a repeat of what is happening now. It is quite clear that people will have to make a commitment to ensuring that their areas are smoke free within that period of time.

I would agree with Mr Berry that it is a bit of a joke if you think that, by having 25 or 30 per cent of the floor area designated for smoking, the other two-thirds will not feel the impact of smoke. I do not think that is the purpose of designating a percentage of floor space. The aim of that designated area is to bring about a cultural change. It is a gradual step. It is allowing people who smoke to understand that they are going to have to move if they want to smoke. I do not really know whether that is going to work or not. It might be just as irritating to them after 17 months to find they have to move right out. They might be in a hotel or club which by that time has ventilation and they might be able to stay inside. I would not die in a ditch over whether the floor space is 33 or 25 per cent. I really doubt that anyone is going to get out a set square and work out exactly the percentage of floor space. I cannot see that as a major issue. I think it is really just a gesture that people will have to move to a particular area before they have a cigarette.

The groups that have agreed with the Government on this are the Cancer Society, whom I have spoken to; ASH, whose Dr Shroot I have spoken to; and the AMA, whom I have spoken to. I have not been able to get in contact with the public health people, although I have rung several times. The three groups that I have talked to have all been of the same opinion, so I think it is something that needs to be supported. It is a very pragmatic approach. It is not purist and hard line, saying that it has to happen now; but I think there are good reasons for that if we are to end up having smoke-free places.

I know it is too late to do anything about it, but I have concerns about the idea that you can have an exemption if you have appropriate ventilation. I think there is an equity issue. Smaller businesses would always find it difficult to find $40,000-odd to install ventilation. It is not a level playing field really, because smokers would be inclined to be patrons of those clubs that had the ventilation. I think the legislation is a bit flawed in that aspect; but, as it is already the case, there is not much I can do about it. We will be supporting this response from the Government.

MRS LITTLEWOOD (6.12): Mr Speaker, I just want to make a few comments. I would like it to go on record that I fully support the comments made by my colleague Mr Stefaniak. I would also like to put on record that I feel that Mr Berry's comments about the AHA were quite offensive. The AHA are in fact doing what they are being paid to do, and that is to look after their members and endeavour to keep some jobs in Canberra.

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