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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 3003 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

indoor environments and hospitality industry groups wanted no legislation at all. Total agreement on such legislation is unlikely, which means that the Government must chart a course which it believes is most likely to lead to the achievement of public health objectives, without imposing unjustifiable costs on the community or on certain sectors of it. This is precisely our intention with this legislation.

The second issue concerns enforcement. Reference has been made to comments on the Bill by the scrutiny of Bills committee. The Government's responses to the committee's two reports provide explanations of the approach taken in the proposed legislation. Where warranted, we accept the changes proposed by the committee. Additionally, Mr Stanhope has proposed some amendments in this area, and the Government is prepared to accept them.

The Government's response emphasised the need for legislation to be in force which requires authorised officers to have certain powers. However, following concerns raised by the committee, the amendments now stipulate that an authorised officer may request a person in a public place with regard to an alleged offence only if that person gives his or her consent. There does appear to have been some misunderstanding about what the legislation proposes in respect of the powers of authorised officers. The legislation says that the specific powers it grants to authorised officers who are police officers are additional to the powers they possess as police officers. Authorised officers who are public health officers do not have police powers, only the powers granted to them by this legislation. Far from being untrained public servants, the health officers to be authorised under these provisions are environmental health officers and similar professional officers who also exercise a range of powers as authorised officers and inspectors under health legislation. This is health legislation, and public health officers carry the primary responsibility for monitoring and enforcement. This will be impossible without the basic powers set out in the proposed legislation.

I am also concerned that certain members have termed breaches of the Tobacco Act minor offences and petty transgressions with no identifiable victims. I believe the community takes a decidedly dim view of people who illegally sell to children a product which, when used as they intend, is likely, at least in the long term, to kill them. In public health terms these are significant breaches of the law and under legislation to be introduced later this year will also constitute grounds for suspension or revocation of a tobacco retail licence.

The third issue is a question of costs. Specifically, allegations have been made that compliance with the proposed product display provisions will be costly for businesses. Most types of changes do involve costs. The process of change means that we need to adjust to a new way of doing things. There are usually costs inherent in this. In this case experience suggests that predictions of dire economic consequences may be greatly exaggerated. Just as certain hospitality industry groups predicted the demise of the local hospitality and tourism industries as a result of the smoke-free areas Act which was passed in 1994, we are now asked to believe that the present legislation will result not only in grave damage to small business but also in an increase in criminal activity. Perhaps groups who support tobacco distribution have cried wolf once too often.

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