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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 3014 ..

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (5.23): I will be opposing Mr Rugendyke's amendments because they are unnecessary, for the reason that he gives. Mr Rugendyke indicates that there is a safety question in people having to go out the back or to reach down to restock the dispenser. The legislation does not limit the number of feeder runs. It just limits the number of feeder runs that can be exposed. A person selling will be able to do it whichever way they like. They may have just a roll-down cover over the second run and move that over, so they could still keep the same amount of stock there, or they could keep their boxes next to them to refill the dispenser. I think these amendments are unnecessary. They have the unfortunate consequence of allowing further display of cigarettes when the very thing we are trying to achieve is the reduction of the visual impact of cigarettes without stopping retailers from providing a choice to people. Since Mr Stanhope's amendment was lost, they can still display one element of each product. I think these amendments are unnecessary and therefore the Government will oppose them.

MS TUCKER (5.25): The Greens also will not be supporting these amendments. This was discussed at the round table and it was made clear to retailers, as Mr Moore has already explained, that if they are fearful and they feel they cannot put the extra stock under the counter they can still have a rack there. It just cannot be exposed and displayed, which is the essential aspect of this piece of legislation.

Amendments (Mr Rugendyke's ) to Mr Moore's amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr Stanhope ) to Mr Moore's amendment proposed:

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (5.26): Mr Speaker, I think this is the only other one of Mr Stanhope's amendments that the Government will be opposing. The appropriate limitations are put on the point-of-sale display. I think it is fair to say that on the one hand Mr Stanhope is tightening up the Act. On the other hand, there is a quid pro quo. This is the approach I used in allowing a bit of freedom about where the tobacco product would be displayed. I would like to argue, Mr Stanhope, that you lost the first one and therefore you should not give your quid pro quo. I understand that perhaps you will bring that other one back on. Nevertheless, I think we should retain a firm stance on the display. We have a negotiated position about display, and I think that is what we should maintain.

Your other amendments, Mr Stanhope are not about negotiations. They are about issues of power, civil liberties and so forth. They are entirely different issues, which is why we are very comfortable about supporting the further amendments you have. But the Government will oppose this amendment.

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