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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 4334 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The government knew this at the time that the original exemptions regime was introduced. At the time, the Labor Party argued against the reliance on mechanical ventilation as a way of providing for smoking and non-smoking in the same premises. We have been proven right. At the last election, the government signalled its intention to address this issue. Following through on that commitment, earlier this year I released a discussion paper on ways to phase out and remove the exemption that permits smoking in certain licensed premises in the ACT. The result of that discussion paper is currently being assessed, with over 100 public submissions. Research through a regulatory impact statement was also commissioned recently by ACT Health. This research will look into the health and economic implications of phasing out exemptions. Along with this, legislative measures under consideration in other jurisdictions are being monitored.

Mr Speaker, the government's preferred position is to allow both the consideration of public comments made and research into the health and economic impacts of removing the exemptions to be completed so that the decision on this matter can be made in a considered way by the Assembly, having been informed by these comprehensive reports. For this reason, the government shortly will be seeking to adjourn the debate on this piece of legislation until early next year.

I remind members that if the debate is undertaken today the earliest that the phasing out of exemptions can occur is 1 December 2006, when the last current exemption expires. However, it may be the case that following a regulatory impact statement, the results of the public consultation process having been assessed, an even earlier phasing out date could be considered. For that reason, it is the government's preference to defer debate. However, if we proceed today, we have before us a bill which gives us the opportunity to consider the phasing out of restaurant and licensed premises exemptions. If the adjournment is not supported today, the government will support the bill in principle because it is an opportunity to signal to the community the importance with which the Assembly considers this issue.

There are certain things that we cannot ignore. We cannot ignore the plight of hospitality employees who continue to be exposed to the health risks of tobacco smoking in their workplace. We cannot ignore the advice from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission that the only effective way to protect people in indoor environments is to eliminate smoking from the workplace. We cannot ignore the plight of children, who have no choice about the quality of the air that they breathe. We cannot ignore the findings of our own research that shows that environmental tobacco smoke is currently present in the majority of non-smoking areas in exempt premises. Nor can we ignore public opinion, which right across Australia supports stronger measures to protect non-smokers and to promote smoke-free environments. Finally, we cannot ignore legal opinion under which employers and proprietors are being held increasingly liable for illnesses related to passive smoking.

These are all compelling reasons to act. They are equally compelling reasons to make sure that when we act we get it right. That is why, in expressing in-principle support for this bill and foreshadowing the importance of adjourning debate until the regulatory impact statement and public consultation process are completed, I should also foreshadow to members an amendment, which I have already circulated, which will bring forward the phasing out date.

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