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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4987 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The fact that the study was conducted with the full awareness of proprietors serves to minimise the risk that the monitoring was conducted at a time that was unusual or atypical. Under these circumstances, non-compliance with exemption requirements is less likely to be a factor. It may be the case that the levels of ETS recorded under different circumstances would be different, but I do not believe that they are likely to be lower than those found in this study.

I would like again to highlight the major finding of the report, that is, that ETS was found in measurable levels in the non-smoking areas of most exempt premises and, in some cases, in adjacent non-exempt premises. The study found that the concentrations of ETS were related to the number of people smoking in the vicinity of the monitoring.

The inescapable conclusions are that "non-smoking"and "smoke free"cannot be assumed to mean the same thing, and that people in non-smoking areas are still exposed to the smoke that they believe they are avoiding. Patrons and employees in premises where smoking occurs may still be exposed to the health risks of tobacco smoke, which is a concern because both short-term and long-term exposure have been associated with increased risks of ill-health and disease. These risks not only have been found to be detrimental to otherwise healthy adults, but also are a particular issue for young children, pregnant women, people with allergies and people with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions.

Consistent with the findings of other reports, the ACT study found that mechanical air handling systems cannot be relied upon to protect patrons and employees from ETS exposure where smoking and non-smoking occur within the same air space. This is not entirely surprising, given that the Australian standard for mechanical air-conditioning and ventilation was not designed as a health-based standard for ETS control. However, as the Assembly has recently agreed, the continued exposure of workers and patrons to ETS-a known cause of cancer and heart disease, with no safe level of exposure-cannot be justified.

Mr Speaker, in responding to the findings of the report, the government has noted that a number of other studies have also found severe limitations on the ability of ventilation systems to control ETS in indoor environments. More recent studies over the past year or so have highlighted the fact that difficulties arise regardless of whether the smoking occurs in separately enclosed or open spaces within the premises. In other words, attempts to control and contain ETS by using smoking rooms have also been found to be problematic.

The government's response has also highlighted the fact that there are no occupational or environmental standards for ETS exposure and there is no safe level of exposure. It is worth noting here that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission has recently issued a revised guidance note on ETS which calls for workers to be provided with a smoke-free workplace. The guidance note specifically states that measures such as dilution ventilation are not effective in achieving that.

Mr Speaker, in June this year I released a discussion paper on the proposed phasing out of the exemption system. I believe that it was appropriate to begin this discussion and to invite the community's views. I noted at the time that, although the results of the indoor

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