Page 766 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(1) recognises the passage of the Smoking (Prohibition in Enclosed Public Places) Amendment Act 2005 removed the definition of “enclosed public place” in the Smoking (Prohibition in Enclosed Public Places) Act 2003 and replaced it with a reference to “a public place, or part of a public place, that is enclosed as prescribed by regulation”; and
(2) calls on the ACT Government to ensure that the consequent regulation:
(a) is based on the precautionary principle;
(b) makes workers’ and patrons’ health the first priority;
(c) ensures that risk to the public is the primary consideration in determining the degree of enclosure permitted in smoking places;
(d) is consistent with the analysis of the government’s own Regulatory Impact Statements on smoking prohibition legislation;
(e) complies with ACT Occupational Health and Safety law and is consistent with National Occupational Health and Safety Commission recommendations; and
(f) in the interest of the health and wellbeing of people with gambling problems, does not permit smoking in the same place as, or in sight of, gaming machines.
If you trawl through the original debate on this smoking legislation, you will see that members talked a lot about smoke-free workplaces and smoke-free public places. During that debate in November 2003, Minister Corbell made the point that smoke-free areas in pubs and clubs were not smoke-free. He referred to the ACT Health Protection Service’s report on air quality monitoring for environmental tobacco smoke, which indicated that nowhere with environmental tobacco smoke was safe.
Mr Corbell also talked about the regulatory impact statement that the government had commissioned and advised the Assembly how much better the legislation could be if the Assembly were to await the release of that information. The government has had a second regulatory impact statement since June last year, although it only released it in February this year, which specifically addressed the issue of amending the act in regard to defining an unenclosed place. It was quite specific in its analysis and findings.
In brief, on the issue of the degree of enclosure that should be allowed for smoking places, it found that the public health risk of a mostly enclosed place—let us say, and it is not even theoretical any more, 75 per cent enclosed—is not much better than that of a totally enclosed space. It is at the other end of the spectrum that there is a health advantage for patrons and workers. To quote the key finding of this report:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there will be a public health benefit in reducing the degree to which an area must be enclosed. That is, the more unenclosed the area is, the greater will be the likely health benefits.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .