Page 767 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like to knock on the head one furphy that was raised by the minister in the newspaper today, which is that of the legal advice. It should be remembered that the intention of the law, clearly expressed when the issue was debated in the Assembly and supported by the government, was to create smoke-free workplaces and entertainment venues, not simply to ensure that indoor rooms can be kept smoke-free by providing for the establishment of outdoor rooms.
It may well be that enclosure of less than 75 per cent for an unenclosed place would have been defensible at law as the legislation was first drafted. We have, however, changed the act and now the government has an opportunity to define an unenclosed place by regulation however it likes. What we do not understand yet is why it likes a 75:25 rule. Clearly, that has nothing to do with public health.
The government and the department have had every opportunity to provide us with some evidence-based or science-based health analysis to justify the 75:25 rule. There has been none. The government’s own Health Protection Service found, in effect, that all environmental tobacco smoke is bad. The regulatory impact statement that the government commissioned of the Allen Consulting Group specifically addressing the issue of enclosure found that less enclosure is clearly better.
The health minister and department have had numerous opportunities over the past few weeks to come good with a strong argument. We have seen no evidence to support this government’s position—not a scrap, nothing, zilch, nada. Is there an evidence-based approach to policy? Evidently not. There is no doubt that they simply do not want to deal with the issue. I would be intrigued to know what was the advice in detail from the health department. How comfortable are they with a regime that established smoking rooms in this way? Would they rather have seen a 50:50 or a 25:75 rule instead?
The trouble, of course, is that the 75:25 rule will not be the end of it, as Mr Corbell foreshadowed in an ABC interview this morning. The 75:25 rule is clearly at the conservative end of Australian practice and clubs and pubs, if we pursue this route, will not have the certainty that they need. So the minister’s failure to take on this issue will come back to bite him and the clubs and pubs and their workers and patrons in the meantime.
I should add that a lot of us who oppose the 75:25 rule are practising or lapsed tobacco smokers. This is not about persecution. People should be able to have a fag if they want to. As the survey conducted by the heart foundation showed, most smokers are happy to obey laws and respect smoke-free places. In fact, they appreciate the discipline that restricts them from smoking in smoke-free places. But this motion is about health and the principles of public policy.
What will the 75:25 rule mean? It will mean a room of three walls and a ceiling and a few strategically placed windbreaks, a bar, access to a few poker machines perhaps, and a gas heater in winter. Of course, clubs and pubs will want to make their patrons comfortable. The more comfortable smokers are, the more they and their friends and the staff will inhabit that smoky area—the staff not by choice, by the way—a place where environmental tobacco smoke has built up both because of the degree of enclosure and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .