Page 771 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
“enclosed” should mean. I, the government and, I am sure, other members have listened closely to those views.
Several things have become clear in relation to the definition of “enclosed”. Firstly, there is no national or international consensus on how to define “enclosed public place” in terms of smoke-free public places legislation. Secondly, the ACT is seeking to resolve a difficult and complex issue relating to this definition and, in fact, is in advance of other states and territories in doing so. Thirdly, the absence of conclusive scientific evidence means that, if we are to move forward, we must do so with a view to balancing a range of priorities and interests.
There is no clear answer to the fundamental question of the extent to which the various priorities and interests compete or coincide. What we do know is that the regulatory impact statement found that removing exemptions would result in an overall net benefit to the ACT community, conservatively estimated to be worth more than $240 million over the next 30 years; that there would be substantial health benefits from reductions in both active and passive smoking; and that the risks of short-term impacts on businesses would be reduced to the extent that proprietors used the time between now and December 2006 to prepare their premises, staff and customers for the change to non-smoking.
The estimated benefits are conservative because they focus only on the difference it would make when exempt premises became smoke free. It is not possible for the regulatory impact statements to put a figure on the benefits to patrons of not being exposed to tobacco smoke, although these benefits could be substantial. One of the major benefits of the removal of the exemption system would be a reduction in passive smoke exposure for the employees of these premises, resulting in fewer passive smoking related illnesses and deaths.
The regulatory impact studies also note that the removal of the exemption system would result in reductions in active smoking. It has been found that smoke-free social venues can encourage and support people to stop smoking. It can reduce the amount that remaining smokers smoke and it can discourage the uptake of smoking by young people.
Mr Speaker, I think it is important to emphasise at this point the significance of the change that we are proposing. This is not some minor change. This is the removal of smoking from all indoor premises—all indoor premises. If you go to a nightclub, if you go to a dance party, if you go to a bar, if you go to a club with gaming machines, you will not be able to smoke indoors any more. That is a significant change for our community and it should not be underestimated or underplayed in the context of a discussion about how we manage the interface between indoor and outdoor spaces.
As members would know, the ACT was the first Australian jurisdiction to enact legislation requiring all enclosed public places to be non-smoking, with no exceptions. Whilst nearly all Australian states and territories have now enacted such legislation, none of this will take effect until 2006. Two jurisdictions will have their legislation take effect in the middle of 2006. The ACT will be the third jurisdiction for its prohibition to take effect. The government is committed to establishing non-smoking in all enclosed public places because it does believe that this would be a major step for public health in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .