Page 772 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As I have indicated before, Dr Foskey criticises the government’s definition, but she puts forward none of her own. She does not attempt to grapple with the complexity of the issue. Instead, she makes broad, wide-ranging assertions, but she does not tackle the key issue: how do you define “enclosed” and “unenclosed”? As I have already indicated, the regulatory impact statement does not find that there is any universally accepted way of defining these areas.
The RIS examined the issues around the meaning of “enclosed” and supported a tightening of the definition so that it was more restrictive. The RIS also supported a move to formalise a definition in legislation rather than relying on interpretative guidelines. The RIS also contained a table with examples of the wide variety of approaches to the meaning of “enclosed” that have been adopted in Australia and round the world. In fact, the RIS is quite clear in its conclusion, saying:
There is no agreed definition across Australian (and overseas) jurisdictions as to how to differentiate between spaces where ETS is and is not likely to be a problem.
The RIS also highlighted the difficulties in coming up with a magic formula. The report states:
The fundamental problem with setting a precise definition is that there is no definitive scientific study which provides a basis for comparison of [tobacco smoke] exposure of a three-sided room versus a one-sided room, and so on.
The RIS concludes:
There is no specific medical or scientific guidance as to precisely what threshold of enclosed is problematic (ie, at what degree of non-enclosedness do net costs become generated?).
The RIS goes on:
Some guidance can be taken from approaches adopted in other jurisdictions and other regulatory environments, but these definitions must be acknowledged as having been also developed without any clear scientific and medical evidence as to the degree of enclosure that is necessary to reduce tobacco smoke exposures to a reasonable level.
The RIS also notes that there is no known safe level of exposure to ETS. That was also acknowledged in the government’s response to ACT Health’s indoor air quality report on exempt premises.
Under the current exemption system, smoking occurs in up to 50 per cent of the public area of exempt premises and has been found to affect non-smoking areas as well. Removing the exemption system will put an end to that. So it is not solely about banning smoking in those areas where it is currently permitted. It is also about protecting those non-smoking areas that we have found are not non-smoking.
The primary objective of the smoke-free places legislation is to minimise people’s exposure to environmental smoke in enclosed public places. The Assembly did not vote
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .