Page 4276 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
three sides, with a roof, because that is what 75 per cent enclosure means. We should remember that those states that have not moved yet on this issue are watching the ACT.
It is interesting to note that it is not smokers as a general class who are arguing for more enclosed smoking places; it is businesses that believe that they have something to lose. We should also remember that there has been a big move by clubs and pubs around the world against regulations such as this, all because they see any control over smoking as a threat to income. We can all recall the vociferous concerns put forward by industry groups when controls on smoking in public places were first mooted.
Strangely, it seems that the long-term effect of removing environmental tobacco smoke from cinemas, aeroplanes, restaurants, coffee shops and bars has not been to shut those businesses down at all. Indeed, they have prospered, and people’s comfort and health have benefited. Seemingly, this is a more important role for government than protecting the income of clubs when this mitigates the wellbeing of workers and patrons.
Even Ireland, a cold, indoor sort of country, where I believe it is always raining, with a great history of pubs and drinking and smoking, has recovered from the shock of eliminating indoor smoking. Businesses that swore blind they would go bust are, instead, going gangbusters.
Nor have I ever heard any of those bodies which campaign so vigorously against smoking restrictions turn around and admit that their arguments were wrong, despite the proof that they were wrong. They have never allowed that to enter any of their representations to government. So why does government not tell them they were wrong?
The one area where there is a link between cigarette smoking and profits is gaming. There is a demonstrated link between intense poker machine use and smoking, particularly for those people who can be described as problem gamblers. One agreed harm minimisation method for people dealing with gambling problems is to ensure that they have regular breaks from their machines. This gives them an opportunity to consider where they are up to, look at their gains and their losses and decide whether or not to return to their machine.
Leaving their machines for a minute while they have a cigarette is important—absolutely essential—for this to work. That they are out of sight of that machine for that time is a recognised harm minimisation method. I do not have the time to go into the problems related to gambling here. That is another issue in itself. If this smoking regulation could be used to reduce the incidence of problem gambling, that is something else that should be brought into the conversation.
Not only have the clubs and pubs with poker machines campaigned vociferously against any proposed elimination of smoking in gaming rooms; they have loudly bemoaned any perceived loss of income where it has come into place, and many of them are now designing smoking places with gaming machines or, failing that, with sight lines to their machines just to keep that special relationship going.
The clubs in the ACT, whose whole rationale increasingly looks like it is poker machines, have now cut back on their support for Lifeline’s Clubcare support for problem gambling. What does this say about their real community commitment?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .