Page 4279 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
many other areas of public health, how to phrase regulatory requirements and what constitutes health protection are likely to be the subjects of ongoing discussion. The government and ACT Health will continue to monitor scientific opinion, legal opinion and public opinion in relation to these matters.
In this environment, and with the impending end of the exemption system, it has been the government’s responsibility to provide a regulation that would make clear to proprietors and customers what kinds of places would be required to be non-smoking. It is no good pretending that we can ignore this issue or manoeuvre around it or delay it. Our legislation is the Smoking (Prohibition in Enclosed Public Places) Act 2003. It refers to a definition of “enclosed” which is contained in the regulation, so a definition must be provided.
It is crucially important to understand, however, that a regulation that defines “enclosed” for the purposes of defining where smoking is prohibited is exactly that. It does not say that smoking cannot be limited in places that fall outside this definition. Indeed, it is quite possible that some proprietors may introduce further restrictions in response to customer demand, occupational health and safety requirements and to prevent smoke drift into other areas.
I do not consider that this regulation precludes the government from further consideration of the issue of smoking in outdoor areas, including outdoor eating and drinking areas, areas near building entrances, the grounds of educational and health care facilities and children’s play areas, for example. I intend to look at policy options for these areas in the near future.
The regulation that has been made provides a useful way forward in dealing with a complex issue, an issue which has not yet been clearly addressed in a number of other states and territories, including notably New South Wales. The regulation sets out what an enclosed public place actually is and how to work out whether any given place is enclosed. The approach reflected in the regulation was developed after consultation with key health and hospitality industry stakeholders over many months, as well as taking into account advice and comments from other professions, including the architectural profession.
I believe that the resulting regulation represents another important step forward in establishing non-smoking as the norm in enclosed public places. While there will be those who have differing views about the detail of the exact requirements, creating smoke-free environments in all enclosed public places in the ACT is, however, a massive step forward. There will be no more tobacco smoke in indoor areas of pubs, clubs, bars, nightclubs, cafes and restaurants. That is the major public health benefit.
Arguing about whether the 75:25 ratio is better or worse than any other formula is simply not productive. There is simply no national or international agreement on how to define “enclosed” in relation to a public place. The government’s own regulatory impact statement that considered this matter reported:
There is no agreed definition across Australia(n) … jurisdictions as to how to differentiate between spaces where environmental tobacco smoke is, and is not, likely to be a problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .