Page 3832 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These changes will impact in varying degrees on businesses ranging from newsagencies to local stores, supermarkets and specialist tobacconists. Because of the practical considerations that must be balanced against the government’s policy, I will, as I have indicated, be supporting the amendments that the government has indicated that it will be moving.
Delaying the implementation of these changes seems sensible and will allow shop owners, the main group with whom I am concerned, a chance to consider ways to minimise the practical impact of the changes on their businesses. These practical considerations include complying with information provisions about availability and price and managing the changed arrangements to the layout of their shop, including potentially even the way people queue for items.
The ACT government’s position in relation to point-of-sale display of tobacco has been recognised and mirrored—although I am not entirely clear who initiated this action first—by New South Wales, which I understand is passing legislation that will prevent point-of-sale display. I mention New South Wales because I think it is generally important for a jurisdiction the size of the ACT to retain parity and some consistency with our neighbour, especially on commercial activities and even, to a large extent, on taxing regimes.
It is also worth mentioning New South Wales because my understanding of the process in that jurisdiction is that it has been much more thorough than we have seen here in the ACT. I was somewhat amazed that in response to a question without notice Ms Gallagher indicated some time ago that she had not met and would not meet with some of the key tobacco stakeholders. I found this a somewhat amazing position because the tobacco industry, whether you like it or not, is a key stakeholder and should have been consulted to engage in the cooperative development of appropriate regulation. If she refuses to meet with industry representatives, I would hope that she meets, or at least ensures that there is ready access to departmental officials for, shop owners who will be impacted on by this bill.
New South Wales consulted much more extensively than the ACT did in planning its legislation. I believe that the ACT should take this lead in relation to consulting and working with stakeholders in the practical implementation of these significant changes.
I was happy to arrange to meet the Action on Smoking and Health representative today, although it did not happen. I got an email late yesterday saying that their representative would be in Canberra. I asked the staff to advise that I would be happy to meet with them. They said: “It would be easier if you chased them. Here is the phone number.” I do not think that we ever got to chase them up, but certainly we sent them a note indicating that we would have been happy to hear their point of view. You have to get everybody’s perspective on this sort of legislation, which is always topical and somewhat controversial.
I acknowledge that businesses will have to make significant changes because of these changes. I hope that over the coming months the government is prepared to work cooperatively with those businesses in the ACT community, many of whom have written to me—and, I suspect, Mrs Burke, from the tenor of her remarks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .