Page 5421 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: I had a conversation with one of your staff who indicated that—the execution was not quite confirmed. I take it from that thumbs down, minister, that you will not be supporting it. That is something I regret. I think this is a worthy amendment. It would help many of the smaller businesses who are struggling. They have recently had an increase in a number of the fees that they have to pay—licence fees for establishing outside areas. I am very concerned about forcing smokers onto pavements and into public spaces and the effect that will have.
If it is not too late, I would be happy to further discuss the amendment that I have provided. If the Labor Party or the Greens thought that 100 square metres was too much and it should be 80 metres, I would be happy to negotiate. I have picked a measure of 100 metres because I think that is reasonable, but it would appear that the execution is—
Members interjecting—
MR HANSON: It is not actually that big an area. Ten by 10 is not a significant area. Regardless, as I said, I would be happy to negotiate on the size of that area. With respect to my view about the size, it is a matter of where you peg that, at 80 square metres, 60 square metres or 100. I would be happy to negotiate on the specific size. The intent of what I am trying to achieve is to assist the pubs and clubs that have smaller areas.
Every pub, club and nightclub here in the ACT is different. They are all unique and they do have specific provisions. It is clear that this is going to be much easier for the clubs and bigger establishments to implement and it is going to be somewhat punitive for the pubs that have only one small outside area. It will have a significant effect on their business.
I reiterate, though, at this stage that I do agree with the intent of this legislation. I think we all understand the burden of disease that is caused directly by smoking. We will support the legislation, regardless of the outcome of this amendment. But I do encourage members to support my amendment because it will make this better legislation and able to be more easily implemented on the ground.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (10.59): The Greens will not be supporting the Liberals’ amendment as we believe that the proposal will water down the legislation and its proposed impact on the overall health of our community, and particularly for preventive health.
I do note that, in proposing this amendment, Mr Hanson and the Liberals are seeking to represent the views put forward by the ACT branch of the Australian Hotels Association. The association also wrote to the Greens. I appreciate the points that they raised about patrons going outside a pub to the pathway to have a cigarette and the issues around security staff and some possible control issues for crowds when they are outside venues. My office did give consideration to this matter but we believe it is more important that we do what we can to prevent the impacts that second-hand smoking have on staff and non-smokers—and patrons, obviously.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video