Page 5422 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

I think we would defeat the purpose of the overall legislation if we were to implement this amendment. I also reiterate the Queensland experience with what they have adapted, and the issues that Mr Hanson has raised about smokers on pathways have not been a problem or, to my knowledge, have not actually eventuated to any great degree. So we will not be supporting the proposed amendment by the Liberals.

MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.01): The government will not be supporting the amendment either, for the reasons outlined by Ms Bresnan. It would be a significant watering down of this bill. When you read the object of this bill, when it is turned into an act it will be to promote public health by minimising the exposure of people to environmental smoke in enclosed public places, in outdoor eating and drinking places and at under-age functions.

Essentially, if the amendment was successful it would mean there would be quite a number of outdoor areas that would be smoking-only, as a result of this amendment. That is not something that is in line with the object of the bill or, indeed, in line with the discussions that we have been having.

The community has been discussing this for four years. At the time when the indoor ban was implemented, it was very clear that it was a step on a longer journey, and the longer journey would involve implementing an outdoor smoking ban in drinking and eating areas.

It is important for staff in those areas to be protected from the impact of environmental tobacco smoke. They are the people that do not have a choice about where they perform their work under the current arrangements. Also, the message behind the bill is that the smoking areas, if they are able to be implemented in a workplace, are to be break-out areas. They are not meant to be general areas where people continue to drink and socialise. They are to leave a place to go and have a cigarette and then return to where the socialising is occurring. When you read and understand the bill, the message we are trying to send is that we want break-out areas, and that would be defeated as well by the amendment, which would allow an area of 100 square metres to be a designated smoking area. The government will not be supporting the amendment and we would not be supporting it if it was for an area of 60, 40 or 80 square metres either.

Question put:

That Mr Hanson’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video