Page 4778 - Week 11 - Thursday, 20 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and, the younger they start, the harder it is for them to give up. If we can minimise children’s exposure to second-hand smoke in a car, we may be able to minimise the chances of a child having a nicotine dependence and then taking up smoking in their teenage years.
In regard to human rights issues relating to the bill, some interesting comments have been raised about the right to privacy and whether or not the inside of a car constitutes a private place. In the UK some people have argued that the space inside a person’s car is like the space inside their house. This puts the argument that essentially adults should be able to engage in activities of their choice inside a car just as they do at home, including smoking around children and young people.
The explanatory statement attached to the Smoking in Cars with Children (Prohibition) Bill provides a very good explanation as to why the area within a car does not provide the right to privacy. Opponents of smoking restrictions often cite civil liberties as a reason not to ban smoking in certain situations, such as with this bill. The explanatory statement provides a strong defence against such arguments and, like Mr Hanson, I would commend the government for the quality of the explanatory statement.
The ACT is the second-last jurisdiction in Australia to have legislation banning smoking in cars with children. While enforcement occurs opportunistically, like with the enforcement of seatbelt laws, much of the legislation’s success comes from the accompaniment of a strong education program.
ACTCOSS has pointed to the success of a New South Wales education program called “car and home: smoke-free zone”. The project involved three waves of media campaigns using television, radio and billboard advertisements, supplemented by brochures, a website, other printed material and free education sessions. Specific resources and strategies were developed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Evaluations of the education program showed that 56 per cent more homes in the target audience were smoke free in the month after the project and there was a 42 per cent increase in reports of children travelling in smoke-free cars. I have been advised that the ACT government will be communicating its education program via radio advertisements and advertisements on buses. While the Greens support this, we also want to see some education targeted at people on low incomes.
The penalty proposed in the ACT is $250, which copies that of New South Wales, and I understand that if a person is having problems paying off a fine they can ask for a payment plan.
One aspect of today’s bill that I do not think has been fully discussed is the matter of equity. For many years smoking was common across all income levels. However, over the last 20 to 30 years there has been a significant reduction in tobacco use. Unfortunately, in terms of equity, people on low incomes or from vulnerable backgrounds have higher rates of smoking and this has widened the equity gap. As smoking is the single most preventable cause of ill-health and death in Australia, it is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video