Smoking Regulation Bill

Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Debate resumed from 9 April.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.09 a.m.]: The Opposition will support the Smoking Regulation Bill introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The control of smoking in enclosed areas has been the source of public debate for years. It is an issue with which I have had some association as a former Minister for Health. The control of smoking in public and in confined places has been the source of constant lobbying by all interested groups. Over the last decade there has been a significant change in public opinion about the issue.

The introduction of the bill is the culmination of the public debate that has occurred. The position taken by the Opposition is that it should support in principle a ban on smoking in indoor areas where food and beverages are consumed. The bill in its current form could not receive the support of the Opposition. Therefore, at the Committee stage the Opposition will seek to move amendments which deal with four areas. The Opposition believes that the legislation should contain provision for the granting of exemptions for venues that have equipment which complies with national ventilation and clean-air standards.

The legislation should provide a mechanism whereby outdoor dining can be encouraged by spelling out an outdoor dining State environmental planning policy. The Opposition is of the view that certain enclosed spaces, particularly extremely large public community spaces, could be excluded from the provisions of the legislation. For example, the Central station main hall is a very large area that is fairly extensively ventilated, and could be excluded from the operations of the legislation. The legislation should provide a five-year adjustment period from the date of the attainment of the standards which are to be agreed upon as national ventilation and clean-air standards.

The inclusion of the proposed amendments in the bill will achieve a comprehensive program for dealing with smoking in indoor areas where food and beverages are being consumed. To some extent I am in two minds about this legislation, in that I have a degree of personal prejudice. Whilst I am happy for other people to smoke, I acknowledge that it constitutes a health impediment for me. I find it injurious to my health to have around me people who are smoking. However, I realise that people who are addicted to smoking have a right that must be acknowledged. If 10 years ago one had raised this issue most people would have fought strongly for the right of the individual to be able to smoke. But today it is a question of balancing individual rights. People in the community have a right not to
Page 7872
be injuriously impacted by cigarette smoke. Consequently there are public areas where smoking has been banned.

I congratulate the shadow minister for health, Jillian Skinner. Since the introduction of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's bill she has consulted extensively with the peak organisations that have an interest in this area and has been able to garner a significant consensus of support amongst those groups for legislation of this nature. Those who have been involved in this issue will know that certain of the industry groups have been very strongly outspoken in their opposition to the type of restrictions that are envisaged in this legislation. However, in recent times many of those organisations have changed their attitude and are supportive of the need for some reform in this area.

I draw attention, for instance, to a letter of 7 April from the Restaurant and Catering Association, in which support is given to the legislation. The association proposes that the legislation be broad based. The Non-Smokers Movement of Australia has indicated that it seeks support for the legislation and that the type of package proposed by the Opposition has its general support. The Australian Hotels Association, which has been very outspoken against this type of legislation, has also signified its support for that type of package.

The honourable member for North Shore in the other place has consulted with the Restaurant and Catering Association, the Australian Hotels Association, Professor Simon Chapman from the National Health and Medical Research Council, who is the chairperson of the Minister's passive smoking task force, and the Australian Medical Association. All of those groups have supported the approach the Opposition has adopted. Also, the Opposition has received indications of support from the National Heart Foundation of Australia, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Australian Cancer Society, the Non-Smokers Movement of Australia and the Australian Council on Smoking and Health.

It is to the credit of Mrs Skinner that she has been able to bring together the quite divergent views that exist within that group in support of the package of legislation that is to be embraced by the bill and the amendments that the Opposition will move. Now that is not to suggest that some of those organisations have not pursued certain trade-offs. I know that some of those organisations take the view that there should be an absolute ban on smoking today; that if it was sought to allow smoking in certain venues that comply with national ventilation and clean-air standards, it should be possible to legislate to allow those standards to be developed and to allow time for the necessary alterations to premises to be made, but between now and then to ban smoking totally.

I have heard those views expressed; nevertheless I am of the opinion that there should be a phasing-in period for the introduction of such equipment in a way that is affordable to the community. Some organisations have said that there should be a three-year phase-in period from the time of the legislation. However, it must be recognised that the final standards, which are to meet a health standard rather than the convenience standard that exists at present, must be developed. An adjustment period is necessary to enable works, which will be expensive in some cases, to be carried out.

The Opposition has proposed a reasonable adjustment period of five years from the attainment of health standards. To some extent the proposition now being advocated by the Opposition is already in place in the Australian Capital Territory. The Australian Capital Territory originally provided a three-year phase-in period. I notice from recent press comments that the Australian Capital Territory Parliament is now considering legislation to extend that period for another two years. Therefore, the five-year phase-in period or adjustment period that we are talking about effectively recognises a practical reality that has arisen from experience.

In my contribution to the debate I will not detail all the arguments for and against smoking bans; no doubt other honourable members will want to burden the House with those views. The debate throughout the community has been strident. I suppose the major change in the community has been triggered by what occurred recently in the United States, where it has been reported that major tobacco manufacturers are negotiating with the United States Government for a compensation package relating to health injuries. Such a package will allow for compensation payments over a 25-year period. None of us knows the facts about those negotiations. One wonders whether the industry has recognised that court actions will continue. There have already been successful court actions settled in Australia. Knowing industry, and being suspicious of motives in this area, one wonders whether the final outcome of negotiations in the United States will be a total package and whether verdicts obtained against these companies will be enforceable against their assets in the United States outside the package being negotiated at present.

Page 7873

If I were acting for those companies I would negotiate a legislative package that basically provides a fence around the assets of the American companies. In the Bhopal incident in India, Union Carbide disposed of all its assets to other corporate structures in order to limit any potential liability of the organisation. No doubt tobacco companies will develop similar structures. Having seen what has occurred in the United States, employers in New South Wales now realise that they will have occupational health and safety liabilities, their WorkCover premiums will go through the roof and they must act now to deal with this matter. In this legislation the Opposition is ensuring that all the parties work together to achieve that.

The Opposition proposes that there will be a total ban on smoking in indoor areas where food and beverages are consumed. However, the introduction of that ban will take place over a five-year period. There will be an opportunity to put compliance equipment in place. Some operators in the hospitality industry will introduce an immediate ban because they recognise that that is necessary for workers compensation purposes. The package put together by the Opposition is respected by all interest groups. That shows clearly the difference between the Opposition and the Government. The Government received an industry task force report that included five comprehensive alternative packages. The health Minister responded by rejecting the report, and that staggered me.

One would expect a health Minister to support health objectives. He might get rolled in Cabinet and he might even get rolled in caucus, but at least he should stand up for health imperatives. It was incredible to sit in this House yesterday and listen to the Attorney General as Minister responsible for WorkCover, in answer to a question, indicate that he understood that the WorkCover Authority was still working with the task force to deal with health issues. The industrial relations Minister was floored when I pointed out to him that the task force had already made a report and his health Minister had rejected it. One wonders what happens in the Labor Cabinet when Ministers do not know what is going on. Labor is not providing leadership on smoking matters. The Opposition took the view that leadership was necessary, and it has provided that leadership.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You had the courage to do it.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Opposition had the courage to support the shadow health Minister, who will be the health Minister on 28 March 1999. I am pleased to show the House that the Opposition is prepared to support the bill but will work to achieve a package of amendments. I indicate that the Opposition will seek to delay the Committee stage of the bill. That will allow the Opposition to circulate the proposed amendments - which it hopes to finalise as quickly as possible - to honourable members and interest groups, so that further comment can be made on the package of changes.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.27 a.m.]: I support the Smoking Regulation Bill. I seriously warn the House that the proposed Opposition amendments will totally destroy what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is trying to do with his bill. I am reliably informed that when it comes to the crunch on attempts by the non-smoking movement, which has so much public support, to get legislation through any Parliament or Legislature, whether here or in the Unites States, governments are in the hands of tobacco companies; they attempt to water down legislation and make it as difficult as possible for legislation to be introduced. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition told me that these recommendations had been accepted by the Parliament in the Australian Capital Territory, and that is indeed the case. That Parliament watered down the legislation because an independent member did not understand what was happening. That made the situation in the Australian Capital Territory worse.

Parliaments have been captured not only by cigarette companies but by airconditioning and refrigeration companies and have watered down the Australian standards. The Australian standards for smoking are not good enough to protect the health of workers in the hospitality industry. The Opposition has recommended a lead-in period of five years before the legislation takes full effect, as is the case in the Australian Capital Territory. During that five-year period anybody who wants to smoke in a restaurant or a bar will be able to do so. That will not assist the health of either patrons or workers in any establishment, who will still be subject to the effects of passive smoking. It must not be forgotten that medical and scientific evidence shows that passive smoking endangers health.

I am not sure where the Leader of the Opposition gets his information from when he suggests that the Opposition's recommendations enjoy the support of the antismoking movement. Since the Leader of the Opposition made that claim my telephone inquiries have indicated that his claim
Page 7874
is completely wrong. I have spoken to Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, an Australian Democrat and President of the Non-Smokers Movement of Australia, who assures me that his movement does not support the Opposition's recommendations. Certainly there is no support from the Heart Foundation or the Australian Council on Smoking and Health.

I am certain that the Leader of the Opposition is correct when he says that the Opposition's recommendations have the support of the Australian Hotels Association, the Restaurant and Catering Association and the Registered Clubs Association - I am certain they will do anything they can to delay the introduction of legislation prohibiting smoking in public places. I do not recognise a necessity to water down the proposals introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, who is only trying to extend for public places such as restaurants, bars and clubs the provisions prohibiting smoking on public transport - which were introduced without a five-year lead-in period. When the Government decided to ban smoking on public transport it imposed a blanket prohibition. Smokers complained about that, but they had to accept it. Smoking is banned in taxis, and the majority of people using taxis observe that ban: they do not smoke in taxis and they object if a taxidriver attempts to smoke in his or her cab.

Smoking in aircraft is also prohibited. There has been a move away from the provision of non-smoking areas in aircraft, and people accept that they cannot smoke on domestic flights in Australia. I do not understand, therefore, why it is considered necessary to allow a lead-in period of five years before banning smoking in restaurants, pubs or clubs. There is no need to allow that time so that businesses can put in place totally inadequate ventilation systems, which will come at great expense for hotels, clubs and restaurants and will still not solve the problem for those who have to work in smoking areas. The health of nonsmoking workers will still be put at risk. It would be impractical to try to arrange work shifts in a hotel or club so that nonsmoking staff worked only in nonsmoking areas and smoking areas were staffed only by people who smoke. If such a suggestion had to be implemented, a manager would go out of his mind trying to organise groups of workers.

The House is debating this legislation at the time of the promotion throughout the United States of America and the United Nations that cigarettes should be placed on the same footing as hard drugs, in other words, as a drug of addiction on the same level as cocaine, marijuana and other amphetamine drugs. Tobacco is even more addictive and even more dangerous to health than other drugs. It is necessary to take account of the terrible toll that smoking has on the health of the community. We complain bitterly about increasing health costs, yet hesitate to accept this nonsmoking legislation without attempting to water it down. Every year 2,400 people in New South Wales die from heart and other blood-vessel disease only because they smoked cigarettes. Many more people suffer from heart attacks or strokes. They live on but they continue to be at serious risk because they continue to smoke.

The cost of health treatment after a heart attack or a stroke is partly responsible for increasing health costs and health insurance costs. New South Wales businesses bear 35 per cent - $1.47 billion - of the cost of smoking every year. The cost of smoking in this State is about $4.2 billion a year; far greater than the sum of $871 million collected in State tobacco licence fees in the 1995-96 year, which is paltry by comparison. As I said earlier, passive smoking also plays a role in heart disease. A United States study has concluded that the risk of heart disease could be increased by as much as 20 per cent through passive smoking. I received that information from the Heart Foundation, and I certainly do not believe that the Heart Foundation supports the recommendations put to the House by the Leader of the Opposition. I quote correspondence received from the Australian Council on Smoking and Health:

Smoke-free public places legislation

I am writing to you on behalf of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health (ACOSH) in relation to the bill before the NSW parliament which supports smoke-free public places. ACOSH is a coalition of 34 medical and community organisations concerned with reducing the health consequences of smoking.

The health effects of passive smoking have been well established by many scientific studies and reviews including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (1985), Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (1986), The Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health from the United Kingdom (1988), The US Environmental Protection Agency (1992) and the Royal College of Physicians of London (1992). The results of these studies show that the breathing of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) by non-smokers can lead to serious harm such as lung cancer, asthma and cardiovascular disease and is a major risk factor in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and childhood respiratory diseases.

Smoke-free regulations in the hospitality industry benefit the health and comfort of customers, but are also essential to ensure the health and safety of the thousands of people who work in restaurants, bars and clubs. Currently, venues where food and beverages are served place their occupants at a

Page 7875
higher risk of exposure to passive smoking than most other public places or workplaces.

It has been shown that food service workers are at a 50% increased risk of lung cancer than the general public and that restaurants and bars have considerably higher levels of environmental tobacco smoke than other workplaces where smoking is allowed.

Hospitality industry workers, who are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke for protracted periods of time, are not being given the same health protection as are workers in other industries. Patrons are also not being given the same level of health protection as they would receive in many other public places, such as a cinema or supermarket.

I remind honourable members who suggest that the legislation should be phased in over five years so far as it relates to restaurants and bars that already people are not permitted to smoke in supermarkets. One can do one's shopping but one cannot smoke in supermarkets. There was no five-year phasing-in period instituted for supermarkets or for cinemas. I well remember the days when one could barely see the screen, let alone the film, in a cinema because of cigarette smoke in the atmosphere. Nowadays one is able to watch films in cinemas in comfort, without being subjected to appalling cigarette smoke. There was no phasing in period so far as cinemas were concerned; the prohibition was simply introduced, and there was no drop in patronage as a result. In fact, I suggest that given the queues of cinema-goers in George Street, Sydney, patronage at some cinemas has increased. George Street cinemas are making a great deal of money, and patrons know, when they walk into cinema complexes, that they are not permitted to smoke. The letter from the Australian Council on Smoking and Health continued:

Employers who have the knowledge, or ought to have knowledge, that ETS may pose a risk to health must act to ensure that the health and safety of their employees and third parties, such as patrons, are not affected. This principle has been upheld in law.

There is evidence that people can now obtain damages if they apply to the courts and say that their health has been affected by passive smoking. Why else do honourable members believe that in America the tobacco companies are suddenly deciding that it is a good idea to shell out literally billions of dollars to prevent further litigation? They do not want legislation to stop them selling cigarettes - one of the most dangerous drugs that exist. Tobacco companies are not being altruistic when handing out billions of dollars; they are doing it for their own protection and for the protection of their industry, which is an industry of death. The letter from ACOSH continued:

The evidence from the United States is that industry wide smoking bans do not have a detrimental economic effect on businesses. A 1994 review of all US studies of the effects of smoking bans on restaurant sales found that, when compared with areas without smoke-free policies, there was no significant change in restaurant sales . . . These studies are based on sales tax data compiled over several years and strongly refute anecdotal evidence that has been used by tobacco companies to assert that significant falls in revenue have occurred where smoking bans have been introduced. Similarly, a study of New York Restaurants concluded that legislation that mandates smoke-free restaurants attracts more business and money than it drives away.

The letter concluded by urging me to support the legislation introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, which I do with great pleasure. I suggest that members of the Opposition think very carefully about the suggestions put forward by their shadow minister for health and bite the bullet. They should show the public that they too, unlike the Government, support smoke-free workplaces, smoke-free public places and certainly smoke-free restaurants, bars and clubs. I urge the Opposition not to support what I describe as a mickey mouse recommendation that hotels, clubs and restaurants be given five years to phase in such legislation. In that time the patrons of such premises will be poisoning not only themselves but also other patrons. That is the crux of the matter. That is the danger of waiting a further five years.

If the same recommendation is made in Committee, I will then say what I am about to say now: the amendment will be a Trojan camel. I advise honourable members to think about that! Honourable members cannot possibly support this amendment if they truly and honestly believe that there have to be smoke-free areas, smoke-free public places, including supermarkets, cinemas, buses, trains, ferries, aircraft, hotels, clubs and restaurants. I support Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile wholeheartedly. I have no intention of supporting the so-called recommendations of the Opposition.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [11.46 a.m.]: I have very strong views on this issue as many honourable members are now aware. My views stem initially from my exposure to research on this subject, and also in more recent years from personal allergies I have developed to environmental tobacco smoke. I know the level of personal discomfort that people can feel. I know what I was undergoing in this House before restrictions were brought in with regard to smoking in Parliament House. My level of personal discomfort during sitting periods was quite extreme. However, this bill does not deal with my personal comfort; it deals with fundamental health issues in the hospitality industry.

Page 7876

For some years the dangers caused by passive smoking have been known. For instance, I recall a major study conducted in Japan which was raised at a world conference on smoking and health that I attended some years ago. This study showed a very clear correlation between an increased risk of breast cancer among Japanese women who are the spouses of smokers. Children have a much higher likelihood of respiratory diseases - a whole range of illnesses - if they have parents who are smokers. I am indebted to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians for summarising some of the data in a letter dated 18 April which was sent to me and other honourable members. It stated:

These data indicate that exposure of children to Environmental Tobacco Smoke is a cause of increased frequency and severity of asthma and a possible cause of new cases of asthma in children. Environmental Tobacco Smoke also causes an increased risk of respiratory infections in children and may also increase the risk of sudden infant death syndrome . . . is a cause of irritation of the upper respiratory tract in adults as well as bronchitis and increased work absence from chest illnesses. It also causes some impairment of lung function which may be important in people with pre-existing lung disease. Of great concern is the evidence that passive smoking causes cancer, particularly of the lung and also coronary heart disease and other vascular diseases.

This is the issue we are dealing with; an issue not just for patrons of restaurants, like myself, who find it necessary to sometimes leave a restaurant immediately when someone starts smoking in a small space within my vicinity. It is a particular issue for workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries generally. It is a serious occupational health issue. The submission to members by the group Action on Smoking and Health stated:

Environmental tobacco smoke is a very significant occupational health hazard for the 120,000 people working in restaurants, pubs, clubs and entertainment venues.

In research from Siegel conducted in 1993 it was noted that within the hospitality industry exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is as much as 4.4 times higher for bar workers and 1.5 times higher for restaurant workers than it is for persons who live with a smoker. The studies to which I referred earlier about the greater likelihood of serious illness - such as, surprisingly, breast cancer suffered by those who are married to smokers - reveal also that there is a much higher level of exposure to passive smoking by workers in an industry than by spouses of smokers. It is clear that there is a serious occupational health and safety issue for workers in the hospitality industry. I was concerned when I asked a question in this House yesterday that the Minister appeared to deny that the Government has a responsibility for occupational health and safety concerns. On page 23 of yesterday's Hansard proof the Minister said in response to my question:

It is difficult to understand why the Government ought to accept responsibility for the consequences of passive smoking, which, as the honourable member said, is a lawful activity. I accept that passive smoking is a contentious occupational health and safety issue. I accept also that there is now considerable institutional, medical and scientific evidence to suggest a relationship between passive smoking in enclosed spaces and ill health.

Given the last two statements of the Minister, surely the Government has a responsibility under occupational health and safety legislation. I find it difficult to imagine the Government, for example, denying any kind of responsibility or concern if an industry proposed to expose its workers to asbestos, as happened in the past. Despite the weight of evidence detailing the dangers of passive smoking, the Government it seems has no concern whatsoever for the safety of workers in the hospitality industry who are exposed to tobacco smoke in their workplaces. This matter should be reconsidered by the Government.

Support for banning smoking in restaurants, clubs and bars exists in the community and is reflected in a number of opinion polls, as the Royal Australasian College of Physicians also stated. The results of surveys show that approximately three-quarters of the public, including smokers, support a ban on smoking in such places. It is truly puzzling that the Government continues with its extraordinary stance of not taking any action to protect patrons and workers in these areas. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated:

The evidence shows that business profits are not compromised by such actions in the same way that banning smoking on airlines and public transport has not affected patronage.

The hospitality industry needs a level playing field and it is the responsibility of the Government to provide such a playing field. The Government squibbed it; it has left it to a private member to introduce this bill. The Government is still not supportive of its own task force, which was set up to inquire into this matter. The Government also squibbed it when the task force came down with very strong recommendations. As a consequence, the Government has left workers and patrons exposed to passive smoking, even now when tobacco companies, at least in the United States, are beginning to acknowledge the harm caused by their product. The Government's behaviour with regard to this matter is, quite frankly, a scandal. I strongly support any action to restrict smoking in enclosed public spaces, particularly in the hospitality industry,
Page 7877
partly for the sake of the patrons but particularly for the sake of those who work in the industry.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.56 a.m.]: With pleasure I support this bill and congratulate Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Call to Australia party on being so persistent with this issue. Each year three million people die from smoking. It is estimated that 50 per cent of those addicted to smoking die from the habit - among them members of my family. It is estimated that 10 million people will die from the effects of smoking by the year 2027, and that the global health care cost of tobacco use is something in the region of $200 billion a year - that does not include the environmental cost of razing forests to cure tobacco nor the use of large amounts of farmland which could be used for growing food to grow tobacco.

The Heart Foundation has estimated that the annual cost of smoking-related illness in Australia is of the order of $4.2 billion, an amount that is not covered by the taxes paid by those who smoke. According to the 1994 issue of the Medical Sciences Bulletin cigarettes are thought to be responsible for more morbidity and mortality than any other single item - except perhaps animal products, which kill more people than tobacco does. I am not in favour of banning tobacco. I am not in favour of making it impossible for people to smoke.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Why not?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Why not? The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is one of the very few people who have successfully given up smoking tobacco, and I congratulate him on that.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Tell us why not.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I believe that it is the right of the individual to choose whether or not he or she wishes to smoke, and I do not think we should force those who are addicted to cigarettes to stop smoking. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti knows how difficult it is to give up smoking. In the late 1960s I used to run an anti-smoking course, and I received letters from people who had been smoking for 40 and 50 years. We even managed to help some of them break their habit. Unfortunately, however, the success rate is very small indeed. Some people who have been smoking for 30 and 40 years have tried maybe hundreds of times to quit smoking but, regrettably, many eventually die from the results of the habit.

Nevertheless, for some, smoking is an enjoyable pursuit. Even for those who are addicted it does have positive effects on the brain. The consequences are not all negative. For many years people have said how appalling cigarette smoking is, but it is not all bad. After all, tobacco is a herb which, if used wisely and in very small amounts, can be of benefit to the user - just like other herbs, the names of which I will not bother to mention today.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Marijuana, cocaine.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Cocaine is a herb, and it is used successfully by people in the mountains of Peru and Columbia to reduce their hearts' requirement for oxygen, so as to enable them to climb mountains without gasping. It is used by them as a herb as well. Some people abuse such herbs. Those who are addicted to the herb and smoke 20, 30 and 40 cigarettes a day abuse the herb. People who are able to keep their consumption down to two or three cigarettes a day are using tobacco wisely as a herb, and it will be of benefit to them. This morning I read of how the brain actually increases its receptors for nicotine. The brain develops additional receptors to allow people to use nicotine.

I have known, and obviously still know, many tobacco users. Some do not want to give up smoking; they are happy to smoke and they enjoy smoking. Others are desperate to give up smoking. Some of those who are desperate to give up smoking also enjoy smoking. I do not want to move down the road of prohibiting tobacco because that will lead to an enormous black market. That is what happened following the prohibition of alcohol, heroin and marijuana. People will break into other people's homes to steal videos, sell them and buy tobacco. Prohibition is not the way to go.

On the other hand, as a community we have to do everything possible to lower the risk of teenagers taking up smoking. They are the ones being targeted by the tobacco companies; they want to get to the 12-year-olds and the 13-year-olds. Somehow we have to make it impossible for 12-year-olds, 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds to smoke tobacco. Even if we are able to do that, teenagers will find a way around it. They will find ways to smoke, but we can minimise the incidence of young people taking up smoking. At least then they will be able to make an adult choice, because some people do not start smoking until they are 25 or 26. Today I spoke to a person who did not begin smoking until the age of 26. If people make an adult choice in the
Page 7878
knowledge that they could, and probably will, become addicted, that is their choice.

Teenagers are led to believe in glamorous advertisements, including the Marlboro sponsorship of motor racing, that if they smoke they will win. That sort of thing must be stopped immediately. Honourable members should also be aware of the importance of minimising damage to those who do not wish to inhale other people's smoke. The United States Department of Health and the Human Services Centre for Disease Control and Prevention estimated, in a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, that as many as nine out of 10 nonsmoking Americans are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Nine out of 10 people are forced to inhale other people's tobacco smoke! That figure must be dramatically reduced, and it will be as a result of the bill introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Dr David Satcher, the director of the centre, stated:

This study documents for the first time the widespread exposure of people in the United States to environmental tobacco smoke. This new information will be critical in estimating the extent of related disease and developing effective public health strategies.

A report of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States of America concluded that environmental tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and serious respiratory problems in children. I am a living example of that. Because of the health hazards of environmental tobacco smoke - ETS as it is called - the Environmental Protection Agency has classified second-hand smoke as a group A carcinogen, that is, it is known to cause cancer in humans. It is estimated that passive smoking is responsible for approximately 3,000 deaths from lung cancer in non-smokers in the United States. I repeat: 3,000 people who do not smoke die from lung cancer as a result of other people's smoke. One could undoubtedly multiply those figures tenfold, perhaps up to 30,000 people. It is difficult to quantify. That conclusion is based on results of 30 epidemiological studies conducted worldwide.

Nicotine is not the only problem. In 1995, cardiology researchers Dr Stanton Glantz and Dr William Parley consolidated international research on the pathogenic mechanisms of tobacco smoke. The resultant data demonstrate that the ill-effects of second-hand smoke result from many of the components of tobacco smoke, including carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and others. It is estimated that a passive intake of environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 per cent. To protect nonsmokers, many local government authorities in the United States have enacted ordinances requiring restaurants to be entirely smoke free. However, the potential economic impact of those laws on the commercial establishments is an important concern for business owners. Several American States have implemented ordinances. For example, a Texan municipality ordinance required a 100 per cent smoke-free environment in all commercial establishments to which the public has access, including all restaurants and restaurants with bar areas.

I have received a letter from the Australian Hotels Association in response to a request for information. I was concerned about the effects on the hotel industry of a ban on the smoking of tobacco. It is my view that people who visit hotels should be able to smoke tobacco - it is just another drug - as well as consume alcohol. Hotels are essentially places where people go to consume drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and I do not propose to try to prevent people going to hotels. I believe some public places should be available where people can smoke tobacco. If hotels are the only such places, so be it. David Charles, the chief executive of the Australian Hotels Association, wrote me a five-page letter. He drew my attention to a number of problems perceived by the association. He said that no Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country totally prohibits smoking in all hospitality venues. The letter stated in part:

. . . of the 25 OECD countries, smoking is permitted in night clubs and drinking establishments (bars) with very few restrictions.

Mr Charles referred to a letter dated 28 January 1997 that he had written to Dr Penman in which he stated:

The Smoke-Free Air Act implemented in New York City in April 1995 prohibited smoking in the indoor dining areas of all restaurants with more than 35 seats. Smoking was still permitted in restaurants seating 35 or fewer people, bars within restaurants and separate or private dining rooms for smoking.

Price Waterhouse LLP conducted a survey of restaurant owners and managers one month after the smoking ban was introduced in New York City restaurants. The survey, New York City Restaurant Survey, Price Waterhouse LLP, May 1995, found that:

* 51% of restaurant owners/managers said the smoking ban had been bad for business.

* 41% reported lower gross sales receipts compared to the same period a year ago.

Page 7879

* Amongst those reporting lower gross sales receipts

-83% said that receipts were down more than 5%,

-52% said sales were 15% lower than last year's results.

* Among those restaurants which have a bar area where food is served (where smoking is allowed under the regulations) 52% indicated that more customers asked to be seated in the bar areas so that they could smoke.

Mr Charles referred to an analysis that compared the Dunn and Bradstreet on-line business database for the first quarter on 1996 with that for 1 January 1993. The report was commissioned by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association and Mr Charles quoted its key findings as follows:

The restaurant smoking ban in New York City resulted in fewer jobs.

* New York City lost 2,779 restaurant jobs.

* The adjacent political jurisdictions gained 1,937 restaurant jobs.

* The restaurant job losses in New York City ran counter to a city-wide and metropolitan-wide tide of rising economy - total employment rose and, more importantly, total retail employment (of which restaurant employment is a subset) rose in the city as well as in the surrounding metropolitan area.

Mr Charles said, on behalf of the Australian Hotels Association, that a smoking ban across all sectors would be an economic disaster for the hotel industry. I believe we must take into account the concerns of such organisations and the need for those who are addicted to smoking, or who enjoy it, to be allowed some place where they are able to smoke. I believe we have a public duty to do so. It is important to note that the reports of decreases in restaurant sales following smoking bans have been based largely on anecdotal information, undersized samples or unfeasibly short time frames. Some were based on tax data to measure restaurant sales but the data was only collected for one or two quarters after the smoking ban was enacted.

Unlike previous investigations, the impact of the ordinance was monitored and analysed using a linear regression model. The analysis examined the relationship between total restaurant sales and the presence of the smoke-free ordinance, and incorporated seasonal variations and temporal economic trends including inflation. Validated sales data from each of the businesses was collected for more than 12 months before and for more than 12 months after the ordinance. The study found that the total sales of the restaurants did not decrease after the ban was implemented. I have received a document entitled "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" dated 19 May 1995, which was issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. That report summarised an assessment of the impact of the smoking ban. It stated:

Restaurant sales data for West Lake Hills were obtained from the Texas State Comptroller's office. Aggregate monthly sales data from January 1992 through December 1994 were obtained for the eight restaurants in West Lake Hills that had indoor dining areas and were in operation during all of 1992 and until the ordinance went into effect in June 1993 . . . These sales data included the 17-month period preceding implementation of the ordinance . . . and the 19-month period following implementation . . . Restaurants that opened during the assessment period were not included in the analysis . . .

Data were analyzed using a linear regression model that examined the relation between total restaurant sales and the presence of a smoke-free ordinance and that incorporated seasonal variations in sales and temporal economic trends. For each factor examined (i.e., time [year and month], quarter of the year, and presence of the implemented ordinance) a corresponding regression coefficient was calculated to measure the effect of that factor on total restaurant sales. A positive regression coefficient suggests that the factor was associated with increased total restaurant sales, and a negative value suggests that the factor was associated with decreased total restaurant sales. To test for multicollinearity, variance inflation factors were computed for each independent variable in the model. The Durbin-Watson statistic was computed to test for first-order autocorrelation (correlation of the residuals [error terms] for adjacent observations over time).

Total monthly sales for the restaurants . . . varied season by season. Sales peaked during the second quarter of each year . . .

Previous reports of decreases in restaurant sales following the enactment of clean indoor air ordinances have been based on anecdotal information, on studies that used restaurant owners' self-reports of the impact on their business instead of validated sales data, and on studies that used tax data to measure restaurant sales but collected data for only one or two quarters following implementation of ordinances. In comparison, the assessment in West Lake Hills was based on sales data that were validated by tax revenue reported by the State Comptroller's office, included data for periods of time sufficient for statistical analysis, and employed multiple linear regression techniques to account for temporal trends and seasonal variations in sales.

The assessment found that the introduction of the ordinances did not have a negative effect. The assessment is consistent with assessments using similar methods in other locations which have reported that the implementation of smoke-free ordinances have not been associated with adverse economic effects on the establishments involved. They include the 1994 assessment of Glantz and Smith on the effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales which appeared in the American Journal of Public Health; the 1994 assessment of Maroney and Sherwood on the impact of tobacco control ordinances on restaurant revenues in California, Claremont Institute for Economic
Page 7880
Policy Studies; and the 1993 assessment of the Taylor Consulting Group entitled "The San Luis Obispo ordinance: a study of the economic impacts on San Luis Obispo restaurants and bars". Each of the studies used regression models to isolate economic effects of smoking bans from the wide range of other economic, seasonal and policy variables affecting sales revenue. Each study found there was no negative financial impact.

It is clear that whilst the Australian Hotels Association has claimed that the smoking ban will cause problems, scientific studies have shown that there is no net loss in trade and no negative economic impact as a result of such a ban. Whilst anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a negative economic impact, proper scientifically validated reports show there is not. So it is questionable whether the bans will have a negative effect on business in restaurants. I believe that in the long term they will not, and that restaurants will be better off. That is what is shown by the data I have put on the record.

I congratulate the Opposition on moving much faster than the Government on this issue. The Opposition is aware that public opinion is very much on its side. Almost all industries are prepared to accept the bans, but the Australian hotel industry needs to be catered for. Some of the Opposition's proposed amendments to the legislation may well be worth supporting, because of the time scale and capital cost involved in installing airconditioning. The installation of separate airconditioning systems for smoking and non-smoking areas will be costly. If smoking can be banned immediately in particular areas, we should do that. But when considerable capital cost is involved, the ban needs to be phased in, as was discovered in the Australian Capital Territory.

We are finally moving towards the time when people will be able to go to any restaurant or enclosed public place and not be forced to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. I congratulate Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Opposition. The Government has not come down the same path as yet. Perhaps it has too many friends in the tobacco industry. Who knows? But it will be dragged kicking and screaming to the introduction of these reforms. I am surprised the Government has not introduced them. Perhaps it is because the Minister for Health is a smoker. Who knows? Perhaps there is too much pressure, or perhaps the party receives donations that we do not know about. Public opinion and the members of this House will force the Government to move.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [12.15 p.m.]: I support the bill. Like previous bills introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, this bill contains a great deal of balance and acceptance of reality. Although I will not dwell on it now, schedule 2 to the bill provides for certain areas to be set aside for people who wish smoke. The issue addressed by the bill is the right of workers to a safe workplace. I have received a great many communications on this issue. I draw the attention of the House to a letter that I and many other members received from the Australian Cancer Society. The letter reads in part:

Community surveys demonstrate strong support for banning smoking in restaurants, clubs and bars. In the USA, where over 480 cities and counties have banned smoking in public places, the evidence shows that businesses do not suffer from any adverse economic impact, as profits either go up or remain the same.

Despite all the letters and press statements that appeared in the first week of April when the report on passive smoking in the hospitality industry was released, nothing appeared from the New South Wales Cancer Council. It did not issue an instantaneous press release.

The Hon. Patricia Staunton: Have you got your patch on today?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, I have not. I wonder whether the new politicised Cancer Council with its politicised membership has been doing the Minister's bidding. The Cancer Council has flooded each and every member with correspondence about every other bill about smoking. Elaine Henry writes to us about five times a day. We are inundated, we are visited, and we are spoken to. The Minister received the report, dismissed it out of hand without reading it, and referred the matter to a task force. What did the Cancer Council do? It rolled over. It did not do what it usually does -

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: You can't say that.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Yes, I can. Usually by this stage on any matter regarding smoking I have received six letters from the Cancer Council. I have not yet received one in relation to this matter. I have kept all of the letters I have received. I have received letters from the National Heart Foundation of Australia, from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and from Action on Smoking and Health, ASH. I have even received a submission from Philip Morris (Australia) Limited, from which I will quote in a moment, but I have received nothing from the Cancer Council. This
Page 7881
must be the first time that members have not been inundated with correspondence from the Cancer Council on an issue relating to smoking. I bet the Hon. J. R. Johnson cannot produce a document from the council either. I believe that is because the new Cancer Council, which is headed by Professor Saltman, appointed by -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: This is from the Cancer Council.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has handed me a 1993 report of the Cancer Council. That is the sort of thing it used to produce: pages and pages. But when the recent report was released it produced absolutely nothing. It is about time this Parliament had a good look at what is happening with the Cancer Council. There was a scandal last year when the whole research advisory board resigned en masse. The new politically correct Cancer Council will do what the Minister tells it to do. It is a shambles and a shame. The Heart Foundation has written to members saying that not only do most people want smoking to be banned in public places but they believe it is about time that workers in hospitality industries were protected.

The Heart Foundation claims that 94 per cent of New South Wales adults want restrictions on smoking in restaurants. I thought that was an extraordinarily high percentage, so I wanted to know what the opposition was saying. I got out the submission from Philip Morris, which said that surveys were being conducted. I looked at the survey and found that 816 people had been surveyed. Of those surveyed 15 per cent did not want any restriction, 65 per cent wanted special smoking areas and 20 per cent wanted a total ban on smoking in public places. Philip Morris interpreted those figures as meaning that 80 per cent of those surveyed wanted smokers catered for with special arrangements.

The other way of interpreting the figures is that 85 per cent simply did not want smoking in public places, but believed in putting smokers in special areas. The results of another survey appear on page 6 of the submission. The survey related to whether smoking should be allowed in cafes or restaurants. Of those surveyed 6 per cent said that smoking should be allowed anywhere in cafes or restaurants; 47 per cent said smoking should only be allowed in restricted areas and 48 per cent said that smoking should not be allowed anywhere. Those figures can be interpreted as meaning that 53 per cent of people say that smoking should be permitted or they can be interpreted as saying that 95 per cent of people do not want smoking in cafes or restaurants.

In relation to clubs and hotels 18 per cent of those surveyed said smoking should be allowed anywhere, 60 per cent said smoking should be allowed only in restricted areas, and 22 per cent said smoking should not be allowed anywhere. Those figures can be interpreted as saying that 82 per cent of those surveyed do not want any smoking in pubs and clubs. I agree with that, because at the end of the day everyone has a safe workplace. I am indebted to the Parliament and the Presiding Officers, who, earlier this year, as part and parcel of their concern for members and staff and for occupational health and safety reasons, offered a stop-smoking campaign for members and staff.

The campaign was run by St Vincent's Hospital. I took advantage of the offer. The campaign was extraordinarily professional, and I have not smoked for about 10 weeks. I am now without patches or gum, and have been for two weeks. I feel better for it. That does not mean I am cured or that I am no longer addicted to nicotine; I am. I have to be careful not to go back down that path again. As part of the Parliament's commitment to its work force, it not only bans smoking to protect both members and staff and to protect us as members, but it also tried to do something more. Many other workplaces should take the same steps to protect their work force from damage. The Australian Hotels Association realises that smoking in public places is a significant and serious issue. It knows that at the end of the day hotels will have to protect their staff.

It is not only a matter of saying that smokers work in a particular bar and, therefore, smoking will be permitted in that bar. A smoker inhales two substances. He draws in the smoke from the cigarettes he smokes and the sidestream smoke, which is more dangerous, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has pointed out to this House on any number of occasions. The Australian Hotels Association knows it has to come to grips with this issue, and it has done so. I understand that the association will agree with the amendments that will be moved by the Leader of the Opposition in Committee. I should like to read briefly from the letter from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, which states:

The advice of health professionals is that legislation is appropriate to protect people, especially children and people frequenting public places from being exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians supports the recommendation of the Passive Smoking Task Force to introduce legislation to ban smoking in places where food and beverages are served in

Page 7882
order to protect the health of both employees and patrons in all sectors of the hospitality industry. It is an inevitable worldwide trend that governments are introducing public health measures to reduce community exposure to Environment Tobacco Smoke.

Although most workplaces in Australia are smoke-free workers in the hospitality industry continue to be exposed to high levels of Environmental Tobacco Smoke from patrons who smoke.

The letter from the college also says:

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians urges you to support smoke-free public places legislation, to equally protect workers and patrons.

Honourable members have also received a letter from ASH, Action on Smoking and Health, written by Anne Jones. In part that letter reads:

As a member of the Taskforce, and in discussion with other members, we are concerned that Dr Refshauge appears to have determined the Government's position without full consideration of the report and before any scrutiny by Cabinet or the Parliament.

She went on to outline the health effects of passive smoking. She then says:

Although the majority of workplaces in New South Wales are smokefree, hospitality workers and patrons however, are not given the same level of protection provided to employees in other industries.

About 120,000 people work in restaurants, pubs, bars and entertainment venues. In the hospitality industry, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is, as my colleague the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith pointed out, very high indeed when compared to the exposure of those who live at home with a smoker. The letter from ASH also says:

As there are two private members bills in the Parliament that are consistent with the Taskforce's recommendation to ban smoking in all hospitality venues, we are seeking your support for this legislation to take effect before 2000.

ASH does not want the legislation implemented straight away. It does not want it implemented tomorrow, something the Hon. R. S. L. Jones was concerned about, but by the year 2000. The letter concludes:

ASH Australia would greatly appreciate your consideration and support of legislation before the Parliament this week, to ban smoking in public places prior to the year 2000, in accordance with national and state health goals and the recommendation of the Passive Smoking Taskforce.

One would expect support from the Government on issues like this - but no way! The Treasurer continues to smoke.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: So do you.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, I do not. Ten weeks! Kiss a non-smoker! The Opposition has taken the lead on this report. The Opposition has taken the responsibility of negotiating with the relevant people, something the Minister has not done. My colleague the shadow minister, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, has been consulting with the representatives of industry and those on the task force. She has reached a reasonable position, and that position will become apparent at the Committee stage. I believe that position will be one of reasonable support for the aims of the task force. It will have a reasonable time frame and will satisfy those who want to go to a pub or a restaurant and not be forced to put up with cigarette smoking by both patrons and people in the work force. Many of those in the work force are young and it is horrendous that they are exposed to passive smoking at such an early age. I totally support the legislation before the House.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.28 p.m.]: I support the bill. It is timely, and I commend Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for the effort he has put into the introduction of it. Both the Government and Opposition are squaring off on this matter but they have both been rather lax in relation to this issue. It is a great pity that they have not moved faster, because for generations a series of governments has refused to acknowledge the problem. It has been extremely difficult for those working in the community, often on a volunteer basis, to bring to the attention of governments of both persuasions the necessity of dealing with the problems created by tobacco and cigarettes. For example, in an article in the Australian in January 1996 Laura Tingle stated:

The Menzies Cabinet continued to resist in 1965 consistent attempts by the Health Minister and the National Health and Medical Research Council to warn the public of the dangers of smoking - refusing finance for two educational films.

That was back in 1965. For years we have had ample evidence about passive smoking but it would appear that governments have relied on the relaxed attitude of the Australian population. That attitude is epitomised by the " . . . Anyhow, have a Winfield" campaign advertisements in which Paul Hogan and Strop participated. The attitude of Australians, on which cigarette companies have relied heavily, is to relax and not look to the future. That attitude and the "Anyhow" advertising campaign still linger in our culture today. Fortunately, Paul Hogan and John Cornell, in an article in the Weekend Australian on 12-13 April 1997, said that the campaign is a blight on their professional lives.

Page 7883

It is a pity that tobacco companies and governments have relied on a relaxed attitude to what is basically a hard drug problem. Previous speakers in the debate referred to the advantages of tobacco. However, tobacco is a hard drug. We do not seem to be able to get it through the public consciousness that some smokers find it as difficult, if not more difficult, to give up tobacco as it is to give up heroin. Although Australians desired a degree of sophistication in the 1960s, Paul Hogan and company, and the smoking smoothy Stuart Wagstaff, who made a career of 116 Benson and Hedges television commercials, had great success and a lucrative liaison with the tobacco industry.

The fact that a former New South Wales Premier is now working as a chairman for W. D. and H. O. Wills is an appalling indictment of the leaders of both parties. I would be interested to hear other comments on that. It is beyond my comprehension how that can be seen as a legitimate and appropriate contribution by a public figure after spending time in Parliament. To be an apologist for the tobacco industry after serving the public for so many years is an indictment of him. The Minister for Health, Andrew Refshauge, would not bow to pressure to act in terms of compensation from tobacco companies. Why has he refused to act? We know that he is a smoker, and that he is going slow on banning smoking in restaurants, pubs and clubs. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 April 1997 stated:

Dr Refshauge also rejected a Heart Foundation study finding that a majority of NSW people wanted smoking banned in restaurants, pubs and clubs.

I wonder how much that has to do with the tobacco industry contributions to the Labor Party. In 1991 the Federal Court ruled that passive smoking causes lung cancer and asthma. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 22 March 1997 stated:

After four decades of denials, the tobacco industry has been attacked from within after an unprecedented deal between the makers of Chesterfield cigarettes and the governments of 22 American States.

How much more evidence does one need? It is extremely important that we move towards a smoke-free zone in Parliament House. I say "move towards" because a few recidivist smokers, such as the Hon. Gerry Peacocke, still refuse to stop smoking in public places. Honourable members must remember that the airconditioning in Parliament House is shared by all. Many members of Parliament and staff have varying degrees of resistance to tobacco smoke; therefore it is important to address the issue of passive smoking. Indeed, people who visit me and work with me are tobacco addicts and they must go outside to smoke. It is extremely important to provide hard rules.

I do not believe that tobacco smoking should be banned per se. Prohibition will not work, as has been shown with other drugs. However, ventilation systems must be provided in public places where people are smoking. I would go so far as to say that smoking should be banned in railway precincts. I catch a train to work daily and I notice the smell of smoke when I get off the train. For example, when I walk from the Martin Place station precincts into the open air I can smell tobacco smoke. People are inhaling the tobacco smoke as they walk up the steps to Martin Place. Railway station precincts are still relatively enclosed areas. It is shocking that people must inhale tobacco smoke as well as all the other pollutants in the city, whether they be from motor transport and the like. I would like to see the pollution from motor transport reduced.

Nonsmokers smoking the sidestream of tobacco smokers is a major problem. Whilst I do not want smoking to be banned, it should be banned from all public places and enclosed spaces, regardless of the size of the space. That would address the coalition's third recommendation. It is extremely important that there be no grey areas or points at issue related to enclosed areas: smoking should be banned from those areas. As for a five-year adjustment period, it is important to ban now and adjust later. That would force the industry to move towards having smoke-free zones. It is important that people working in the hospitality industry, particularly bar workers and workers in restaurants, not be exposed to passive smoking. We must move quickly on this issue. In a letter from the Heart Foundation, Professor Phillip Harris said:

Increasing evidence shows that passive smoking also causes heart disease. The Heart Foundation seeks your assistance in combatting these diseases by helping reduce involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

That is almost a contradiction in terms. Professor Harris further said:

Each year about 2,400 people in New South Wales die from heart and other blood vessel diseases because they smoked cigarettes. Many more, having suffered a heart attack or stroke, live on but are at serious risk because they continue to smoke.

In New South Wales the cost of smoking is about $4.2 billion a year, a sum much greater than the $871 million collected in state tobacco licence fees (1995-1996).

Professor Harris strongly urges me to support legislation which will lead to more smoke-free
Page 7884
public places being provided. In a letter Anne Jones of Action on Smoking and Health, or ASH stated:

The health effects of passive smoking are well established by numerous scientific studies and reviews . . .

It is important to understand that the results of studies show that " . . . passive smoking can cause heart disease, lung cancer, asthma attacks and is a major risk factor in SIDS and childhood respiratory diseases." Adult smokers have a responsibility to protect their children from tobacco smoke. Children should be well educated about the effects of exposure to sidestream and passive smoking. It is extremely important that we get it right to meet our responsibility to our children. I wonder whether early exposure to tobacco smoke or the smell of tobacco encourages people to start smoking later in life. I quote from Anne Jones:

Within the hospitality industry, exposure to ETS is as much as 4.4 times higher for bar workers as opposed to 1.5 times higher for restaurant workers, compared to persons who live with a smoker.

This is obviously a matter that needs to be remedied. It is a matter that needs enthusiastic and brave action on the part of the major parties. The Australian Cancer Society has written to me requesting support for the legislation, citing the protection of both workers and patrons in the hospitality industry by banning smoking in all places where food and beverages are served. Although most New South Wales workplaces are smoke free, workers in the hospitality industry continue to be exposed to higher levels of environmental tobacco smoke than patrons who smoke. The Tobacco Institute of Australia has written to me also. It is embarking on a campaign in hospitality venues, bars, hotels and clubs, which it is calling "Courtesy of Choice". Brendan Brady, Chief Executive Officer of the Tobacco Institute of Australia wrote:

We do not believe there is any need to alienate over 3 million Australians who choose to smoke by banning them from hospitality venues.

The hospitality industry could self-regulate and accommodate the preferences of all their guests.

It is apparent that self-regulation has failed so far. I am sick and tired of people who are motivated purely to maximise their profits being prepared to put at risk the health of so many. Self-regulation has been very poor, especially when one considers what is scientifically proven to be needed. It is clear that in the Western world, including Australia, tobacco is the highest avoidable cause of death. That puts a massive impost on the Government of this State in terms of the supply of medical services to those who have been encouraged towards addiction by the tobacco industry and its sophisticated and protracted advertising campaign. It is extremely important that the Government, regardless of whether individual members be smokers or nonsmokers, support this bill and move towards the cessation of smoking in all enclosed places so that, contrary to comments made by the industry, nonsmokers are given a choice not to imbibe sidestream passive smoke, which has been proved by the medical fraternity to be extremely dangerous.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [12.43 p.m.]: I support this bill. I shall speak only briefly in the debate, as a great deal of what needed to be said has already been enunciated in previous contributions. So far as I am concerned, government has been ducking this issue for much too long. I guess that represents the power of the tobacco industry to stop other moves that have been made to try to reduce the incidence of passive smoking in the community. I congratulate Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile on introducing this bill, a move that probably should have been made a long time ago by one of the major parties. For years I worked in cigarette smoke. I grew up with a father who smoked heavily, and it eventually cost him his life.

I have worked in newsrooms, and there would not be many places in which cigarette smoke is thicker than the average newsroom. I lost friends from the newsrooms to emphysema and other health problems caused by cigarette smoke. I lost a couple of my most respected friends - 80-cigarettes-a-day people - to cigarettes. Therefore I am no lover of tobacco or cigarettes. But that is not what this bill is about; we are not talking about banning smoking or prohibiting people from the weed. This bill is called the Smoking Regulation Bill, and it is extremely important that honourable members remind themselves that they are not involved in an argument about whether people should be forbidden to smoke at all but in an argument about whether they should be forbidden to smoke around other people who are not smokers.

When the idea of a ban on smoking in restaurants and other public places was first proposed some years ago the Restaurant and Catering Association was completely opposed to it. I had discussions with the association at the time and am aware of its views. The association did not want the Government to introduce laws forbidding the industry from allowing customers to smoke. The industry proposed self-regulation and said that it would take measures to reduce the effects of passive smoking. Industry self-regulation has been an absolute failure, and it is my belief that the time has
Page 7885
come for the legislators of this State to regulate for the industry. The Restaurant and Catering Association, the clubs, the Australian Hotels Association and the Opposition have jumped on the bandwagon. All that is needed now for a unanimity of opinion is for the Government to be dragged in as well.

Environmental tobacco smoking is known by most people as passive smoking, and it means that a person who is not a smoker inhales somebody else's smoke. I do not intend to recount statistics; previous speakers elaborated on the statistical evidence. The statistics relating to the damage caused by passive smoking are unarguable. All I would like to say is that if we were to envisage the cloud of smoke hanging about in a restaurant, an office, a pub or a club as countless millions of fine particles of ash floating in the air, then the prospect of that ash settling on our food, our drink, in our hair and our clothing should amongst reasonable people end any argument that smoking in public places needs to be prohibited. Smoking needs to be stopped when it is not taking place between what one could call consenting adults, because it is a monstrous intrusion on the space, the privacy and the health of the nonsmoker. And there is absolutely no question that people should not have to work in a workplace affected by cigarette smoke.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, the tobacco industry in the United States has now admitted the problem of smoking infection. In my book, smoking infection is a reasonable term to use when one recognises that there is no doubt that smoke drawn into the lungs of a nonsmoker can create an infection. The admission is a massive mea culpa from the tobacco industry, and it should be understood that it is the turning point upon which we can now make the kind of legislation that will free nonsmokers from the curse of tobacco smoke around them. I am appalled that the Government so readily rejected and refused to take on board a recent report which, we are told, recommended the kind of prohibitions provided in the bill. I would have expected the Government to jump at the report as a justification for a much-needed public health measure.

The Leader of the Opposition has foreshadowed amendments, which have also been discussed by previous speakers. I find it very difficult to understand the purpose of an amendment to provide for a five-year phasing-in period for this initiative. If we are to prohibit smoking in enclosed public places, why would those public places need improved ventilation systems? What is the need for five years for phasing in on the ground that ventilation systems will impose an intense capital cost? It appears that the Opposition's foreshadowed amendments, which need to be examined in greater detail, beg the question of the whole bill. Frankly, I would not like this bill to be watered down.

It has been suggested that passage of the bill will result in restaurants going out of business. I suggest that the only businesses to suffer would be those that make ashtrays and cigarette lighters. This bill makes it a defence for the occupier of a public place accused of allowing people to smoke to point out that he did not provide matches, ashtrays or cigarettes. This bill is not about imposing a total ban on cigarette smoking; it is about regulating smoking in places where nonsmokers might suffer from the smoke. It is much too late for a total ban.

As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said, one cannot stop addicts. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti managed to stop smoking, but most addicts do not want to stop and are incapable of stopping. While one might have sympathy for those addicted to cigarette smoke, I point out that the bill's purpose is not to deprive them of their habit. I support the bill. I also support the right to smoke for those who want to. I more fiercely defend the rights of nonsmokers not to be forced to partake of cigarette smoking if they do not want to - I do not want to. I support the bill.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [12.50 p.m.]: I support the Smoking Regulation Bill introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to regulate smoking in public places, including public places that are places of employment. I do not support a total ban on smoking, but I am against people smoking when others are around. I am concerned about the health of workers and the general community who do not smoke. I am not a smoker, but like the Hon. J. S. Tingle, my family members smoke or have smoked, including my mother and my husband. My mother died from emphysema, a smoking-related disease. My husband underwent open-heart surgery because he was a smoker. So, I have been a passive smoker all of my life.

I have not suffered any detrimental effect - not that I am aware of at this moment - and I hope that none will develop. However, members who have spoken in the debate previously have documented extremely well a whole host of evidence showing the effects of passive smoking. Environmental tobacco smoking, that is, passive smoking, causes a number of diseases. Along with other honourable members, I have received correspondence from various groups, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian Cancer
Page 7886
Society, the National Heart Foundation, Action on Smoking and Health -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: The Australian Cancer Council?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: No, like my colleague the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti I did not receive that correspondence. But I did receive correspondence from a group on the other side of the story, the Phillip Morris Group. I tried to ring that group to tell them that I intended to be impartial on this issue. After all, tobacco is still a legal drug. I am not supporting a total ban on smoking; I am talking about passive smoking. I wanted that group to give me a strong argument that I could present during this debate to more or less allow members to make a fair judgment. For the benefit of that group, I present its argument as contained in its letter, referring to the total ban on smoking in public places. The letter from the Phillip Morris Group, dated 9 April, signed by Nerida White, Manager, Corporate Affairs stated:

Extreme legislative measures, such as those proposed in the Macdonald and Nile Bills, are usually implemented to deal with a proven serious risk. A measure as extreme as total smoke bans, must be predicated on the notion that a serious health risk attaches to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. However, this notion is inconsistent with the findings of many eminent scientific authorities.

The letter cited a finding by the President of the New South Wales Australian Medical Association, Dr Julian Lee, who publicly stated:

Our review has led us to the conclusion that the data in relation to "passive smoke" and adverse health effects is weak and inconclusive.

The letter also cited, although this is not strongly presented in the letter, that the National Health and Medical Research Council - NHMRC - had ignored evidence in making its recommendation. The evidence from that organisation was weak. On the other side of the argument there is enormous evidence that passive smoking is really harmful to health, particularly the health of children. This is important to me. As honourable members know, recently I became a grandmother and I am concerned about the exposure of children to harmful effects on their respiratory system, which may lead to asthma or bronchitis. I support the bill. The Government should support the bill; up until now only the Opposition and the Independents have supported it.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON [12.56 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government I indicate that the Government does not support the Smoking Regulation Bill introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to impose a blanket ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Our attitude is not based on any lack of concern about the health effects of smoking in the community. The Government opposes the bill because it believes that it is impractical, it is unworkable. In order to have legislation on this issue that is both practical and workable it is necessary to bring the community into any negotiations that take place. The Government refuses to take action without appropriate consultation.

Unlike the Opposition, the Government is not prepared to foist changes on the community without first talking to the community. The Carr Government is in the process of establishing consultative mechanisms with relevant organisations and the community on all options for decreasing passive smoking risks and protecting the health of workers in the hospitality industry. The Government will continue to do that. Any legislation that the Government would contemplate introduce, or would contemplate supporting, must be seen to be supported by a comprehensive community education strategy and a hospitality education strategy, and must also have the support of the wider community and those organisations and entities which will be affected by any ban such as that proposed by the legislation. For that reason the Government opposes the legislation.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. D. J. Gay) left the chair at 12.58 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [2.30 p.m.]: I support the Smoking Regulation Bill, the overview of which states:

The object of this Bill is to regulate smoking in public places (including public places that are places of employment).

I am a passive smoker. I have never smoked, nor have I ever had a cigarette to my lips. Since I was elected as a member of this House in 1988 I have been troubled by passive smoking. I realised in my very early days here that there was something wrong; I could smell cigarette smoke coming from airconditioning throughout the building. The result of the President's investigations at the time was that there was nothing wrong with the airconditioning. I did not accept that finding at the time and I still do not accept it. My office staff have also been affected by the passive intake of cigarette smoke over the years.

I have had the airconditioning unit pulled out in my office and checked, but smoke still emanates
Page 7887
from it. I am extremely pleased that this bill is being debated. I am disgusted, however, with the Minister for Health, Dr Refshauge, who is a medical practitioner. For the life of me I cannot understand why a man who is well aware of smoking-related illnesses and what lung cancer does to human beings should say that this bill is impracticable and unworkable. My response to that assertion is: where there is a will there is a way. If the Minister for Health wanted this bill to pass through the Parliament, it would be made workable and practicable, as Call to Australia believes it is.

I was also disappointed to see recently on a television program a former Liberal Premier, Nick Greiner, give support to the tobacco industry. Unfortunately, what is happening in America at this moment will soon happen in Australia, particularly in New South Wales. The Government's task force has met and has come down in favour of this bill, yet Dr Refshauge has decided to ignore the recommendations of that task force. When I am sitting in this Chamber I am able to smell cigarette smoke on the clothing of other members. When one does not smoke one is particularly sensitive to such odours. I can even detect the odour on people sitting in the gallery. I have had medication this morning for my allergy; for my wheezing. I am affected now, as I have been all day.

There is now a ban on smoking in taxis. However, a nonsmoker is able to detect the smell of tobacco in taxis, the drivers of which light up while waiting for a fare. For me, as a nonsmoker, such a smell takes my breath away. Coffee shops also present a problem for nonsmokers. Although many coffee shops have smoking and nonsmoking areas, cigarette smoke always wafts from the smoking causing discomfort to those in the nonsmoking areas. Recently I dined at an indoor-outdoor restaurant in Manly. Although I dined indoors, the sea breeze brought the cigarette smoke inside the restaurant from outside. I just could not get away from it. I feel terribly sorry for our Treasurer -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You don't really.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I do, because I have a son who, because of the pressure of his work, God forbid, has taken up smoking. I buy nicotine patches for him every so often but his desire to smoke remains. I am well aware of that desire, I can see it in the Minister's eyes.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I will give up smoking if you promise to support me on nine bills out of 10. That will relieve the pressure.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: That is bribery. Yesterday, because Call to Australia voted for a Government bill, we were accused of being bribed. The Treasurer knows, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, that we do not take bribes.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: If I give up smoking will you consider the offer?

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: No, I am sorry I cannot do that.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The honourable member will return to the leave of the bill.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: The Treasurer knows all about cigarette addiction. I am not sure whether the Minister for Health has the same problem. I know it is very difficult for those addicted to stop smoking. Recently someone who had smoked for 10 years told me that acupuncture treatment has been successful in getting people off the habit. Maybe the Treasurer should also try acupuncture. Cigarette smoking is a real problem for many people, as the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith said in her contribution. When this Chamber adjourns it seems as though the twelfth floor lights up. As I walk down the corridor in the direction of your office, Mr Deputy President, I can smell cigarette smoke.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It must be coming out of a bottle because it is not coming out of the offices.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I know what comes out of a bottle, so do you, and smoke does not come out of a bottle. It is still a problem in this place.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It is in your mind.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: It is not in my mind. The Hon. J. R. Johnson obviously has no idea of my discomfort when I have an attack. The Minister for Health and this Government should give some consideration to the health of the people of New South Wales and not their own petty addictions. I believe that with rights come responsibilities, and this Government has the responsibility of looking after the health of the people of New South Wales. It should not play up to minority or financial groups in society. I thank the Opposition for its support for this bill. When Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile introduced a similar bill some years ago the Opposition of the day, the Australian Labor Party, supported Call to Australia. Why will this Labor Government not support this bill? The Government will not help to make it practicable and workable and put it into place; it does not want the responsibility. As I said, I thank
Page 7888
the Opposition for its support for the bill and for its amendments and I hope that those amendments will strengthen the bill. I also hope that the Opposition will not seek to water down the bill. If honourable members were to visit hospitals and see the patients who are dying from the consequences of smoking and passive smoking they would change their minds about this legislation. I have much pleasure in supporting the Smoking Regulation Bill.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [2.41 p.m.]: I support the Smoking Regulation Bill. It is true that the Opposition proposes to move a number of amendments after the second reading debate and they will be available for honourable members to consider. It is an important decision that we make today, and quite a deal of effort has gone into trying to find common ground with commonsense, to work in the public arena, and to meet the wishes of everyone in the community. We have to be able to deal with those in commerce - the hotels and clubs - and those in the workplace. It is important that we develop an agreed national ventilation and clean air standard based on health considerations rather than on comfort requirements.

The Opposition had those views in mind when preparing amendments to the bill, which it proposes to introduce in Committee. The Opposition considers that it is reasonable to allow industry a period of time to adapt to change and to introduce new requirements. To that end, it seems reasonable that a five-year period be allowed the hospitality industry for it to adjust to agreed national ventilation and clean air standards, taking into consideration the health of patrons and employees.

Certain exemptions may be granted in respect of this legislation for venues with equipment that will enable them to comply with appropriate clean air standards. We should also encourage outdoor dining when formulating environmental planning policy. Without doubt, the enclosed spaces referred to in the bill exclude extraordinarily large community spaces. In that regard Central railway station has been referred to in previous debate. The Opposition has acted responsibly; it realises the need for this legislation. It has taken the time to work through the bill and to consider the reports produced by the task force that was set up for this purpose. I support the bill. In doing so I remind honourable members of the requirement for commonsense in our search for common ground.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.43 p.m.]: I also support the bill. I must say there have been times when I would have been surprised had someone said that I would at some stage support such a bill, not that my support would not have been forthcoming because I was a smoker. Unlike the Hon. Elaine Nile, I could not say I have never smoked. I would not make the claim that a cigarette has never passed my lips, because it would be untrue. I do not regard myself as an advocate for the smoking lobby, but I am a very tolerant man. I can understand the habits of those who smoke because many members of my family and a great many of my acquaintances smoke. When considering the immense changes in public opinion, honourable members should turn their minds to the time when the standard ration for someone out in the bush was a combination of flour, sugar, perhaps a little mutton if it was available, and tobacco. Tobacco was the essential ingredient of hardtack rations.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What, no fish?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: There was no fish out in the bush in those days, certainly not in the station store. Fish were plentiful enough for those who needed to catch their own because in those days the administration of fisheries was much more enlightened than is presently the case. Getting back to the subject under discussion: I want to amplify the change of attitude towards smoking. Of all the liberties denied them, access to tobacco is the one thing that those unfortunate enough to be incarcerated in various New South Wales correctional institutions wish to have restored to them. In wartime when soldiers spoke about the difference in ordnance and equipment between that of the American servicemen and that of our troops the one definitive description that emerged was Wild Woodbines versus Camel and Lucky Strike cigarettes. To have a good smoke was really something. Honourable members will also recall Rudyard Kipling's great line that a woman is just a woman but a cigar is a real smoke. We have come a long way since then.

[Interruption]

Such a statement would be condemned today. I knew this would bring a few of them out! I note that the Treasurer is sympathetic. I knew the feminists would all rear up about such a comment. I acknowledge that this is a serious subject and I do not want to stray from the subject. On those occasions when great celebrations are enjoined I am sure the Treasurer would also enjoy a good cigar.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: No, I do not really, although I do not mind a pipe.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I have been asked to express my views expeditiously, which is a contradiction in terms for me. I sympathise with those who enjoy a cigarette. My father was a person who did not smoke a lot, but a pipe in the evening and a small glass of rum were among the
Page 7889
great joys of his life. I would hate to deny people that entirely. Other speakers have referred to their tolerance of tobacco use in society, but I agree with the broad thrust of this debate, that in this day and age it is intolerable to inflict that opinion willy-nilly on other people, in particular in the circumstances described in the bill. One group in society needs to recognise the rights of individuals who choose to be smokers, and it is important for smokers to recognise the rights of individuals. There was a time when the rights of the smoker were presumed to prevail in so many circumstances, not only in hotels and restaurants but also in meeting places. People believed they had the right to light up regardless of the ventilation that was provided. That is no longer tolerable in our society.

There will be debate about fine tuning so that adjustments can be made in the entertainment industry. I believe we have to recognise that although in the workplace and many other places smoking is no longer tolerated, in convivial company when alcohol is being imbibed, we hope responsibly, the inhibitions in respect of smoking seem to be removed. People who have given up smoking generally will indulge in a cigarette when they are socialising with alcohol. A little more tolerance and some adjustment is needed. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby described the time frame as far too lengthy, and perhaps that can be debated. I strongly support the bill, which is in tune with contemporary standards of behaviour and good manners in our society.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.50 p.m.], in reply: Members of the Liberal Party and the National Party, as well as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, have spoken in support of the bill, and I thank them for their participation. I am most disappointed in the response from the Minister for Health in the other place to this major piece of legislation. His five-paragraph response contains many errors. This legislation is not radical; similar legislation is being introduced all over the world. It is in harmony with a worldwide understanding of passive smoking. Similar bills have been introduced in the Australian Capital Territory and will be introduced progressively across Australia and in other western nations - in particular industrialised nations - and perhaps even in other parts of the world.

A clear majority of members of this House are in favour of the bill. Therefore, I am not forced to argue or to convince them that they should vote for it, although I should like to convince Government members to vote for it. Many Government members have told me privately that they agree with the bill and are embarrassed that the Minister for Health is digging his heels in about the matter, perhaps because of pride or ego, and is ignoring health considerations. He is not even considering the interests of the Government. He has disadvantaged the Government by not responding positively to the recommendations of his own task force. In objecting to the bill, the Minister is suggesting that appropriate consultation has not taken place. He set up the consultation process 12 months ago when he established the task force to do the very thing he says must now be done.

A draft report dated February 1977 entitled "Passive Smoking in the Hospitality Industry - Options for Control - Report by the NSW Passive Smoking Task Force to the NSW Minister for Health" has been presented to the Minister for Health. Copies have been made available to honourable members either through the Minister or through members of the task force. I am not sure if Cabinet has even discussed the report. I hope it has, because Dr Refshauge has committed the Government to a position which cannot be substantiated and cannot stand up to examination. Dr Refshauge's task force examined this subject after intensive detailed consultation.

I understood that once the task force issued its report and supported the bill Dr Refshauge would also support it. I was advised to delay the bill until the release of the report because if the report provided support for the bill, it could then be introduced. That scenario has been derailed by Dr Refshauge. Logically the bill should be passed with the unanimous support of members of this House as it incorporates the recommendations of the task force, which conducted its investigations between March 1996 and February 1997. The executive summary of the report of the task force states:

The Taskforce consulted widely in relation to this issue, inviting submissions from the public, writing to a range of organisations and receiving presentations from some key groups. The consultation process undertaken by the Taskforce indicated strong support for action to be taken to address Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) exposure in the hospitality industry.

Dr Refshauge must have his head in the sand to ignore the consultation that has taken place, at his own direction. Dr Refshauge said - and I suggest he must have composed this statement in the shower this morning:

Any legislation that we would contemplate bringing in must be supported by a comprehensive community education strategy and a hospitality education strategy.

The bill provides for such a strategy. I wonder whether Dr Refshauge read the bill before he decided to attack it. Clause 16 of the bill provides:

Page 7890

Education campaign

The Director-General of the Department of Health is to conduct an information and education campaign about the provisions of this Act. The Director-General is to do so out of money otherwise lawfully available for the purpose.

The Department of Health has the authority to conduct an education campaign. Obviously details of such a campaign are not included in the bill; they would have to be worked out by the department through its advisers, who are experts in both health and education. There has certainly been adequate consultation and there is certainly strong public support for the bill. The 1994 New South Wales Health promotion survey showed almost universal support - 92 per cent - for smoking restrictions in public places. The 1997 Heart Foundation of Australia survey showed that 94 per cent of respondents supported restrictions on smoking in restaurants, 74 per cent supported restrictions on smoking in clubs, and 65 per cent supported restrictions on smoking in hotels.

The 1993 Australian national household survey showed that 79 per cent believed smoking should be banned in the workplace, 73 per cent believed it should be banned in restaurants, and 70 per cent believed it should be banned in shopping centres. The shopping centre campaign has been so successful that most shopping centres display signs stating, "This is a smoke-free shopping centre." There has been no public outcry about these signs and retailers in those shopping centres have not lost customers as a result. The 1993 Quit campaign found that 82 per cent supported bans on workplace smoking, 72 per cent supported bans on smoking in shopping centres, 82 per cent supported bans on smoking in restaurants, and 83 per cent supported bans on smoking in enclosed public places. There is a consistent level of public support for the bill.

From a political point of view Dr Refshauge has taken an unwise position. He appears to be hinting that the Government is afraid to move on this legislation because it might be criticised for doing so. He is moving in the wrong direction. The Labor Party, which has in the past been more progressive on such legislation than the coalition has been, has left itself open to widespread criticism from a range of organisations including the Heart Foundation of Australia. I have received correspondence pleading with me not to delay the bill. As well as wide community support the bill has the support of the Heart Foundation, the Australian Cancer Society, Action on Smoking and Health and many other organisations.

The Government has put itself offside with various concerned community groups which would normally support it. They will be dismayed and disappointed if the Government votes against the bill. Why has the Government opened itself up to criticism? Why is it undermining its own political position in this State? It is not showing a great deal of political nous at this point, nor is it showing a great deal of nous about the health of those working in the hospitality industry. For the first time the Government seems to be off track in a clear political way. Even in these last moments before the vote, the Leader of the Government, the Hon. M. R. Egan, may be able to provide some leadership. He may perhaps tell the House that the Minister for Health is out of step with public opinion and may be out of step with his party, his Cabinet and his caucus. The bill may still receive cross-party support. I again thank all the members for their support for the legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.