Smoke-Free Environment Bill
Page: 7900
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 26 June.
Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [4.21 p.m.]: I lead for the Coalition on this bill. I indicate that we will be supporting this legislation, the purpose of which is to promote public health by reducing exposure to tobacco and other smoke in public places. The Coalition has not only supported but proactively sought to achieve that. Not that long ago it would have been unbelievable to imagine how far we have come in preventing the exposure of individuals to tobacco smoke. Who would have imagined 20 years ago that smoking would not be allowed in public places, that one would not go to meetings where the smoke was so thick one could cut it with a knife? That is what is happening now. It started with the ban on smoking in workplaces. I pay particular tribute to my colleague the former Minister for Health, who really took the lead on this and never let it go. I refer to the honourable member for Willoughby, Peter Collins, who has always been very proactive in this regard. I know he and others who pushed to prevent harm from either direct tobacco inhalation or indirect tobacco inhalation have a great deal of standing amongst people working in the health sector.
I want to mention some facts surrounding cigarette smoking, and my reference is the report of the New South Wales Chief Health Officer on the health of the people of New South Wales. When the Minister mentioned this report in Parliament not long ago I said to him that it is an excellent publication. It is. I commend it to everyone. It tells us that cigarette smoking is a major cause of death and illness in this State. Smoking causes coronary heart disease, cancers, stroke and chronic lung disease, and is a contributory factor in sudden infant death syndrome and low birth weight. This is a matter of great public importance , not the least those who are related to the 325 people who, in 1998, died from tobacco-related disease. This represents 19 per cent of male deaths and 9 per cent of female deaths. I do not know off the top of my head the number of motor accident related deaths, but they are not as high as that. Yet we have done a great deal to reduce motor accident deaths. I am extremely pleased that we are now moving forward—towards the position the Coalition was in when it was last in government—in reducing the exposure of people to tobacco smoke.
In 1997, the year for which the last figures are available in the Chief Health Officer's report, 53,977 people—which is 792 per 100,000—were hospitalised from tobacco-related diseases. An enormous amount of money was wasted; it could have been put to other good purposes to prevent people from getting sick. Nearly 54,000 people were in hospital in one year due to tobacco-related diseases. Although it is believed that there has been a decline in smoking over the past 10 years, smoking prevalence targets for the year 2000 have not been met. The Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health found that in 1994-95 smoking cost New South Wales an estimated $4.2 billion and 245,828 hospital bed days. Of course, that is old data, but if it followed the trends it would have got worse.
I refer briefly to under-age smoking. After a general decline of smoking among students during the 1980s, smoking rates rose during the 1990s, with a greater take-up among girls. A secondary school survey showed that 19 per cent of boys and 21 per cent of girls aged between 12 and 17 reported smoking during the previous week. Smoking increased with age among both sexes, peaking at 27 per cent and 30 per cent among boys and girls during their latter years at school when they were aged around 17. The last available figures—I know they are old, but the Minister has been tardy in releasing the results of surveys of secondary school students—estimate that more than 107,000 secondary school students in New South Wales smoke cigarettes. Of course, they smoke illegally if they are under the age of 17, and the cost of smoking is about $32 million.
The bill will repeal the Smoking Regulation Act 1997 and will prohibit smoking in enclosed public places, except areas that are specifically exempted. I will not go into great detail in that regard because the Minister did so when he introduced the bill. This bill differs in one major way from previous legislation, but does not change the definitions of "public places", and so on. The difference is that there are bans in all areas of hotels, registered clubs, nightclubs and the casino, except for certain areas that are exempted.
The exemptions are provided in all hotel areas other than the part used as a dining room, where genuine meals are ordered, served and consumed at tables. Exemptions are provided for all areas in registered clubs other than the part used as a dining room, where genuine meals are purchased on the premises and may be consumed at tables, or for a function at which food is served. In nightclubs the exemption applies to all areas other than the part used as a dining room, where genuine meals are purchased on the premises and may be consumed at tables, and any part of the casino used solely for the purpose of gaming machines or for a bar is exempt.
This means that smoking is banned in eating areas and at gaming tables in the casino. The legislation provides for transitional arrangements. Exemptions for restaurants take effect from proclamation of the Act; the part of a restaurant authorised as a reception area, and hotels, clubs and nightclubs will have a further 12 months to comply with certain requirements, including the erection of barriers to prevent penetration of smoke into smoke-free areas, ventilation and designation of smoke-free areas. The Government has indicated that an implementation group will be established to address issues regarding the 12-month phasing-in period. I have consulted broadly with Action on Smoking and Health, the Cancer Council and the Heart Foundation on this bill. Together with the health organisations, they speak with one voice on this matter. They have the common view that they accept this bill as a pragmatic compromise, but they would prefer no exemptions or phasing in, and that the ban be more widespread. Those organisations will continue to campaign for that, and good luck to them. I wish them well in progressing this public health issue.
I consulted the staff at Star City Casino about this bill. I understand their concern that the casino is not included in the list of facilities given 12 months to implement the ban. The gaming machine and bar areas at the casino, unlike other clubs and pubs with gaming machines and bar areas, which have a 12-month time frame, are at risk of losing exempt status because they do not have 12 months in which to erect barriers to prevent smoke drift. I ask the Minister to look at that matter and to ensure that an unfair rule is not being applied to the casino, compared with clubs and pubs.
I have spoken to the Australian Hotels Association about the impact of this legislation on small country hotels. Effectively, small country hotels have one room with a counter where people eat, drink and do everything. Some of my colleagues from country electorates, where small country hotels are more common, have expressed concern about the impact of this legislation on those hotels. What is the definition of "genuine meal"? Perhaps the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary could indicate what is a genuine meal. Will small country hotels, in which people sit at a counter to drink and eat, be exempt from these provisions? Do these provisions exempt small country hotels from imposing a total ban on smoking?
While one might sympathise with the position of country hotels and want to ensure that their livelihoods are not affected, it is hypocritical for the Government to promote this bill as a public health bill which reduces exposure to tobacco, because it certainly will not do so for patrons and workers in the hospitality industry. During my consultation rounds I spoke to Clubs 2000, which supports the bill. The comments of Mr Peter Doyle, President of the Restaurant and Catering Association, are interesting. While that association, in a sense of pragmatism, supports the bill, it is unhappy with the transitional arrangements because it strongly supports a total ban on smoking. Mr Doyle is very unhappy about what he regards as the Government selling out to the clubs and pubs. He said that the Government is hypocritical in purporting to address this matter as a health issue when it is leaving patrons exposed to smoke in some areas and allowing breaches of the occupational health and safety legislation, which is what allowing workers to be exposed to smoke in work areas amounts to.
The Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Employees Union, which pushed on behalf of its members for a ban on smoking at the casino gaming tables, supports the bill. I would be interested to know how widely the Government negotiated and consulted with the unions of those who work in the areas that will be exempt from the legislation to see how widespread concern for the future health of employees is, given that they will continue to be exposed to tobacco smoke. The Coalition supports this bill as it is a step in the right direction. However, we are on the record as indicating that we would like it to go further, and we will keep an eye on the matter to ensure that that happens.
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby) [4.36 p.m.]: I support the bill. I suppose all of us in this Parliament, and indeed any Parliament, constantly face the accusation from members of the public that the two sides do not co-operate and we refuse to act in unison on a good cause. This bill is an example of a good cause: both sides are prepared to advance the cause to do public good which will benefit the whole community. It is a pity that the passage of the bill this afternoon is likely to receive little attention, other than in trade publications, because it is significant legislation which I believe will save many hundreds of lives. We should all be proud of this legislation.
As the honourable member for North Shore said, my involvement with the issue goes back some years to when I was health Minister in this State from 1988 to 1991. At that time the Greiner Government took a number of initiatives to reduce smoking in public places, for example, the elimination of smoking in public hospitals. It is extraordinary to think that until the 1989 legislation people could smoke in public hospitals. It is a great irony that massively expensive public hospitals were built to correct the health problems arising from smoking while people were still allowed to smoke in those hospitals until 1989. This bill is overdue, but I do not say that critically. We need to understand the incremental approach to legislation in this place. We can refine and improve legislation. This will not be the last time anti-smoking legislation is before the House. Nor should it be, because the bill will not deal with all the problems. However, it is a step in the right direction, which is why the Opposition is prepared to support it.
The last major review of smoking legislation by this Parliament was the Smoking Regulation Act 1997. It calls to mind the dilemma faced by the proprietors of hotels and restaurants and the directors of clubs, and the massive liability claims all of them faced if the issue was not addressed. That was the origin of the 1997 legislation, legislation in which, as Leader of the Opposition at the time, I played a key role in getting the relevant parties—the clubs, pubs and restaurants—together to negotiate an appropriate solution. All of those parties were legitimately concerned about the potential legal claims that would be headed their way. That was inevitable unless the Parliament addressed these issues.
I am delighted that in 1997 a further step was taken by the Carr Government in the form of the Smoking Regulation Act. The Smoke-free Environment Bill is a further advance. Peter Doyle, the President of the Restaurant and Catering Association, is concerned that the bill too readily meets the needs of the clubs and pubs but does not look sufficiently at the needs and individual circumstances of restaurants. The Government will need to look carefully at how restaurants will work their way through this bill. I should like to pay tribute to the co-operative attitude shown by restaurant proprietors in this State. They want this bill to work. They understand that smoking is injurious to health. They also understand the liability that attaches so far as patrons are concerned and, on a much more regular basis, so far as their staff are concerned. They want to work through those issues with government, but they want to do so in a way that does not disadvantage them in the running of their restaurants.
The financial ability of the proprietors of large clubs and prosperous hotels to accommodate these sorts of changes is far easier than it is for the proprietors of small restaurants. The Government needs to talk to restaurant owners in particular, and to be responsive to the issues they raise. Those issues are not being raised as some kind of last-ditch stand to promote smoking in restaurants; they are being raised because of practical and financial problems that small restaurant owners can encounter in implementing the sorts of changes foreshadowed by this bill. It is good legislation, and it is a further step in the right direction. As the honourable member for North Shore said in passing, everyone needs to understand that people who eat in clubs, pubs and restaurants do not want to eat in a smoking environment. They want to be able to eat their food and enjoy it. That should not be regarded as some draconian prohibition but as an acknowledgement of the wonderful food and produce we have in this country. We have some of the best restaurants in the world, we have the best and cleanest produce in the world, and we should make the most of it.
The bill should not be regarded in a negative way as yet another prohibition on individual liberty. I regard it as an enhancement of the right of the overwhelming majority of citizens to enjoy their meals, and to enjoy the best food and the best produce in the world in the restaurants, clubs and pubs of this State without feeling that their health is being harmed at the same time, and without feeling that there is any potential threat or compromise to personal health as a result of eating in those places. The bills contains a strong assurance. It is telling the patrons of clubs, pubs and restaurants that they will be eating in a safer environment. That is an extremely commendable objective.
As a person who has had a 12-year association with this type of legislation I believe that the Parliament is right to stand up to the tobacco giants, and not to give in and not to be bowed by the financial and political pressure that they may bring to bear on individual members of Parliament or on political parties. This bill is a step in the right direction for the whole community; the whole community wins out of this bill. Everyone who eats in a restaurant, club or pub will benefit from this bill and I commend it to the House.
Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [4.45 p.m.]: Not being politically correct, I wish to speak on behalf of the one-quarter of Australians and one-quarter of New South Wales people who are smokers. They are the only minority group where the tail is not wagging the dog and they are being discriminated against right, left and centre. I have no objection whatsoever to non-smoking restaurants. However, I have a strong objection to this bill, which prevents a restaurateur who is prepared to provide a separate, well-ventilated area away from the main part of the restaurant from providing food for a smoking community. If a restaurateur wants such an area, and his staff are smokers themselves and are prepared to work in such an environment, the restaurateur should be allowed to do so. This used to be a free country, where people could undertake activities that were legal.
The bill contains provisions that prevent people smoking in enclosed public places, for example, community centres or halls. When is a place a public place? If, for example, a hall is hired by one person for a function and the owner does not mind the group smoking within that hall, and only those who are invited are allowed in and they do not pay, is that hall a public place? If a group of people wish to hire a place for a party or dinner, do all the catering themselves and not employ staff, what place will be available for people to sit at a table and have a cigarette with a cup of coffee without going outside into the cold wind? This legislation does not allow any owner of a smoke-free restaurant to provide a room nearby, a room that is completely separate and not attached to the main restaurant, where patrons can sit and have a cigarette with a cup of coffee. The hypocrisy of the legislation has already been demonstrated by the fact that smoking in bars and clubs does not matter. It is not a health bill at all. If the bill were fair dinkum it would ban smoking everywhere.
I return to the point I was making about smoking in enclosed public places. The bill refers to ferries and other vessels. I do not think that there is a more wind-swept open place than the outside areas on a ferry. The Minister for Transport would have a lot less trouble from his commuters if, in areas such as Central railway station and Circular Quay, where people stand for hours waiting for trains in the blowing gales, they were allowed to have a cigarette to calm their anxiety. A little commonsense might be a little bit useful.
Believe it or not, scientists are still arguing about whether tobacco smoke does cause secondary damage and the issue is not clear-cut. I have been following some of the research but I will not argue about that at this time. Suffice it to say that representatives from the New South Wales Cancer Council came to see me about under-age smoking, which I am against. I showed them some reports on research that actually measured the amount of smoke that is being taken in by so-called passive smokers. I asked them to take copies back to their scientists and have them show me where those documents were wrong. I am unaware of the techniques and measurements that were used in the research referred to in the documents. I received a letter from the New South Wales Cancer Council stating that the experiments had been carried out with financial assistance from the tobacco industry. Nevertheless, I want to know where all the non-significant results are wrong and I want to know why they are wrong.
I understand that this legislation has received great support from the New South Wales Restaurant and Catering Association. I understand why people who work for restaurants would be worried about their health and I understand that certain restaurant owners are worried about litigation. That is what the anti-smoking campaign is all about. Those people are worried about the cost of litigation and the cost of alterations to their restaurants, if necessary. I still believe that this is a free country, as I said, and that conflicting results establish that there is still no real proof of the damaging effects of passive smoking. Before honourable members begin to laugh and say "Ho, ho," I would like all reformed smokers who used to very much enjoy a cup of tea or coffee and a cigarette to think about what I am about to say. In an article in the Sunday Telegraph, Leo Schofield stated under the heading "Filth in the Cross":
Patrick Kavanagh, a Canberra hospitality identity, was recently ambling through the Cross, smoking a cigar and feeling at peace with the world.
He noticed a poor bastard slumped in a doorway with a needle hanging out of his arm.
Further on, in another doorway, was a happier chap with his penis out, indulging in one of the more reprehensible schoolboy activities.
Still further along, an elderly local bailed Kavanagh up, yelling: "Do you have to smoke that filthy thing in public?!"
The public hysteria and hypocrisy about passive smoking is amazing. In conclusion, let me state my belief that when the causes of cancer are discovered, they will have more to do with the genetic make-up of an individual, the efficiency of a person's immune system—particularly the effect of long-term stress on a person's immune system—and many other incidental factors associated with lifestyle than so-called passive smoking.
Mr McMANUS (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Knowles [4.53 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in this debate—the honourable member for North Shore, the honourable member for Willoughby, and the honourable member for Camden—for their input. I agree with most of the comments that have been made but, as a reformed smoker, I must say that I had not previously been more healthy than I have been in the last 10 years, and I certainly have been more healthy during that period than I was in the 20 years preceding it. For that reason, I must disagree with the views expressed by the honourable member for Camden on smoking and passive smoking.
In common with the honourable member for Willoughby, the Government considers the measures which prevent harm from passive smoking being imposed on the community to be particularly necessary, especially harm which is being inflicted without consent in most circumstances. The bill will provide an easily understandable and enforceable regulatory system to prevent the effects of passive smoking from harming the community. I sincerely appreciate the views expressed by the honourable member for Willoughby, who I know has been an advocate of legislation of this type for some time. I particularly appreciate his comments and his bipartisan approach. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.