Smoke-Free Environment Act: Disallowance of Smoke-Free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006
SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT ACT: DISALLOWANCE OF SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT (ENCLOSED PLACES) REGULATION 2006
Page: 21621
Debate resumed from 28 March 2006.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.31 p.m.]: It is almost laughable that we are debating when a room is not a room. In fact, it would be laughable if what we are talking about were not the reality of people dying from smoking-related diseases. I acknowledge the members of Action on Smoking and Health [ASH] who were in the gallery yesterday and who, while they were there, lit cigarettes to symbolise the hypocrisy of members of this House who do not tolerate smoking in their workplace but who are prepared to condone it in the workplaces of others. The Greens fully support their campaign and activities.
I also pay tribute to Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, who has waged a tireless campaign on this issue for many years. Smoking should be banned in all indoor areas, and the definition of an outdoor area should be consistent with the views and perceptions of the average person on the street. If a place has walls and a roof, it is indoors, pure and simple. Instead, we are having a weasel-words debate about what constitutes indoors and outdoors, and all because the Government has caved in to the pubs and clubs lobby.
As I said in this House when we debated the Government's Smoke-free Environment Amendment Bill in November 2004, the laws governing smoking in New South Wales do not go far enough. During that debate the Greens proposed amendments to totally prohibit smoking in all enclosed public spaces from the moment the legislation was gazetted. At that time the Government procrastinated and prevaricated, arguing that the ban had to be phased in over time. The Greens amendment proposed introducing the ban in a single move in 2004. That would have created certainty for the industry and a level playing field on which all clubs and pubs could operate. The Greens amendment was supported by members of the crossbench, but not by the Government, no doubt because it was already in negotiations with the industry to come up with this spurious, deliberately misleading definition of open space.
We now know that the Labor Government had, and still has, no genuine intention to ban smoking indoors. The political donations that the ALP receives from the hotels and clubs industry are too large for it to resist. In the past five years, individual clubs, pubs and associated companies have donated more than $2.5 million to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party [ALP]. The Australian Hotels Association [AHA], the industry's peak lobbying organisation, has donated a further $502,000. In total, that is more than $3 million in political bribes that have been paid to the New South Wales Labor Party.
The story is even more revealing. Of the $502,000 donated by the AHA in the past five years, $267,700 was donated during the 2004-05 reporting year. The last State election took place in March 2004. Political donations associated with that election would have been made primarily in late 2003. Therefore, 2004 and 2005 were outside the election cycle. However, 2005 was the year during which the Government was negotiating with the industry on the scope and extent of the smoking ban in New South Wales. It was in 2005 that the AHA gave the Government $267,700 in bribes. The President of the AHA, John Thorpe, defends these donations by saying, and saying it frequently: "Who said democracy was cheap?" Well, it may not be cheap, but unfortunately it is for sale. The AHA and the pubs and clubs may have had to pay handsomely, but in the end their money has bought the outcome they were after.
They got a Clayton's definition of non-smoking: The smoking ban you have when you can still smoke. Under this definition, smoking will continue in many existing bars that will require only minor renovations. It is a definition that ignores the health of every bar worker across the State. It is a definition that demonstrates that profits for bosses and political bribes paid to this Government are more important than the health of employees. Workers and bar patrons will continue to die in their thousands as a direct result of this shonky deal done between the Iemma Government and the hotel industry.
The House should not delude itself that this definition will do anything less than facilitate more smoking-related deaths. There is certainly no lack of evidence about the detrimental health effects of smoking. The figures have been cited and I will not repeat them again in detail. Suffice it to say that in any one year more people will die from tobacco-related causes than from breast cancer, melanoma, diabetes, suicide, road deaths, leukaemia, cirrhosis, falls, AIDS, murder, narcotics, drowning and maternal deaths during childbirth combined. Each year 54,000 hospital admissions are caused by tobacco consumption, creating a massive drain on the State's health budget. There are 6,500 smoking-related deaths in New South Wales every year, more than 2,000 of which are from lung cancer alone. Most poignant for this Government and its shonky definition of open space, is that every year 97 bar staff in New South Wales die from the effects of passive smoking—not active smoking but inhaling the fumes exhaled by smokers.
It is now the beginning of 2006, and already there have been more than 100 preventable deaths since we last debated this issue in 2004. Were it not for the Government's refusal to act honestly and expeditiously, some of those 100 lives could have been saved. By July 2007, when the Government's pretend non-smoking ban finally comes into effect, another 145 bar workers will be dead. This spurious definition of open space will ensure that many more will die in the years that follow. Installing a few large doors and opening windows does not turn a room into outdoor space. Everyone in this House knows that—even the Government members of this House know it.
As we speak, owners of pubs and clubs are undertaking building works—in some cases, very significant and costly works—to conform to the requirements of this legislation. Rather than enlarging windows and doors so existing bars can suddenly be deemed to be open space, these same venues could just as easily be remodelled to conform with a genuine definition of open space. They could be creating outdoor areas that offer a safer environment for both patrons and workers—an outdoor area where smoke can dissipate and reduce the risk of passive smoking. Instead, the Government has caved in to the hotels lobby and contrived this ludicrous definition in order to keep its big donors happy. Thousands of New South Wales residents will die of smoking-related diseases because the ALP and the Liberal-National Opposition cannot get their snouts out of the donations trough. The Greens believe that there is no justification whatsoever for failing to introduce a full ban on smoking in all indoor public areas. To protect the health of workers and patrons of pubs and clubs, members should vote to disallow this regulation.
I find it quite astonishing that the Minister for Health will oppose the disallowance of the regulation. I have noticed that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), who was a strident opponent of smoking and was so determined to eliminate the carcinogenic effects of smoking, has totally caved in on this issue. It has been a pathetic example of hypocrisy of the worst order. When we look back on this year—indeed, the last 12 months of this Government's term of office—there will be significant things for which this State will blame the Minister for Planning, who is also the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). We will look at the planning legislation and the gutting of local government in this State, but we will also look at the Government's appalling definition of an outdoor area. If there is anything to cause the members of this Government to be genuinely ashamed, it is this regulation.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.43 p.m.]: I commend the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans for moving this disallowance motion. I am an avid supporter of the honourable member's stance on this issue, as is my leader, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and the attitude of the Christian Democratic Party in this regard has been most consistent. It is reprehensible that the Government has legislated in this clever way to concede to the demands of the Australian Hotels Association and other related organisations.
At a joint crossbench meeting Phil Edge shared his striking story about the effects of the regulation we are discussing today. Phil Edge is one of many individuals who have been affected by a smoky workplace. A young man who did not smoke himself in his twenties nevertheless has spent the last three years fighting tongue and throat cancer. Many members know about the adverse health effects of active smoking. Smoking is Australia's number one preventable health problem. Each year it kills more than 19,000 people and costs the nation $21 billion, at the very least, in health and social costs. However, passive smoking is often seen in a different light.
The Government's stance on this issue appears clear. I am a firm believer that individuals should not be subjected to being in any area in which air cannot circulate fully. We have often said that this Chamber has very cold airconditioning. However, interestingly, yesterday when the people from ASH [Action on Smoking and Health] who were in the public gallery lit up their cigarettes and started smoking—until they were removed from the Chamber by the attendants—from where I was sitting near the public gallery I could smell the smoke from their cigarettes for at least four hours after they had left the gallery. Passive smoking is a phenomenon that has, arguably, only been closely considered as a source of adverse health effects in the last couple of decades. I am convinced that areas that are the subject of this disallowance motion are areas in which people passively smoke.
In 1986 the National Health and Medical Research Council examined passive smoking and found sufficient evidence of an adverse effect on health to recommend that policies and practices be introduced to reduce exposure to passive smoking. This is but one of many well-resourced reports on passive smoking initiated in the last couple of decades. A report published by the council in 1997 titled "The Health Effects of Passive Smoking" held that the scientific evidence reviewed found positive associations between passive smoking and the following diseases: asthma in children, lower respiratory illness, lung cancer, major coronary events, and other illnesses. The report found:
On the basis of 48 studies of the relationship between passive smoking and asthma, children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are estimated to be about 1.4 times as likely to suffer from asthma symptoms as children who are not exposed. Passive smoking also aggravates pre-existing asthma in children. It is estimated that in Australia about 8 per cent of childhood asthma—or 46,500 Australian children—is attributable to passive smoking. The effect is most marked in children of mothers who smoke heavily (more than 10 cigarettes/day). It is likely that there is an effect on asthma due to lower levels of smoking but this has not been included in the burden of illness estimates.
Further, the report held:
On the basis of 25 studies, it is estimated that the risk of lower respiratory illnesses (such as croup, bronchitis, bronchiolitis and pneumonia) is about 60 per cent higher in children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke during the first eighteen months of life than in unexposed children. In addition, a number of studies have reported a positive association with lower respiratory illness in older children, but the conservative assumption was made that the effect ended at 18 months of age. On this basis, it is estimated that about 13 per cent of lower respiratory illness in Australian children under 18 months of age is due to passive smoking (approximately 16,300 cases each year).
In relation to lung cancer the report states:
Estimating the risk of lung cancer in people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke is complicated by differences in the way studies have been conducted and what they have measured. On the basis of 34 studies, it is estimated that there is an increase in risk of about 30 per cent in never-smokers who live with a smoker compared with never-smokers living with a non-smoker. On this basis, it is estimated that exposure to a partner who smokes at home causes about 12 new cases of lung cancer and 11 deaths from lung cancer each year in never-smokers. This estimate does not take into account exposure outside the home, nor effects of passive smoking on ex-smokers or current smokers.
On the basis of 16 studies, it is estimated that the risk of heart attack or death from coronary heart disease is about 24 per cent higher in never-smokers who live with a smoker compared with unexposed never-smokers. Based on this estimate, each year passive smoking could cause some 77 deaths and 132 hospital admissions for a major coronary event in Australia. On the available evidence, however, it was not possible to conclude with certainty that passive smoking is a cause of heart attack or death from coronary heart disease, or any other type of cardiovascular disease. The report emphasised that the above estimates of burden of illness relate only to exposure at home and include only illnesses in never-smokers. The repercussions of smoking outside the home could only be heightened given the prevalence of smoking in places outside the home.
Other honourable members mentioned that five bar workers in Australia die every month due to inhaling other people's smoke. The review of the scientific evidence also concluded that passive smoking contributes significantly to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome and may increase the risk of death from all causes. In addition to the more serious health effects of passive smoking so far listed, exposure to second-hand smoke irritates the eyes and the upper respiratory tract. Plausible estimates for the burden of illness associated with these health problems could not be calculated because adequate data is lacking. For these reasons, I embrace any moves towards increasing a prohibition on smoking in all places. As pronounced by Stan Glatz in the Independent in 2001:
I'm a great believer in civil liberties, but I don't believe anyone has the right to poison someone else. A cigarette is a little toxic waste dump on fire.
I feel very sorry for the Minister for Health, who has to sit there and listen to this, knowing in his heart of hearts that supporting the Government's acceptance of enclosed spaces in regard to smoke-free environments is absolutely wrong.
Mr IAN COHEN [3.50 p.m.]: I support the motion of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans that this House disallows the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006. I congratulate him. Often, with ongoing ridicule, he has consistently—some might say incessantly—been a forthright advocate for the community against the transgressions of the tobacco industry at all levels. He has a real concern for the health of the population. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has done an admirable job and, if nothing else, he will go down in history as someone who has been a constant advocate for the health of the people of New South Wales against the tobacco industry. I personally appreciate the work that he has done on this matter in this House and he is to be commended.
According to the Australian Medical Association [AMA], tobacco smoking is the largest single preventable cause of death and disease in Australia, contributing to more deaths and hospitalisations than alcohol and illicit drug use combined. With these sorts of statistics it shocks me to think of the cost to Australian society through tobacco addiction. Yet those costs seem always to be compartmentalised: on one side the profits by the tobacco company and on the other side the cost to the medical fraternity and, of course, to the taxpayers. There seems to be a lack of recognition of the real cost to all people in New South Wales quite apart from the terrible and devastating effects of tobacco addiction. The AMA makes the following recommendation in regard to smoking in order to reduce the number of individuals who smoke:
A change in the social climate, so that smoking is no longer viewed by the public as normal, but is regarded as unhealthy and unnecessary.
I believe that part of that should be making social settings, such as pubs and clubs, smoke-free environments. This has already happened with workplaces, shops and restaurants, so that there is, to an extent, a stigma about having to go outside and stand on a footpath to smoke. The public attitude seems to be shifting towards less cultural acceptance of smoking. There is some evidence of this among young people: smoking rates among teenagers are dropping consistently with increased usage of mobile phones, which are seen as fulfilling the function of social belonging, something to do with their hands, and a defence mechanism. The change in cultural attitudes should be further encouraged by removing the ability to smoke cigarettes in pubs and clubs. The AMA further recommended:
A change in the economic and legislative climate, so that cigarettes are less readily available, the influences such as advertising and the media that promotes smoking are diminished, and educational programs on the hazards of smoking are supported and reinforced.
This is also happening. Advertising of cigarettes has been curtailed. I was an active member of Billboard Utilising Graffiti Use Against Unhealthy Promotion [BUGA-UP], as I know the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans was; we even attended a reunion together, which was great fun at one stage.
[Interruption]
I acknowledge the interjection of the Treasurer who says, "They don't smoke, they don't drink, they don't do nothing". If the Treasurer thinks that smoking and drinking are the only ways anyone can possibly have fun, let him do it. I would think he would be doing the public a service if he consistently and heavily indulged. That just indicates once again his consummate lack of understanding of the issues. The actions of BUGA-UP have been effective; cigarette billboards have been taken down from the Sydney landscape. The group was very effective in sending up and making a joke of people who supported the tobacco industry, like the Treasurer. If the amount of suffering caused by pushing this hard drug was not such a disaster, it would be laughable. It certainly does make a joke of this Treasurer. The issue with tobacco is to limit consumption. I think the Greens are consistent with that, with all drugs, both legal and illegal.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: When are you going to let sniffer dogs into your office?
Mr IAN COHEN: It is really difficult to get outside the prejudice of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I presume he is saying that I must be smoking marijuana in my office. That does not happen. I do not smoke. As I have said in this House before, I probably take less drugs than any member of the House and I would stand in any forum and be challenged on that matter. The Deputy Leader of The Opposition makes presumptions, and it is not appropriate. I really have concerns about tobacco addiction. Many of my friends quite clearly admit to being addicted to tobacco. It is a real tragedy when high-powered people—who often have great potential to do wonderful things in society by their very nature of being high powered and high tensioned—tend to smoke cigarettes. It is a tragedy to see those people cut down in their prime when they have so much to offer society. When we are making legislation in this House we should ensure we are not playing a role in limiting the potential of so many brilliant people in our society.
Unfortunately, both legal and illegal activities to curtail the tobacco industry's advertising campaigns have not gone far enough, with cigarette advertising still being associated with certain sporting events, such as Formula One racing. Furthermore, we recently saw the Government's backflip over the prominent display of cigarettes at supermarket checkouts. This is indicative of the stronghold that the tobacco lobby has over governments. Another recommendation of the AMA is:
A multifactorial approach to assisting and supporting cigarette smokers in quitting, including individual techniques, use of taxation and encouraging smoke-free environments.
The final point speaks for itself. Any indoor areas should remain smoke free. Indeed, there are good arguments for outdoor areas to be smoke free also. We should not accept a definition of an unenclosed area to be anything other than completely open. It is clear that tobacco smoke can affect individuals even in open spaces. This has been recognised and has led to certain councils enforcing smoke-free areas in open-air areas such as children's playgrounds and beaches. Over the past decade, being a member of Parliament, I have used the airport more than I ever have before. The environment inside the airport is smoke free. In the taxi rank area outside there is a very high roof and the smoke is appalling. People go outside to smoke, understandably, but that is a real health hazard, not only for the smokers but also for people passing through that area. That is, relatively speaking, an open space, but there is a very strong smell of tobacco and smoke in that area. Another area I suggest we should do something about smoking is at public bus stops. Non-smokers are impacted upon by people smoking at public bus stops.
As well as the health issue, there is the careless attitude of smokers just throwing their cigarette butts on the ground. The Government could tackle these problems if it had the will. It should be condemned for not acknowledging the importance of retaining open smoke-free areas in clubs and pubs. According to dozens of studies published over the past few decades, passive smoking increases the risk of cancer in people who have never been smokers. It is associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, acute heart disease and adverse effects on the respiratory system.
By allowing smoking in partially, or even mostly, enclosed areas as proposed by this regulation the Government is allowing hospitality workers to be exposed to smoke. It is essentially forcing workers to become passive smokers, despite the overwhelming evidence of adverse health effects. This is totally unacceptable discrimination. If smoking is unacceptable in the Minister's office, that is, in his workplace, why should it be acceptable in the workplaces of hospitality workers? The environmental impact of smoking results in 32 billion cigarettes butts being discarded in Australia each year, which translates into 40,000 cubic metres of toxic waste. It is appropriate that the House supports the disallowance motion and that the Government takes more stringent measures against the tobacco industry.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [4.00 p.m.]: I speak against the disallowance motion. I state at the outset that although I appreciate the interest and passion with which members have addressed the debate in general, particularly members of the crossbench. Some of the comments of Sylvia Hale were offensive, not only to the Government but to other individuals, particularly those in relation to Mr Thorpe, who is not a member of this House. She cast aspersions on him that were totally unjustified.
Anyone who was following the debate would be aware that the position of the Australian Hotels Association, as communicated to my colleague Frank Sartor, the Minister assisting me with health matters involving cancer, was that it did not insist on the definition. The debate was not about the hotels per se but more about concerns by the club industry that resulted in the Government deciding that it was better to be more definitive on what constitutes an enclosed space. That is what the regulation does. We could have left the situation to be determined by the courts from 1 July, when the new laws come into force, but for greater certainty and to respond to genuine concerns from participants other than Mr Thorpe, the Government decided to move in this direction.
From 1 July smoking will not be allowed in enclosed licensed premises. It will be permitted in outdoor areas, balconies and beer gardens. The precise definition of outdoor areas is that at least 25 per cent of the notional wall and ceiling level must be open to the outside. Also, at least 10 per cent must be permanently open to the elements while the remainder can be comprised of doors and windows, but these must locked open for the duration of trading and must not be closable by patrons. New South Wales is not alone in bringing in new definitions for outdoor areas. Similar rules have been introduced in every State and Territory, with the exception of the Northern Territory. I am advised that the New South Wales regulation is similar to those that exist in both Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. It was the subject of extensive consultation between many stakeholders. The result is a workable middle ground between proposals from health groups and those of industry. The regulation allows smoking in bona fide outdoor areas while preventing the construction of internal smoking rooms.
I remind honourable members that there is no such thing as a safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and the regulation does not attempt to set such a level. It is important to note that nothing in the Act or regulation abrogates an employer's occupational health and safety responsibilities. That is specifically preserved. Much of the discussion about the effects on bar staff overlooks the fact that the Act does not abrogate the obligations of an employer under the occupational health and safety legislation. Honourable members would be aware that in previous cases workers have been awarded compensation arising from events during which they were exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
The clear message is that the only way to protect workers and patrons is to ban smoking altogether. That is why we have enacted the legislation to be more definitive and precise about what constitutes an enclosed area. We have included this regulation, which is in response to industry concerns, but it still does not abrogate the health obligations on people who allow smoking in particular areas.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.05 p.m.]: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has moved a motion to disallow the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006. The Opposition believes that debate on designated smoking areas in clubs and hotels in this State has been extensively canvassed in the public domain, leading to gazettal of this regulation. Following consultation on the disallowance motion I inform the House, as the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans intimated at the beginning of the debate, that the Opposition does not support the motion. The regulation provides a reasonable definition of an enclosed area and balances the competing interests of participants in this important debate.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.06 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to disallow the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes has placed the position of the Christian Democratic Party on the record already. However, I wish to make a couple of remarks and highlight the hypocrisy of the Government with respect to the 25:75 rule. By definition, an open space cannot have a ceiling, yet this regulation allows for a ceiling, which is where cigarette smoke remains trapped. The regulation is based on a fallacy and should be disallowed to enable the Government to go back to the drawing board and come back with a further amendment, if necessary.
Hotel owners and club managers would clearly understand what was meant by a ban on smoking in public places. Patrons could only smoke in open areas, such as a beer garden or a completely open area. However, rooms with certain windows or removable opening doors should not be regarded as acceptable, but this regulation encourages such a room. Indeed, I have heard reports that some places were already declared non-smoking places by hotels and clubs and they were operating as such. Under the regulation they will revert to being designated as smoking areas. Those establishments will consider that they were too strict and that, because Government has watered down the legislation, they will reinstate the area as a smoking area. This proves that the regulation is flawed. If people have interpreted the legislation to mean that certain parts of their hotel or club should be non-smoking areas, but that the decision can be reversed under this regulation, that proves the regulation is based on a fallacy.
I feel very strongly about this matter. Honourable members may have forgotten that I introduced a bill to prohibit smoking in all public places. I simply said "no smoking in all public places". That bill was passed by the upper House; the Government took over the bill in the lower House and changed its name to the Smoke-free Environment Bill—I suppose to separate it from the fact that I had originally introduced the bill. I understand that is what governments do so they can take credit for the legislation. My original bill clearly stated that public places meant any area that could be regarded as an enclosed place. Any area with a ceiling was defined as a "public place" and smoking in those areas would be prohibited. We know from statements issued by the Australian Medical Association [AMA] and other organisations that they are fiercely critical of the Government and of the regulation. One might say that it is not just the anti-smoking members of the upper House but also reputable community organisations. The President of the AMA, Associate Professor John Gullotta, said:
The government's half-ban on smoking in pubs and clubs is ridiculous …
He said that we should support this motion to disallow the regulation. He continued:
We have had enough of the government's play on words and silly measurements that will permit smokers to puff away in public areas, to the detriment of other patrons.
The 75 per cent rule is a facade—anyone can see that a room with 25 per cent of open windows or doors is still largely made up of solid walls that trap cigarette smoke.
The government keeps saying it must compromise and please both parties for and against the smoking bans—but it is amazing that the government doesn't seem to understand that this compromise is a compromise on the health of its citizens …
Every year in NSW 73 pubs, clubs and bar workers die following lengthy exposure to cigarette smoke, of them 59 are non-smokers.
This is a serious challenge to the Minister for Health, whose priority is to care for the health of all the citizens of this State, especially those who through no choice of their own are exposed to passive smoke in their workplace. In our crossbench meetings we have met various people who are suffering as a result of passive smoking. One of those people is Phil Edge, a young non-smoking bar worker. One tragedy of these cases is that people who contract some form of cancer through passive smoke must fight for years to get justice from our legal system. Mr Edge fought for three years to get compensation after losing half his tongue to cancer caused by working in a smoky Adelaide pub.
We also met Marlene Sharp, another non-smoking bar worker. Thankfully, she won her case with a $500,000 payout from her smoky New South Wales club—I understand it was the Port Kembla RSL club—after she developed throat cancer. We could cite many more examples. Those two citizens of this State deserve protection by the health department and the health Minister but they have not received it. Another tragedy is that in 2004 the Government through the former Premier—he was most outspoken on these issues—promised without reservation that all indoor areas of pubs and clubs would be totally smoke free by July 2007. We were pleased to have that assurance. We saw it as one stage; various changes would be made over a period, and July 2007 would be the end of the whole story. However, this regulation is creating another stage. I assume that the regulation, if we cannot defeat it, will operate—
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Forever!
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes, forever in theory, but we will continually fight it. So the regulation is another stage in the debate and the campaign. Instead of the debate concluding in July 2007, we have simply reached another stage in the campaign, which will be a further irritant to the Government. If the Government thinks that this is the end of the matter, it is nowhere near the end because community groups, particularly the AMA, Action on Smoking and Health, cancer societies and so on, are angry about the Government's compromise plan and there will be continuous agitation. At some point the health Minister, whoever is Minister in a year or two, will have to say, "We need to have another look at this. The 75 per cent, 25 per cent system doesn't work. We need a genuine ban on all indoor smoking, particularly in areas with a ceiling."
I strongly support the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. I will not go into the details about all the harmful effects of passive smoking as we should understand them by now. The regulation is simply unworkable. The Government thinks we have a solution, but it is not a solution. Sadly, as we have heard, some pubs and clubs think that the regulation is a green light for them to start renovations in order to establish special 75 per cent, 25 per cent rooms with a ceiling as areas where people can smoke legally within their premises. However, at some point they will be told that that is not workable and that will have to cease. [Time expired.]
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [4.16 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to disallow the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Enclosed Places) Regulation 2006. Any action to discourage smoking should be promoted, and any suggestion or perception of supportive or compromise actions should be condemned. Like previous speakers, I congratulate the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans on his long, distinguished history of campaigning against cigarette smoking and promoting health in New South Wales. As the honourable member said, the regulation will allow smoking well past 1 July 2007 in what he correctly calls "fake outdoor rooms" in pubs and clubs throughout New South Wales. Verandas, balconies and covered beer gardens will be the new smoking meccas.
The regulation will allow areas of 75 per cent enclosure to be defined as not enclosed, which will allow smoking to continue. The honourable member correctly said that the regime envisaged in this regulation will fail to protect workers and patrons from the well-known and seriously harmful effects of second-hand smoke. I note that some members have spoken at length about the various nations that have successfully banned smoking in indoor areas, including clubs. Indeed, those bans have been welcomed by the vast majority of smokers. As a doctor I have observed the smoking ban in many restaurants, particularly Chinese restaurants. In the beginning the response was very negative. I can inform honourable members that since that time the restaurant owners and their patrons have been most happy with the state of affairs in New South Wales.
I believe that what has been proposed by the Government will counteract the success we have achieved to date. I regret that today in this House the Minister for Health—who is a capable person and, I believe, an honourable person—has had carriage of this motion. I wonder how many compromises we will have to make in regard to cigarette smoking? I wonder why it is that the members of the major political parties cannot stand up against this terrible habit of cigarette smoking? Recently the Australian Labor Party, in particular, made headlines for appearing to care about the issue of asbestos and James Hardie.
On the other hand, the Government does not seem to care much that children's playgrounds have possibly been contaminated with asbestos. I recall that a Government member, a Minister in fact, even jeered at me when I asked a question about playground contamination, saying that I was being alarmist. Honourable members know what has happened with regard to problems with the cross-city tunnel and M5 East tunnel, and indeed the dioxin poisoning of Sydney harbour and its fishermen. I think it will go down in the history of this State as a sad reflection of a political party that has itself become toxic and poisonous. I am happy, therefore, to cast my vote to support the disallowance motion of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.21 p.m.], in reply: I thank the crossbench members for their sensible and constructive comments, and I criticise the Government and the Opposition for their cowardice and their weasel words. Fifty-five years ago smoking was shown to cause lung cancer. Twenty-eight years ago when I was registrar at Port Kembla Hospital I amputated a man's leg because his peripheral vascular disease graft had failed. He sat in the intensive care unit—he, of course, had a bad heart and bad lungs also because of smoking. He sat there with his oxygen mask on and I said to him, "Look, mate. If you don't stop smoking I am going to have to chop off the other leg." He said, "All you doctors go on about smoking. If it was so bad the government would do something about it."
In essence, that is the way a lot of people think. The lack of government action has normalised what is a crazy habit. The health groups set themselves modest targets. They say they are doing really well by reducing smoking by 1 per cent per year. If 20 per cent of the population was not wearing seat belts, would we say, "We are doing really well. The number of people wearing seat belts went up by 1 per cent per year and the number not wearing them went down by 1 per cent a year"? Of course we would not. We should have a decent campaign and do something. We could cut it by one-third each year easily if someone put some effort into it.
Twenty-five years ago I was surgical registrar at Royal North Shore Hospital. I had a 37-year-old patient with a mouth cancer at the back of his tongue. A visiting professor from Edinburgh operated on the patient with us and brought a graft with a piece of skin from his shoulder up on a muscle flap of his pectoral muscle to replace the hole in his mouth. When you replace the floor of the mouth it is not a good replacement because it does not contract and the milky feed sits in the corner and rots. There is a smell of rotting milk so you put him in a room on his own. In his case, the flap died so there was the smell of rotting flesh as well. His 31-year-old wife and six-month-old baby stood looking at him at the end of the bed in his isolated room. The pathology came back "excision incomplete", so he was going to die from it anyway.
Twenty-five years ago I saw a man who had recently spent three years in a pub and had cancer of the mouth. Now we have a regulation that will allow smoking in pubs forever. Forever, Minister! Forever! Not good enough! I have had only mealy-mouth words, and pathetic arrangements and compromises since the time I graduated and learned what was going on. No-one in this Parliament cares. I have written to all members of this House and asked them for a conscience vote. It seems that conscience votes only apply when morals are about sex. Morals seem to be only about sex. One does not have morals about anything else. The Hon. Charlie Lynn is a good person in terms of his dislike of tobacco. I quote from a letter he wrote on 12 April 2001 to Brendan Brady, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs Director of British American Tobacco. The letter stated:
Dear Brendan,
Thank you for your invitation to take part in a tour of your factory to see first hand how your cigarettes are made.
I will accept your invitation to join the tour if you accept my invitation to come down to my home town in Orbost to see what cigarettes have done to my father—a TPI pensioner with emphysema.
The enclosed cigarette (which you sent me) is returned for you to stick up your—
I will end the quote there, but the last word is what you think it is. I seek leave to table the letter.
Leave granted.
I do not understand why the Government would take a strong line on asbestos, why asbestos is taken seriously and why tobacco is not. Why is it that 150 hospital admissions per day from tobacco caused illness does not raise a ruffle with the press gallery or anyone else? We can have 6,600 deaths per year in New South Wales and no-one is concerned. We can spend $6 million from the State's coffers every year to meet the cost of this carnage, death and human suffering, and still the Government sits there making these compromise deals on smoking forever. We can speculate on why this is so. Let us look at what was happening while $6 billion of this State's money was being wasted on tobacco-caused disease.
In 2004-05, according to the records, the Coalition received $190,705 from big tobacco companies and the Australian Hotels Association. In the same year, Labor received nothing from the tobacco companies but received $259,704 from the Australian Hotels Association. That results in a combined total for the Liberal and Labor parties of $450,409. That is the price paid by the Government and the Opposition in the duopoly government we have in this country, where it makes no difference whether Liberal or Labor is elected because the people will not be looked after. They will be allowed to get lung cancer. The Government will not take the lead, despite the words of the man in the intensive care ward who said that if it were serious the government would do something about it. That is the overall message when the socialisation of smoking is permitted in the face of the Government's boast in 2004 that it would all stop in 2007.
Every time there are weasel words; every time there is a wriggle out. That has gone on for 55 years and we are still counting. It is an absolute disgrace. I ask honourable members to examine their consciences and to vote according to their consciences, to make this a moral issue and to not go along with the major parties. They are so cynical and so cheaply bought. It is such a paltry amount of money, compared with the harm that the tobacco industry does and the indifference and venality of the hoteliers. I urge honourable members to support this motion. I thank the health groups that have done their best to support me. I only ask that honourable members examine their conscience, have the courage to do the right thing by the people who elected them and to whom they owe their primary duty, and vote for this motion.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 9
 | Mr Cohen
Ms Hale
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Rhiannon
Mr Tingle
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans | |
Noes, 20
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio | Miss Gardiner
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Lynn
Mr Oldfield
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Ms Robertson | Mr Ryan
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Tellers,
Mr Harwin
Mr Primrose |
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.