Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I will try not to create the disturbances of the member for Nelson, but I do not disagree with anything that he has said. I mentioned to the member for Rowallan about the cigarettes that were issued during certain war times and so on. I was also the recipient of cigarettes in a similar situation but I was strong enough at that time to resist them, thank goodness. I made a reasonable profit by selling them to my mates.

Members laughing.

Mr Aird - Did you have a licence to sell them?

Mr DEAN - Well, you did not need licences where I was; it was Rafferty's rules.

It is difficult for me to be objective when we are talking about cigarette and tobacco smoking, having seen my father, who was a chain smoker, die of cancer at a fairly young age. He used to wake up of a night and smoke in his bed. I saw him suffer with a hacking cough. I always remember my father from when I was a very young boy and even then he had a hacking cough which was very clearly impacted on by cigarette smoking. He too was a returned serviceman and that is where it probably commenced. He really smoked himself to death. When he was told by his doctors to give it away he did so and gave it away at age 61, I think, but only lived two or three years after that and unfortunately did not gain a lot from it. The other unfortunate thing is that my mother also died at a very young age from cancer. I have no doubt, and I think doctors would have agreed, that a cause would have been the second-hand cigarette smoke that she suffered right through her married life.

Having experienced this, it is fairly difficult for me to be objective. I have an aversion to cigarette smoking and I have been very strong in my position on this. When the issue last came through this House, about three or four years ago, in relation to smoking in restaurants and hotels when certain rules and regulations were changed, I was critical of the Government postponing certain parts of it for a further 12 months from the time, I think, saying that they should have commenced it immediately. I think it was done for the purposes of giving the hotels and these other places the time to put in place sufficient space or required rooms for smokers to move into, et cetera. You might recall the debate that we had in this House.

I would like to commence today by mentioning and remembering the late Ronald MacDonald. Some of you would know Ronnie MacDonald who worked at the Department of Health and Human Services, Henty House, in Launceston and was the control officer with tobacco control and licensing. He was in that position for several years and did an absolutely splendid job. Some of you might be aware, that he came into work yesterday morning, sat down in his office and died of a massive heart attack, a relatively young man. I just want to mention that, Mr President, an esteemed man who worked very hard to prevent children in particular from getting access to cigarettes and tobacco products. He would work the extra time just to stop children accessing cigarettes and he was very good at his job. He was always willing to talk to people and to give them advice and direction.

He was a close friend of mine and was able to assist me. In fact, I rang yesterday morning to talk to Ron in relation to this very bill. I put the telephone call through to my office and said to Sue, 'Please ring Ronnie and tell him I want to talk to him about this bill' and she said to me at the time, 'Ivan, the ambulances are here in Henty House, the police are here in Henty House, I don't know what's going on'. Then 20 minutes later she rang me back to give me the news. I wanted to mention a man who put his entire last years into trying to prevent children from smoking and enforcing these regulations that we have in place today.

I recently moved a motion in another area in relation to smoking in the Brisbane Street mall in Launceston. I raise this because the moods of people are changing in relation to cigarette smoking. Very clearly, there are people now who are not accepting of second-hand cigarette smoke and they want something done about it. It was for that very reason that I moved this motion as the mall is where a lot of young people and young children congregate on a very regular basis. Surprisingly, there was not a person within that chamber who was willing to second my motion so it failed.

Hence, a short time later, I brought back into that local government area a second motion in relation to preventing smoking in a play area that had been established in the Brisbane Street mall for children. I put forward a motion to have an area in the middle of the mall designated a non-smoking area. On that occasion I got support and the decision in council was unanimous in support of that motion. Many of the speakers at the time made the comment that had they given the previous motion sufficient thought then they would have supported that one, as well. I refer to this because it shows how people are changing in relation to smoking and cigarette smoke.

Launceston is quite a good example, Mr President, and if we look at Aurora Stadium. When it was first mooted that there should be no smoking allowed in Aurora Stadium there were outcries from a lot of people and within council with some aldermen saying, 'You can't do that. You'll never police it firstly and, secondly, you will restrict the number of people going to the stadium and crowds will drop off'. It did get support and the rest is history now, suffice to say that there is no smoking now at Aurora Stadium except in a designated area. The fact is that the crowds have not dropped off, the crowds have built up. Since we have had that wonderful deal between the State Government and Hawthorn and the financial support of Hawthorn, the crowds have built up even more and probably more so than any of us would have imagined.

What I am saying is that those drastic changes that occurred at Aurora Stadium did not impact on people and they still go to that facility. People will accept change provided it is done in the right manner. All of these things are self-policing and I have no doubt this legislation is supported - and I would be very surprised if it is not unanimous - and this will be self-policing as well. About 99.9 per cent of the people, Mr President, accept the legislation and accept the laws of parliament. I have no doubt that the smoking in cars legislation, for instance, will be self-policing in the main. There will be those very few people who might flout the law and want to continue smoking while they have a child in the car. They would be few and far between, in my opinion. I do not think it will require a lot of policing.

Ms Ritchie - A lot of people do the right thing without the law, don't they?

Mr DEAN - They do. As somebody said to me the other day - and I think it was someone in this Chamber - the laws are really made for the lowest common denominator - I think that was the term that was used - and it is probably pretty right. Very few people at the end -

Ms Ritchie - The minority.

Mr DEAN - That is the reason we have laws but most people, as I said, comply with them and do not have any difficulties with them. If you look at what is happening around the world today, there is a massive change in relation to cigarette smoking and the obtaining of cigarettes by children and other people. In America, for example, the law there is very strong right throughout most of the states.

Recently I travelled to America and noted that in all the states I went to, if you are purchasing tobacco products in some instances, if you are entering licensed premises, you had to have acceptable identification. They would not accept an Australian driver's licence as identification, you had to have your passport and you had to have some other American documents, though I am not quite sure what they were. But we, at my age and my wife's age, were being asked for identification. Admittedly on a couple of occasions they said we were okay but they picked my wife out on several occasions and said, 'You will not get in unless you produce identification'.

Mr Harriss interjecting.

Mr DEAN - She looks a little bit younger than I do. But what I am saying is that in this State we need to ensure that the identification that is necessary to purchase cigarette products, tobacco products is good acceptable identification. There are young people out there who are very good at, in fact masters at, producing identification which is not accurate. We have seen that happen. There are many examples of that in licensed premises where they are able to produce documentation that looks authentic but it is not.

Therefore we need to have in place an identification that can be almost foolproof; a photographic licence in this State is pretty good. I was a great believer in the identification card that was mooted a long time ago by the Australian Government. But we do need to have in place good ways of identifying people. If that is the case in other parts of the world, why should it not apply here?

Whilst I am talking about America, I spent some time in Denver where they are fairly strict with their smoking rules and regulations. It is no smoking in most buildings and no smoking outside. On one occasion, we saw a young fellow light up in a no-smoking zone and he was immediately approached by another person and asked to put the cigarette out. He said he would not do that and an argument developed and then a great number of people started to walk towards this young person. The next minute he scarpered off.

People obviously police it there strongly. Where it says no smoking, there is no smoking and that message came through loud and clear. We need to do similar things here. I support the legislation. I just have some concerns about a couple of issues that I will flag now. One is where police have the right to question a 13-year old, I think, as long as they are 13 and above, and they are required to give information to the police of the identification of people in vehicles. I do have some concerns there. It is difficult for a 13-year-old child to have to give the details of his or her parents or brother or sister who might be in a vehicle. I think that is being extremely harsh.

I would have sooner seen this bill without that section in it. It puts pressure on that child and in some instances I have no doubt that in some family situations you could have a parent going home and taking it out on that child. At least castigating them for having given the names or details of a parent or what have you. I do not think that is a good part of the legislation, in fact I think it is a fairly poor part of the legislation. The other one that I have a little bit of concern about and I wish to get clarification on is in relation to the smoking in work vehicles. I agree with it. Once again, that will be self-policing. I guess it might be difficult at times to determine what a work vehicle is because you will quite often have a situation in a business where a private car is in actual fact used at times in that business. So I think there are some fairly difficult areas there to get around as to what constitutes smoking in a work vehicle. Most instances will be fairly clear, with the name of the company clearly identified on the vehicle, but some other cases would be fairly difficult to determine.

There are a couple of other issues I want to refer to, Mr President. All members would have received this document. It is from Michael Wilson, Executive Director of Quit Tasmania.

Ms Ritchie - The list of shopping?

Mr DEAN - Yes. I quote from his document where he says:

'What WE (yes we) are up against

Says it all really doesn't it?

the top 10 grocery items from Australian supermarkets in 2004-5.
Coca-Cola
Longbeach cigarettes
Winfield cigarettes
Peter Jackson cigarettes
Horizon cigarettes
Benson and Hedges cigarettes
Huggies Nappies
Holiday cigarettes
Tip-top
Cadbury'.

They were the 10 top-selling products in supermarkets in the year 2004-2005.

Ms Forrest - I don't buy any of them.

Mr DEAN - I do not buy any of them.

Ms Forrest - Someone is making up for me.

Ms Ritchie - It was smoking, eating chocolates and putting nappies on their children.

Mr DEAN - Somebody is making up for me as well. I want to refer to Coles. A previous speaker mentioned Coles. As to their position, I know that Coles, of their own accord, have gone dark in relation to advertising cigarette products and that includes their Kmart stores. My executive assistant had a discussion with Coles in relation to this and the question was asked: why did Coles decide to go advertisement-free and closed display? The answer provided was: Coles decided to conceal the facings on tobacco products because the graphic images on packaging were offensive to some. That was the explanation given.

Having read that, I was in the new fish and chip shop near Grove Road at Glenorchy on Thursday night and there was a huge display of cigarettes inside. If you look at the pictures on the packets they are fairly graphic. Right next to this was a photograph of a man with his mouth open with his mouth rotting and his teeth rotting out with some identification with cigarette or tobacco smoking next to it. I wonder, when you look at that, how could you ever buy a packet of cigarettes. It is just beyond me.

I can understand why Coles probably saw fit to remove their products on display in that circumstance. What they did say was that if this legislation gets up in the way it is now written for 1 square metre displays that they will consider going back to displaying their product with a 1 square metre coverage. I just wonder why. They have indicated to me that their cigarette sales have not changed. What they say changes cigarette sales only is, normally, cost of cigarettes. If there is a discounted cigarette or a cheaper cigarette then the customer will buy that in many respects. So that does impact, but they indicated to me that covering up their product did not impact on their sales at all. That was an indication given.

A number of people who are supplying tobacco - the companies Philip Morris, I think Imperial Tobacco and the other company which eludes me at the present time - have spoken to us throughout this process and have indicated that if cigarette products cannot be displayed, it is going to impact on the small business to such an extent it will probably force a lot of them out of business. I find that difficult to accept, I find it difficult to understand and I must say they have not convinced me that that is the position. I cannot accept that.

I spoke to a smoker on Friday in Launceston and I said to him, 'Where do you buy your cigarettes from?' and he said, 'I get them from the local store'. He lived in the Ravenswood area. I said, 'What would happen to you if, all of a sudden, the product is covered up but you know that they still sell cigarettes, is that going to make any difference to your way of purchasing your cigarettes and what you do?' and his blank answer was, 'No, why would it?' If you know they sell cigarettes then very clearly you would still get your cigarettes from that corner store. It would make no difference whatsoever because it is not as though the supermarkets would have an advantage because theirs would also be covered but I will go into that more probably in the Committee stage. I just wanted to refer to that.

There is a lot in relation to this subject, Mr President, but very clearly I support anything at all that is likely to reduce cigarette smoking. We know it harms. By way of interjection to the member for Nelson, I also raised the issue of alcohol. Several people have said to me during this process, 'Why would you want to see cigarettes or the advertising of them totally banned and displays covered up when you obviously support the advertising of alcohol?' My answer to that was that if alcohol is consumed in the quantities it is meant to be consumed then it is not harmful. There is a lot of evidence to say that it is not harmful if it is drunk or consumed in those small quantities. The fact is with cigarette smoking there is no safe level at all and we know that one cigarette is sufficient to cause damage.

Many local governments now across the country are looking at cigarette smoking in areas which they have control over and are putting in place legislation to protect themselves. For instance, the Launceston City Council recently have, and once again a move on my part, to restrict cigarette smoking in on-street dining, to have no smoking on the streets as well where that is occurring. There is no smoking within a 10 metre radius of all children's play areas under the control of the Launceston City Council and a lot of other local governments are going that way as well, Mr President. I think that we will see in the future a lot more controls in relation to cigarette smoking.

It is a legal product, I accept that, and it is the lawful right of people to smoke and I accept that but, as I keep saying, no person has the right to smoke a cigarette publicly where other people have to breathe in that second-hand smoke. Nobody has the right to do that and that is the strong position I will always go with. I do not mind smoking provided it is away from people and in an area where it is not harmful in any way.

Mrs Smith - You would have to admit that most smokers nowadays are accommodating in that. They have learnt from bad practices in the past.

Mr DEAN - You are right. I think I have said that on a number of occasions. Smokers today with new laws are normally all self-policing and smokers will accept that. They are normally very good but there are those few who still believe they have the right to be in areas where people are and smoke away to their hearts' content without any consideration for other people, and that is the concern I have.

I think this is good legislation. I would have liked to see it go a little further but I will be interested in the amendments that have been proposed to come forward during the Committee stage, Mr President.